Strength Training to Bodybuilding?

Hey, loved the rant!

But, I wanted to address your feelings about Starting Strength with the admission that I am new to training and am totally in the learning process so any of the points I make are really just my understanding, and are by no means authoritative pronouncements. I ran Starting Strength for about ten weeks and absolutely loved it. I actually hired a Starting Strength coach, who also happens to be a DPT, an Exercise Science Professor, and a competitive powerlifter.

Absolutely!! Anybody that doesn’t understand this hasn’t read the literature. I think it’s a good program for building a strength base that @robstein spoke about. I am also reading The Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, which is the text for C.S.C.S. certification. One of the things mentioned is that initial strength increases are more a product of improved motor unit recruitment and not necessarily hypertrophy. In my opinion, beginning a bodybuilding program without a strength base would result in a lot of wasted time improving CNS response and not actually triggering hypertrophy.

Yes, but it is not intended to be a permanent program. Most of the templates in the book show about twenty four weeks as a maximum for running the program before switching over to an intermediate program. The theory, as I understand it, is that it’s more important to develop strength in the core lifts before wasting time doing calf raises or wrist curls. This makes sense to me, but I feel like twenty four weeks might be too long to run a LP program like this. Most people plateau after 12-16 weeks based on my own observations of an anecdotal nature.

I disagree. After twelve weeks, if you are new to lifting, doing 3x5@250 squats, 3x5@150 BP, and 5x3@150 in power cleans should be considered a lot of work in a training session. I know that at the end of SS, my sessions were taking me ninety minutes or more and I was flat out gassed! When I switched to 5/3/1 Triumvirate, it felt like a vacation!

In my opinion, many people misunderstand SS and so when they do twenty four weeks, start missing reps, have gained a lot of fat, they characterize it as a shitty program. In fact, they did not follow the program. I went from squatting 3x5@140 to squatting 3x5@265 in twelve weeks. I probably should have stayed on it a little longer and dropped my progression amounts significantly, but it just got too fucking hard! Again, switching programs was a relief.

Again, just my experience. I did read the book, I did read PPST, I did hire an excellent SS coach, and I did not have the experiences you describe…although I have no doubt that others may have had those experiences.

Is SS the holy grail and Mark Rippetoe the messiah? No. Is it a good option for developing strength for novice lifters? Yes. Is Rippetoe a pretty knowledgeable guy? Well, I think he is, but that’s just my opinion.

No disrespect intended. I lifted Bro split for thirty five years before stumbling onto a few programs - Mass Made Simple, 5/3/1, and then SS. I did one cycle of 5/3/1 before SS, and when I stalled, came back to 5/3/1. My point being, that I’ve only been lifting intelligently for 6-9 months, so I don’t have a lot of credibility other than my own experience.

Good thread by the way!

You’re an intelligent chap. Here what I think you illustrate with your experience is that you went about getting into the program the right way. Also, your coach is quite intelligent. I think this easily fits into the category of situations it can be really beneficial to use Starting Strength, both for your goals and in the situation itself. That, sadly, does not make up the bulk of my experiences over the last 10+ years with people totally new to the gym. In the vast majority of cases (I know, n=1 sample pool, but that’s all I got) people google for workouts and end up reading some forum stuff and/or seeing an article on the program and pick it and go.

These two experiences aren’t in the same universe.

I would agree with this completely. But again, I wouldn’t say those are beginner numbers–and I wouldn’t say you were a rank beginner at all when starting the program, having lifted for so long (even incorrectly). Also I wouldn’t say that this represents the majority of people I have personally seen want to run Starting Strength. I would also say that because of the set and rep scheme and the prohibition in various articles on accessory work many rank beginners start off believing that they shouldn’t do any volume work. That is the genesis of my real ire with the program. It builds that mentality in people. With a good coach to explain things that is no real threat. Without one and starting of crazy weak, it becomes easily ingrained in the mentality.

Starting Strength comes into its own, in my opinion, when it is used for either a) people like you who did the groundwork and hired a coach b) people who are not beginners to training but want to start a strength oriented program. These are just my opinions. I will also say I have a very large amount of respect for Mark Rippetoe

1 Like

I don’t want to speak for Aragon but when he referred to work, I think it was in relation to over all work load. Starting strength may be “hard” but it’s not a lot of work. I mean it’s only 9-12 working sets per workout for the entire body.

