Things I believe but can't prove...

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I don't know where all those theories about beginners needing to "get strong first" before graduating to isolation exercises, machines, and all sorts of fancy stuff come from. What do you think happens on the physiological level on that fateful day you finally squat 3 plates ? Nothing.The funny thing is that some people also hold the opposite theory, that beginners should not be allowed to S/B/D unless they reach a certain arbitrary, made up, standard (like "you should be able to do X pushups before bench pressing"). Like there is a magic switch in your chest and triceps that unlocks once you get that 50th pushup, finally allowing them to express their strength in the complex motion that is laying down and pushing something that's in front of you. Seriously.

I'm not sure why, in terms of human physiology, the way that one responds to a stimulus would change dramatically once they "graduate" from the class of beginners after reaching some arbitrary standard in some exercise. To me it sounds pretty much made up.

Now I understand how those theories come about: if you look at the average gym goer, they are making no gains, because they train like morons. The guy doing calf raises and leg presses and laterals in your commercial gym is making no gains because he does not get close to failure, does a different workout every time, does not have a training log and eats like shit, not because he needs to get his squat to 315 before his muscles turn a hypothetical "bodybuilder switch" on so that he can finally grow from calf raises and leg presses and laterals. The reason why people like that suddenly make gains when they get on the popular S/B/D oriented programs found on the internet is just because those programs force you to adopt good lifting habits: get a training log, attempt to improve performance every workout, actually show up to the gym, not "mix it up" (aka doing random shit).

You could make a "beginner program" which centers around leg press, hammer row and dumbbell bench and they'd get bigger and stronger. Also interestingly, if you look at "beginner programs" designed by Sheiko, they incorporate everything: S/B/D, machines, isolations, unilateral work, kettlebells and conditionning.

If you're interested in hypertrophy, you can do that on the first day you get to the gym. If you're interested in becoming proficient in S/B/D you can do that on the first day too. And even more insane, you can do both on the first day. Do a few sets of S/B/D and then hit some curls and extensions and calves and laterals. Sounds completely crazy I know but I think it can be done. Possibly. I wish that the idea of "beginner programs" would die. Just get on a good program, adapt the exercises to your goals, adapt the volume to what you can tolerate and then lift.

[platypus]

The funny thing is that some people also hold the opposite theory, that beginners should not be allowed to S/B/D unless they reach a certain arbitrary, made up, standard (like "you should be able to do X pushups before bench pressing"). Like there is a magic switch in your chest and triceps that unlocks once you get that 50th pushup, finally allowing them to express their strength in the complex motion that is laying down and pushing something that's in front of you. Seriously.

This bugs me to no end. I could not do a good-looking pushup, or any chinups at all, until I started training with weights. And when I did, I almost magically became capable of doing calisthenics with good form within the first two months, after years of failure.

[AlanMackey]

You could make a "beginner program" which centers around leg press, hammer row and dumbbell bench and they'd get bigger and stronger.

Actually, that's a great idea!

[KarlM]

I actually don't buy that physique training is more complicated, or that you need to be of a certain level of strength to use it. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, i.e. strength training is a lot more complicated due to the need for periodization, auto regulation, learning the form and being efficient, deloads, etc. Even a beginner program, like say the LP, has a super high failure and non-adherence rate. The thing is literally two alternating workouts.

I take your point regarding complexity. I do think that's in the eye of the beholder, however. In my view, strength training is "simpler" because you don't have to worry about incorporating a bunch of additional movements. I happen to like fewer movement patterns, so when I'm thinking about simplicity, that's how it conceptualize it. I do agree that bodybuilding progressions are simpler - usually just a double progression will get the job done, training close enough to failure with good enough technique.

I think the reason people can see better results from SBD programs like the LP is simply because they are told to increase weight in the gym, as well as weight on the scale. This is something a lot of beginners do not really do.

I suppose I do disagree here. I think beginner programs that focus on big compound lifts are more effective because the gains (both strength and size) are faster and more dramatic. I would guess this is true even if you could match eating and effort between more isolation focused programs vs. more compound oriented programs. I don't particularly like SS LP, but it's not bad, and that is what I used when I started and had reasonable success with it.

The other thing is that if someone's ultimate goal is physique, why, for example, spend your most responsive 6 months of training and gaining muscle without directly training your arms and calves? It's not like your biceps don't respond to stimulus until you can pull 405.

