Things I believe but can't prove...

[AlanMackey]

This all speaks to me. What are your thoughts on the 1@8 followed by a bunch of back offs at 70% or so zeitgeist? Do you generally find weights around that percentage to be “still kind of heavy and grindy” or “pretty easy and crisp”?

I know this!

Being the lazy fuck I am, I found, through trial and error, the 1@7-8RPE followed by 1-5 back off sets @60%-80% of the 1@8 (instead of using the 1@8 to calculate a e1RM) works very, very, very well.

Then I realized that 5/3/1 5sPro + 5x5 FSL using a 80%-85%TM was practically the same. So I didn't reinvent the wheel here.

[Hardartery]

This goes to something I was trying to say in a different thread a while back, and why I do not believe in hypertrophy training for strength gains. He doesn't post a reference in the credits, unfortunately, but when considering that studies measure gains in calculated cross-sectional size as being significant but not hypertrophic gains measured otherwise it bears consideration HOW how you building those size gains.

Got around to watching this. It’s the converse of your point - he’s arguing that strength training is mostly useless for hypertrophy - but a lot of food for thought. Thanks for linking it.

His assertion that most growth is the part that piqued my interest the most. Those fibres connecting the muscles cells one to the other appear to be the key for strength increase, the papers that I read indicated that there was at best no measurable increase in strength with hypertrophy of the fibre itself. So to me that indicates that maybe training for that type of hypertrophy is pointless for strength goals and useless as a "Phase" of training. More specifically, if you want to get stronger you should be targeting increase of connecting fibres and new fibres to connect to and not worry at all about fibre specific hypertrophy. You will not get as big, but that also explains crazy strength in people that aren't all that big. And why there is such a thing as old man strength.

[Zak]

10. Kind of related to the above, peak load is more important for strength gain than most lifters think. Most of the time, the heavy work should be organized to permit the highest peak load in a given week in the lifts you care about.

11. Most of the other work with the big lifts (the work that isn't really heavy) should be pretty easy and crisp. The middle ground of not too heavy but still kind of heavy and grindy is not where you want to be.

12. In contrast, any "assistance" you feel like doing should be hard as hell, but joint-friendly and high rep. Single-joint work isn't going to do shit unless it's to failure or close. The worst programs are the ones where you grind your way through gut busting fives on squats or tugs for an hour, then go fart around with mindless easy assistance. Worst of both worlds.

This all speaks to me. What are your thoughts on the 1@8 followed by a bunch of back offs at 70% or so zeitgeist? Do you generally find weights around that percentage to be “still kind of heavy and grindy” or “pretty easy and crisp”?

I think the top set (the 1@8) should be tailored to the lifter - there are a hundred different ways to deal with working up to something heavy. Can be workups, a pyramid, just prescribing 1-3@6 or @7 or @8 or within a range. But in general, to get strong I think a scheme where you're hitting something heavy on a weekly basis is good.

I like the way the Data Driven Strength guys do things. I did several cycles of their Individualized Programming a couple years ago and learned a lot from them. One thing they do is really try to individualize the top set protocol for the lifter, so if "1@8" doesn't seem to do the trick for you, maybe triples or doubles and/or lower RPEs or going from a lower to a higher RPE over 4-6 weeks might hit the sweet spot.

As for the 70% thing, don't want to straw-man anybody's training approaches, but for example, 70% for a bunch of 5s would definitely be the "pretty easy and crisp" versus "still kind of heavy and grindy" IMO. Obviously it works well for a lot of people which is why you identify it as emblematic of a certain training philosophy - it's just not how I like to train.

I will say that one of the first formal strength programs I ever did was the Korte 3x3, which was one of the first (maybe the first) Eastern-style programs available to lifters over here that was actually fleshed out. I used it before my first meet. Going in I think the most I'd squatted was 425 or 430. I ran the cycle, which if you don't know involves endless sets of 5 at very low percentages three days per week, followed by a "peaking cycle" which is mostly just a ton more light sets with some moderately heavy singles sprinkled in. I was beat up and sore the whole way through, never felt strong, was shaky and slow with weights in the peak phase, and then hit a 468 squat at my meet, which blew anything I'd done previously out of the water. So it seemed to me like some kind of alchemy at the time, but I never quite recaptured that magic with highly specific / high volume programs, whereas the costs in terms of nagging joint issues just seemed to mount. Maybe that's neither here nor there to what you asked.

But my preference is to hit the heavy set, 1-3 backoffs, and then devote most of the volume to attacking the limiter. For me, squats = knee extension, pulls = hip extension, bench = idk, I guess muscle mass and shoulder health. So I'd rather hit a heavy squat or pause squat, maybe a backoff or two, and then really attack high bar squats. That's been the best formula for me.

[DanCR]

Maybe that's neither here nor there to what you asked.

It’s valuable info. Thank you.