My point here is that an overall stronger trainee will get more out of isolation training, so I believe it makes sense to focus more on strength over a range of movment patterns earlier on then switch to more goal oriented programming later.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

My point here is that an overall stronger trainee will get more out of isolation training, so I believe it makes sense to focus more on strength over a range of movment patterns earlier on then switch to more goal oriented programming later.

Why ?

Assuming that this were true, guys who start with getting a respectable squat by running programs like starting strength and then "switch" to isolation exercises would all have humongous arms since their strength base allows them to "get a lot more" out of curls and triceps extensions. But where are all the forum members with 24 inches pythons ?

Also, if you hang out at commercial gyms, you'll run into many bros who are pathetic at S/B/D but have huge arms, in spite of their non existant strength base.

[KarlM]

I don't know where all those theories about beginners needing to "get strong first" before graduating to isolation exercises, machines, and all sorts of fancy stuff come from. What do you think happens on the physiological level on that fateful day you finally squat 3 plates ? Nothing.The funny thing is that some people also hold the opposite theory, that beginners should not be allowed to S/B/D unless they reach a certain arbitrary, made up, standard (like "you should be able to do X pushups before bench pressing"). Like there is a magic switch in your chest and triceps that unlocks once you get that 50th pushup, finally allowing them to express their strength in the complex motion that is laying down and pushing something that's in front of you. Seriously.

I'm not sure why, in terms of human physiology, the way that one responds to a stimulus would change dramatically once they "graduate" from the class of beginners after reaching some arbitrary standard in some exercise. To me it sounds pretty much made up.

I'm no historian, but I suspect they came from observations of old school strength coaches. That does't mean they are correct, but they jive with my experience (albeit limited).

Of course there are physiological changes that accumulate when you take your squat from 95 lb to 315 lb. There are increases in muscle mass, improvements in cardiovascular function, increases in bone density, improvements in neuromuscular efficiency... Those changes are small when you take your squat from 310 to 315, but they all sum up. I have a hard time believing you'd disagree with this, so perhaps I misunderstood your point here.

Now I understand how those theories come about: if you look at the average gym goer, they are making no gains, because they train like morons. The guy doing calf raises and leg presses and laterals in your commercial gym is making no gains because he does not get close to failure, does a different workout every time, does not have a training log and eats like shit,

I think the largest factors in a lack of early gains in beginner trainees are 1) too much variety in movement selection, so it's hard to string together a series of progressively loaded sessions. Related to this is 2) not tracking progress in the notebook, which leads to lifting the same weight for similar reps day in and day out, at a similar effort level (even if that effort level is high). The log book helps you progressively load. 3) lack of consistency getting to the gym.

not because he needs to get his squat to 315 before his muscles turn a hypothetical "bodybuilder switch" on so that he can finally grow from calf raises and leg presses and laterals. The reason why people like that suddenly make gains when they get on the popular S/B/D oriented programs found on the internet is just because those programs force you to adopt good lifting habits: get a training log, attempt to improve performance every workout, actually show up to the gym, not "mix it up" (aka doing random shit).

I'm not thinking "switch", I'm thinking "dial". I'm proposing that the 315-squatting early-stage trainee (after maybe 3-6 months training) will get more out of isolation movements like leg extensions than the brand-spanking new trainee because the 315 lb squatter can generate more force and therefore generate more stimulus, and can actually train closer to his/her true maximum effort. I won't die on this hill, but it is in line with my own personal experiences.

You could make a "beginner program" which centers around leg press, hammer row and dumbbell bench and they'd get bigger and stronger. Also interestingly, if you look at "beginner programs" designed by Sheiko, they incorporate everything: S/B/D, machines, isolations, unilateral work, kettlebells and conditionning.

Yeah, that's an excellent beginner program IMO. I'd add a second day of smith machine RDLs, supine grip lat pulldowns and dumbbell OHP and you've got something that I think would work well with a beginner. It's all compound (it doesn't need to be all compound, but I do think that's a good choice for beginners), all of it can be trained heavy with a lot of effort in a moderate rep range and can be progressed logically.

If you're interested in hypertrophy, you can do that on the first day you get to the gym. If you're interested in becoming proficient in S/B/D you can do that on the first day too.

Agree. And SBD will accomplish a ton of hypertrophy. You can even throw in some rowing and chinning and some overhead pressing and you've got almost all of your bases covered. Maybe drop deadlift for RDLs early on, but that quibbling. Maybe throw in side lateral raises.

And even more insane, you can do both on the first day. Do a few sets of S/B/D and then hit some curls and extensions and calves and laterals. Sounds completely crazy I know but I think it can be done. Possibly. I wish that the idea of "beginner programs" would die. Just get on a good program, adapt the exercises to your goals, adapt the volume to what you can tolerate and then lift.

I do think that beginner training should look different from more advanced forms of training.

[quikky]

I actually don't buy that physique training is more complicated, or that you need to be of a certain level of strength to use it. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, i.e. strength training is a lot more complicated due to the need for periodization, auto regulation, learning the form and being efficient, deloads, etc. Even a beginner program, like say the LP, has a super high failure and non-adherence rate. The thing is literally two alternating workouts.

I take your point regarding complexity. I do think that's in the eye of the beholder, however. In my view, strength training is "simpler" because you don't have to worry about incorporating a bunch of additional movements. I happen to like fewer movement patterns, so when I'm thinking about simplicity, that's how it conceptualize it. I do agree that bodybuilding progressions are simpler - usually just a double progression will get the job done, training close enough to failure with good enough technique.

Yeah, I don't equate number of exercises with complexity. I think difficulty of learning the movements and how to properly progress them is a bigger factor, with the latter especially becoming complex after the initial newbie gains.

I think the reason people can see better results from SBD programs like the LP is simply because they are told to increase weight in the gym, as well as weight on the scale. This is something a lot of beginners do not really do.

I suppose I do disagree here. I think beginner programs that focus on big compound lifts are more effective because the gains (both strength and size) are faster and more dramatic. I would guess this is true even if you could match eating and effort between more isolation focused programs vs. more compound oriented programs. I don't particularly like SS LP, but it's not bad, and that is what I used when I started and had reasonable success with it.

The other thing is that if someone's ultimate goal is physique, why, for example, spend your most responsive 6 months of training and gaining muscle without directly training your arms and calves? It's not like your biceps don't respond to stimulus until you can pull 405.

My point here is that an overall stronger trainee will get more out of isolation training, so I believe it makes sense to focus more on strength over a range of movment patterns earlier on then switch to more goal oriented programming later.

I am not really sure why the comparison is isolation vs compounds. Literally all bodybuilding programs I'm aware of have a lot of compounds. The difference between doing bodybuilding work vs SBD work is that the former focuses on growing all muscles, and not specializing in any specific movements or performance metrics, whereas the latter centers training on pushing the numbers on the Big Three.

For example, hack squats and leg presses are a staple in lots of bodybuilding programs. They are compound lifts, and can work a lot better for leg growth than squats. RDLs and SLDLs are staples as well, both are compounds, but also help train the glutes and hamstrings more by having a strong eccentric component. Dumbbell shoulder presses, inclines, lunges and split squats, countless row and lat pull variations, etc. All super common bodybuilding compound movements. I don't see why a beginner needs to spend months pushing SBD if their goal is physique. You can incorporate some SD (let's be honest, everyone benches anyways) if you want, but you don't have to. If you want bigger arms, train them from day 1. Why put on 20lbs and spend 6 months of super responsive work not training them? Just so that you can push your squat a bit higher at the end?

[KarlM]

I am not really sure why the comparison is isolation vs compounds. Literally all bodybuilding programs I'm aware of have a lot of compounds. The difference between doing bodybuilding work vs SBD work is that the former focuses on growing all muscles, and not specializing in any specific movements or performance metrics, whereas the latter centers training on pushing the numbers on the Big Three.

Regarding the above (possibly rhetorical) question, I'd point you to your previous post:

I really wish the bIG CoMpOUNds religion would die. Somehow if you don't focus on SBD, you fail the manhood test, or something. ...snip...

Regarding the above statement, it appears to me that your position is more along the lines of "I really wish the bIG SquAT BEncH DeaDLIFt religion would die."

For example, hack squats and leg presses are a staple in lots of bodybuilding programs. They are compound lifts, and can work a lot better for leg growth than squats. RDLs and SLDLs are staples as well, both are compounds, but also help train the glutes and hamstrings more by having a strong eccentric component. Dumbbell shoulder presses, inclines, lunges and split squats, countless row and lat pull variations, etc. All super common bodybuilding compound movements.