[OverheadDeadlifts]

I think a significant amount of lifters have a habit of anticipating a sticking point and slowing their bar speed and/or decelerating after they’ve passed the sticking point. Basically they grind slightly more than they have to and i think it’s linked to some of the fuckery that can happen with rep work not being in line with 1rm strength. It’s a lot more subtle the more advanced someone is.

That’s where I think the value of speed work and accommodating resistance is for raw lifters. I don’t think it’s making them faster as much as it’s teaching them not to slow down. Sounds like the same thing but it’s kinda different. Like losing a race because you accidentally took pressure off the accelerator without feeling it after hitting top speed rather than the car not being fast enough.

[hector]

I think a significant amount of lifters have a habit of anticipating a sticking point and slowing their bar speed and/or decelerating after they’ve passed the sticking point. Basically they grind slightly more than they have to and i think it’s linked to some of the fuckery that can happen with rep work not being in line with 1rm strength. It’s a lot more subtle the more advanced someone is.

That’s where I think the value of speed work and accommodating resistance is for raw lifters. I don’t think it’s making them faster as much as it’s teaching them not to slow down. Sounds like the same thing but it’s kinda different. Like losing a race because you accidentally took pressure off the accelerator without feeling it after hitting top speed rather than the car not being fast enough.

This makes a lot of sense. Never thought about speed work that way before. Thank you.

[cole]

There is so much information out there, and so many trustworthy sources. Just because someone is really smart or is a beast, doesn't mean you should emulate their training. After doing 6 months of the basics ie: an LP run with compound big movements, you should start figuring out what works for you instead of following the masses or the influencers.

[DanCR]

Excuse me being a downer, but I believe that in a few decades we’re going to find out that HIT cardio, in all its forms, actually was a terrible idea that took years off peoples’ lives.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

There is so much information out there, and so many trustworthy sources. Just because someone is really smart or is a beast, doesn't mean you should emulate their training. After doing 6 months of the basics ie: an LP run with compound big movements, you should start figuring out what works for you instead of following the masses or the influencers.

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1:
- a good amount of compound movements (barbell machine dumbbells whatever) followed by some well chosen isolation movements (curls triceps extensions lateral raises, not some stupid shit you saw on Athlean-X or similar channels)
- choose exercises based on how they work for you instead of just doing S/B/D because some dude on the internet said its totally the best
- learn how to rate effort
- add weight if you can, remove weigh if you have to, so that effort is roughly constant

One thing that always struck me was the fact that when you ask strong dudes that have a platform on the internet they always reply to do an LP, but when you ask them what did they do when they started it's never an LP.

PS: I agree with the part about individualizing your training, instead of copy pasting templates made by other people, learn how to modify your current template on (i.e. learn how to program, as opposed to just copying something you found on the internet).

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Here's yet another one: I believe that the vast majority of content available about lifting on the internet is actively harmful, as in, reading this content will make your training worse.

[KyleSchuant]

Here's yet another one: I believe that the vast majority of content available about lifting on the internet is actively harmful, as in, reading this content will make your training worse.

Possibly. I'd say the most dangerous effect is anything stopping people training. Whether analysis paralysis stops them before they start, or a few months in when they've got stuck, or bad programming that hurts them.

Or perhaps I'm just viewing it that way because yesterday I visited my mother in aged care, and she was unwilling or unable to stand from a seated position on her bed.
"You should, if you can. Do you good, help you get out of your room. And the staff will help you if you need it."
"The physio gave me some exercises."
"You should do them."
"But I'm scared of falling."
"Well you'll certainly fall if you don't do them."

People get scared, for different reasons through their lives, of course. One's self-conscious about being fat, another about being clumsy, another weak, yet another's scared of being hurt. We can be all macho and say, "You have to squat or you're a pussy", and to be fair there's some truth to that. But though it might be true, it's not helpful. And probably a lot of the internet stuff doesn't help, as you said Cheeki.

[AlanMackey]

Excuse me being a downer, but I believe that in a few decades we’re going to find out that HIT cardio, in all its forms, actually was a terrible idea that took years off peoples’ lives.

A modicum amount of HIT can be beneficial (ie. a short sprints session a week). But I agree with you.

[AlanMackey]

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1.

Actually, the day one from SS makes sense:

• Grab an empty barbell an do five reps.

• If it was easy, add five pounds and do five reps more.

• Rinse and repeat until you are certain you won't be able to complete the reps or the bar speed is severely reduced (autoreg for the win).

• Then call it a day.

It would need some tweaks, but I've seen worse programs.

[DanCR]

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1.

Actually, the day one from SS makes sense:

• Grab an empty barbell an do five reps.

• If it was easy, add five pounds and do five reps more.

• Rinse and repeat until you are certain you won't be able to complete the reps or the bar speed is severely reduced (autoreg for the win).