We are in complete agreement. Big compounds are great for hypertrophy and many of them might even be better at it than SBD.

I don't see why a beginner needs to spend months pushing SBD if their goal is physique. You can incorporate some SD (let's be honest, everyone benches anyways) if you want, but you don't have to. If you want bigger arms, train them from day 1. Why put on 20lbs and spend 6 months of super responsive work not training them? Just so that you can push your squat a bit higher at the end?

I'm not arguing SBD need to be pursued, just that big compounds will more efficiently build muscle mass for an aesthetic-focused beginner than isolations. I was worried that in your effort to take down SBD, the big compounds would take collatoral damage

[KarlM]

The funny thing is that some people also hold the opposite theory, that beginners should not be allowed to S/B/D unless they reach a certain arbitrary, made up, standard (like "you should be able to do X pushups before bench pressing"). Like there is a magic switch in your chest and triceps that unlocks once you get that 50th pushup, finally allowing them to express their strength in the complex motion that is laying down and pushing something that's in front of you. Seriously.

This bugs me to no end. I could not do a good-looking pushup, or any chinups at all, until I started training with weights. And when I did, I almost magically became capable of doing calisthenics with good form within the first two months, after years of failure.

Your post reminds me of my pushup goal back when I was doing p90x. I wanted 50 consecutive pushups. Prior to starting p90x, I could rep out about 35, and this came from random pushup bouts from my judo club at the time. I would do three sets of pushups to failure one to two times a week, along with the arm and shoulder work that was part of that program. Even though effort was high and I was consistent, it took forever to add 15 reps. Maybe about a year?

Later I found barbell training and got obsessed with getting my SBDP +chin ups numbers up (chins were already pretty good from p90x). It took maybe a year and I got my bench up to 255 lb (it stalled there for about a year). At that point, without any pushup training, I could easily rep out 50+ pushups. So it appears that, in this particular case, lower-rep, strength-focused bench training carried over to max rep pushups better than high specificity training.

The same thing happened with things like tricep pressdowns. I did those like crazy for a couple of years. I remember doing about 90 on the machine for higher rep sets of maybe 15 or so. After getting my bench and OHP numbers up, I could easily do ~150 for the same or more reps. Again, I hadn't done any pressdowns for about a year, and when I came back to them they were way stronger after getting strong on relevant big compounds.

[quikky]

I am not really sure why the comparison is isolation vs compounds. Literally all bodybuilding programs I'm aware of have a lot of compounds. The difference between doing bodybuilding work vs SBD work is that the former focuses on growing all muscles, and not specializing in any specific movements or performance metrics, whereas the latter centers training on pushing the numbers on the Big Three.

Regarding the above (possibly rhetorical) question, I'd point you to your previous post:

I really wish the bIG CoMpOUNds religion would die. Somehow if you don't focus on SBD, you fail the manhood test, or something. ...snip...

Regarding the above statement, it appears to me that your position is more along the lines of "I really wish the bIG SquAT BEncH DeaDLIFt religion would die."

For example, hack squats and leg presses are a staple in lots of bodybuilding programs. They are compound lifts, and can work a lot better for leg growth than squats. RDLs and SLDLs are staples as well, both are compounds, but also help train the glutes and hamstrings more by having a strong eccentric component. Dumbbell shoulder presses, inclines, lunges and split squats, countless row and lat pull variations, etc. All super common bodybuilding compound movements.

We are in complete agreement. Big compounds are great for hypertrophy and many of them might even be better at it than SBD.

I don't see why a beginner needs to spend months pushing SBD if their goal is physique. You can incorporate some SD (let's be honest, everyone benches anyways) if you want, but you don't have to. If you want bigger arms, train them from day 1. Why put on 20lbs and spend 6 months of super responsive work not training them? Just so that you can push your squat a bit higher at the end?

I'm not arguing SBD need to be pursued, just that big compounds will more efficiently build muscle mass for an aesthetic-focused beginner than isolations. I was worried that in your effort to take down SBD, the big compounds would take collatoral damage

Maybe my wording should have been more precise but I think it's common knowledge that The Big Compounds and SBD are one and the same. I've never heard of anyone referring to hack squats, dumbbell bench, and RDLs as the big compounds, for example.

Regardless, I think we're mostly in agreement.

[Goat]

Programming is bullshit and periodization is especially bullshit.

That's obviously a hyperbolic and clickbaity thing to say, but I don't think it's totally wrong either.

People have gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked with a jillion different methods. People have also gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked while barely having a program and using zero periodization. George Frenn and the guys at the original westside didn't periodize, and yet that crew got stupid fucking strong, Frenn squatting 850+ in the 60s for example.

"Yeah but those people were genetically gifted" yeah, and the same is true of everyone who gets crazy strong, no matter what methods they used.

If you're not making progress, I think there's about a 98% chance that the culprit is one of the following:

A) You're not training hard enough
B) Your recovery is screwed up (nutrition, not enough sleep, external life stressors)
C) (less likely) you are actually legit overtraining

... and not because you aren't using the correct model of periodization or whatever.

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

[AlanMackey]

Maybe my wording should have been more precise but I think it's common knowledge that The Big Compounds and SBD are one and the same. I've never heard of anyone referring to hack squats, dumbbell bench, and RDLs as the big compounds, for example.

Regardless, I think we're mostly in agreement.

Any oly lifter would disagree: C&J, snatch and back squat.

[mgil]

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

I think the science stuff and ‘broscience’ (anecdotal evidence) are actually converging.

Stepping away from the PL peeps, the BBers have been putting out information regarding range of motion, time under tension, clean reps, etc being important for hypertrophy over weight moved (within reason).

For PL stuff, a lot of things comes down to consistency of getting into the gym and doing work. Using a more holistic approach to autoregulation, IOW do the hard work that you feel like you can accomplish, is probably not a bad idea. I have a loose structure to training now and don’t even care much about the weight on the bar.

Anyhow, I somewhat agree that an overly structured approach isn’t necessary for anyone with sufficient training history to piece together a session on the fly.

[quikky]

Programming is bullshit and periodization is especially bullshit.

...

If you're not making progress, I think there's about a 98% chance that the culprit is one of the following:

A) You're not training hard enough
B) Your recovery is screwed up (nutrition, not enough sleep, external life stressors)
C) (less likely) you are actually legit overtraining

... and not because you aren't using the correct model of periodization or whatever.

I'm not really sure how it's possible the main causes of stalls are insufficient stimulus or excessive fatigue and yet programming is bullshit. I mean, programming is literally the training structure to properly manage stimulus vs fatigue, so if the ratio is messed up, the programming is not good.

If someone is making great gains without any specific programming it just means they, through dumb luck, genetics, or great intuition, are simply getting enough stimulus and not too much fatigue from the seemingly unstructured work they're doing.

I do think that programming's importance can sometimes get a bit overblown, and lots of people obsess too much about the smaller details of it while missing the big picture. For example, not training hard and not eating to gain (because it's apparently en vogue now to think you'll get jacked eating at maintenance or something), but worrying about the perfect DUP scheme for their bench.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Programming is bullshit and periodization is especially bullshit.

That's obviously a hyperbolic and clickbaity thing to say, but I don't think it's totally wrong either.

People have gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked with a jillion different methods. People have also gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked while barely having a program and using zero periodization. George Frenn and the guys at the original westside didn't periodize, and yet that crew got stupid fucking strong, Frenn squatting 850+ in the 60s for example.

"Yeah but those people were genetically gifted" yeah, and the same is true of everyone who gets crazy strong, no matter what methods they used.

If you're not making progress, I think there's about a 98% chance that the culprit is one of the following:

A) You're not training hard enough
B) Your recovery is screwed up (nutrition, not enough sleep, external life stressors)
C) (less likely) you are actually legit overtraining

... and not because you aren't using the correct model of periodization or whatever.

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

Oh hi Jamie, I didnt know you were on Exodus. Welcome to the forum dude, I really enjoy your articles about the history of lifting.

[Hanley]

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

I kinda agree.

I would say the spreadsheet programming seems to have pulled a lot of lifters away from developing the absolutely critical skill of deeply intuitive programming.

I consider myself a very intuitive lifter, but I "program for intuition". I'm always armed with 20 or so possible sessions/session-templates (that I know I love and produce results) and I'll match the stress/stimulus of a session to my intuited readiness. There's like...no periodization.