• Then call it a day.

It would need some tweaks, but I've seen worse programs.

Agree. I think an LP to start makes plenty of sense.

The problem isn’t the LP. It’s people who are on said LP for two years (or even six months).

[AlanMackey]

Agree. I think an LP to start makes plenty of sense.

The problem isn’t the LP. It’s people who are on said LP for two years (or even six months).

That was me, many moons ago.

I became obsessed with LPing until I got 500/400/300/200. Eventually, I completed the task but I almost got destroyed in the process.

[cole]

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1:
- a good amount of compound movements (barbell machine dumbbells whatever) followed by some well chosen isolation movements

I think LP is perfectly appropriate and meets your criteria mentioned above
---squats, DL, bench, press (compound) chins, back ext (assistance)

anyways its just one way to get your baseline strength up before adding more models and techniques to your training. there are of course other ways, but sometimes beginners get sidetracked easily, and LP at least for me kept me on track. before that i just spent 10 years doing lat pulldowns and bicep curls and leg ext and benched 225 for reps never adding weight to the bar

[DanCR]

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1:
- a good amount of compound movements (barbell machine dumbbells whatever) followed by some well chosen isolation movements

I think LP is perfectly appropriate and meets your criteria mentioned above
---squats, DL, bench, press (compound) chins, back ext (assistance)

anyways its just one way to get your baseline strength up before adding more models and techniques to your training. there are of course other ways, but sometimes beginners get sidetracked easily, and LP at least for me kept me on track. before that i just spent 10 years doing lat pulldowns and bicep curls and leg ext and benched 225 for reps never adding weight to the bar

Yes. Discounting a number of years during which I focused nearly entirely on bodyweight movements, I too lifted for 10 or so year pre-LPing. I managed a 295 squat and 240 bench, not atrocious for a then 160 lb. bro hopping among "programs" out of Iron Man magazine, and I had some muscles. LP got me much bigger and stronger (ok, and fatter) and it was the being kept on track that did it. Previously, I would reset to "tighten up my form" for shit like 3x10, which nearly always was an excuse for being a pussy because I'd gotten uncomfortable with the weights.

[Hardartery]

One thing that always struck me was the fact that when you ask strong dudes that have a platform on the internet they always reply to do an LP, but when you ask them what did they do when they started it's never an LP.

PS: I agree with the part about individualizing your training, instead of copy pasting templates made by other people, learn how to modify your current template on (i.e. learn how to program, as opposed to just copying something you found on the internet).

I do not know if I cont as a "Strong dude", and am not familiar with any particular program by the name "LP", I assume this is one of the SS/Rip Van Winkle dealios. I am sure that I have always done what would be periodized linear progression. Since day 1 in the gym. I have played with other concepts, but adapted to the basic linear progression idea, and it worked just fine as far as I am concerned. Every "Strong dude" that I have ever worked out with or discussed things with has also essentially employed the same tactic. If you watch training progressions of any pro Strongman or Powerlifter, you will see essentially the same program being employed. There is no magic, you progress in reps or weight over time and gradually improve. I do not know how that would or would not apply to BBing stuff, I doubt that that is the most effective method for that goal but I am sure it would work.

Again, I don't know the details of the program that I believe you are referring to, but spending so much time shitting on it instead of gleaning what may actually be effective and moving on is a waste of time and energy. At the end of the day, everything works to some extent it just comes down to the individual application and being flexible in utilization.

[DanCR]

I do not know if I count as a "Strong dude"

You sure do.

and am not familiar with any particular program by the name "LP", I assume this is one of the SS/Rip Van Winkle dealios.

In these parts, usually refers to the SS novice linear progression, although that means different things to different people since nearly no one does it exactly as written.

[5hout]

Here's a more controversial one: skip the first 6 months of LP and start training appropriately from day 1.

Actually, the day one from SS makes sense:

• Grab an empty barbell an do five reps.

• If it was easy, add five pounds and do five reps more.

• Rinse and repeat until you are certain you won't be able to complete the reps or the bar speed is severely reduced (autoreg for the win).

• Then call it a day.

It would need some tweaks, but I've seen worse programs.

Agree. I think an LP to start makes plenty of sense.

The problem isn’t the LP. It’s people who are on said LP for two years (or even six months).

Strong agreement here. Especially for people from an athletic, but non-lifting, background. They need something to push them to shut up and lift the weight while learning to lift better. Too easy to wheel spin lifting, if they spent some time learning how to lift and trying, 30%/40% of their mysticalreal1RM for a handful of lifts and calling it a day b/c their form broke down or "it was hard" (b/c they simply don't know how to brace). Certainly with professional coaching you could skip an LP and get to your goals anyway, but you need someway of taking a 25 year old with 10+ years of sports and convincing them that squatting 1.5x their bodyweight is merely a starting place strength wise.