[Hardartery]

Programming is bullshit and periodization is especially bullshit.

That's obviously a hyperbolic and clickbaity thing to say, but I don't think it's totally wrong either.

People have gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked with a jillion different methods. People have also gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked while barely having a program and using zero periodization. George Frenn and the guys at the original westside didn't periodize, and yet that crew got stupid fucking strong, Frenn squatting 850+ in the 60s for example.

"Yeah but those people were genetically gifted" yeah, and the same is true of everyone who gets crazy strong, no matter what methods they used.

If you're not making progress, I think there's about a 98% chance that the culprit is one of the following:

A) You're not training hard enough
B) Your recovery is screwed up (nutrition, not enough sleep, external life stressors)
C) (less likely) you are actually legit overtraining

... and not because you aren't using the correct model of periodization or whatever.

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

LOL. Straight, LOL. If you think Frenn and Co didn't periodize, then you don't understand the concept, and if you think those people didn't program you are confused. Not using a spreadsheet or writing everything down doesn't mean it isn't programmed, and all successful training - including both the original Westside and the Louie version - involves some form of periodization. Even if it is intuitive instead of planned out months in advance. You can absolutely train too hard without overtraining, and knowing when and how to back it off a little and for how long is the difference between a 600 Squat and a 1000 Squat.

I would agree that most people are overdoing it with all of the above, and are generally speaking in no danger of overtraining. They also don't need a spreadsheet or any science whatsoever to get strong, but they do need a plan - which is what programming is. Knowing how to change it up when you plateau is also part of programming. Looking to science first is generally pointless, science tries to prove or disprove what the guys in the gym are already doing so it is by nature behind the curve and changes it's mind more often than a 15 year-old girl - but I digress.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

As far as I understand, periodization does not matter for hypertrophy. So if you just want to get jacked periodization is irrelevant, just lift something heavy for many reps close to failure, eat, sleep and repeat. For strength periodization does work (as in it yields better results than doing the same thing all the time), but the question is why does it work. I like Kiely's theory which is that it is not periodization that is necessary, but rather variety. So periodization is one way of making your training varied, but the model (linear, reverse, daily undulating, conjugate, whatever).

And as far as "well rest and food and stress and genetics (etc) matter more than programming" (no shit sherlock), the thing is that most of those things are outside your control. This is like arguing that studying hard in college is useless because in the end what is going to have the most impact on your wealth is how rich and well connected your parents are.

[JohnHelton]

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

I kinda agree.

I would say the spreadsheet programming seems to have pulled a lot of lifters away from developing the absolutely critical skill of deeply intuitive programming.

I consider myself a very intuitive lifter, but I "program for intuition". I'm always armed with 20 or so possible sessions/session-templates (that I know I love and produce results) and I'll match the stress/stimulus of a session to my intuited readiness. There's like...no periodization.

Same here. I don't have the patience for periodization. There are a lot of workouts that give the right amount of stimulus.

[DCR]

As far as I understand, periodization does not matter for hypertrophy. So if you just want to get jacked periodization is irrelevant, just lift something heavy for many reps close to failure, eat, sleep and repeat. For strength periodization does work (as in it yields better results than doing the same thing all the time), but the question is why does it work. I like Kiely's theory which is that it is not periodization that is necessary, but rather variety. So periodization is one way of making your training varied, but the model (linear, reverse, daily undulating, conjugate, whatever).

If you're going to continue to get hypertrophy gainz, something has to be progressed. BBers are already doing a lot of volume, so that's not a great variable to increase unless one is into two-a-days. Personally, I don't love density and think that it has material limitations. That leaves lifting heavier weights, and you've probably had the experience of trying to do so, over anything more than a brief period, in BB rep ranges: it doesn't work. Increasing a 15-rep max becomes very difficult, very quickly. Trying to increase what you can lift for, say, 4 sets of 15, for more than a small increment or two? Good luck. The only way around this, in my (natty) n=1, is to spend time now and then building strength specifically, in lower rep ranges, and then come back to the BB reps as a stronger dude. In other words, periodization. Do I personally plan any of this out ahead of time? No, because most of what I do in the gym is dumb af and a function of my immediate wants, but the bottom line is that I do think that periodization is desirable - even necessary - in hypertrophy training.