I personally am not much of a fan of starting strength, I mean there are a lot worse things a beginner could do but still.

  • far more lower body volume, than upper body.
  • if you do it as written, their is very little back work.
  • unless you have a good coach to teach form and pick up when it breaks down, then having a beginner train to almost failure in attempt to add weight every session will likely lead to a break down in form.
  • it’s okay as a general strength/athletic routine. But it is far from optimal for a beginner bodybuilder because of the very low volume and lack of direct muscle group work. It also is not that great for a beginner powerlifter. As it again is low volume, not allowing a lot of technique practice. It also apart from squats has rather low frequency in the other powerlifts.

Again it’s not a terrible program, I just truly don’t understand the dogma and pedestal that starting strength sits on.

I’ll agree with Ryan, but I do not want this thread to derail into an SS debate so I will bring this back to topic by saying everybody should check out the Indigo programs haha.

Also on the topic of bodybuilding, I feel that ladder sets on leg press with bands attached are a great way to add volume on legs. Also cripple yourself.

I am really intrigued about the use of bands in hypertrophy training. Is there any science behind it? I know for strength training they serve a purpose, but I don’t really understand their effect on muscular gains?
Obviously from experience John meadows finds them useful, are they there to serve as just simply variation or is there a specific desired effect…

Hey, agree with @Aragorn that this shouldn’t get sidetracked, but I think this brings up an issue that I’m just figuring out, the difference between intensity and volume. Because I am defensive by nature, my first reaction was to point out that those 9-12 sets are pretty much at 5RM PR weights everytime you lift and because of that, pretty intense…which, as you point out, isn’t volume, which is more effective at hypertrophy, which isn’t the goal of SS.

My brother in law is absolutely jacked, but admits, it’s all for show. He only works out on machines and does a three day bro split. PPST has a graphic with rep ranges and their results/goals. I believe strength and hypertrophy start to overlap at about five reps and become strictly hypertrophy at about eight reps.

So I guess my point is that intensity and volume are different and are used for different results. The primary difference being that intensity is for strength (the goal of SS) and volume is for hypertrophy. For someone that is interested in both, do you combine intensity and volume in the same workout like 5/3/1, or do you separate the two like The Texas Method?

Getting side tracked we are lol.

But for the sake of discussion…

No one apart from rediculosly genetically gifted people, can be all show and and no go. I would be very surprised if your brother in law isn’t at least reasonably strong.

Intensity for strength and volume for size is a really big generalisation… Because volume can also be used to build strength and intensity does have an effect on muscle growth.

2 Likes

Reading the literature is one thing. Applying it within the proper context is another. “Strength training”, in this case, should refer to developing technique and neurologically adapting to lifting heavy(relative) weights through frequent performance of selected lifts. The common misinterpretation is the requirement to chase numbers to meet certain “strength standards” before one is able to “train for hypertrophy”, which is why, IMO, using the term “base of strength” is terribly misleading.

Assuming this is completely true, which it isn’t in practice, why would one NOT perform a variety of exercises with a lower learning curve lol? Do you not see the contradiction in logic here?

Inducing hypertrophy is simply about activating and forcing the muscles to overcome a given load. The amount of effort exerted is what causes growth and adaptation, hence the requirement to increase said load. The actual load itself is immaterial, but if the load is not increasing, you’re probably not getting bigger, thus causing the common confusion and misapplication of the term “base of strength” as stated above.

Now, in a relatively more complex movement, this is a question of activation and maintaining activation and tension on the individual muscles towards technical failure, which would require a good amount of body awareness and (gasp!)mind muscle connection, hence, again, simply starting out with a limited selection of movements is probably not the best way to go.

2 Likes

Do not fall victim to this level of overthinking and feeling the need to categorize everything within absolute parameters. Bodybuilders in the 90s pyramided up to ONE top set per exercise with few isolations. People have done Doggccrap with much success. The Father of Palumboism, a.k.a Patient Zero tells bodybuilders he trains to go heavy with lower reps to build mass.

Seriously, don’t overthink this shit.

1 Like

Yeah, I see where you are going, and we don’t necessarily disagree. Or rather, my rudimentary understanding isn’t necessarily different than what you are saying, it just limits my ability to express my understanding.

This is pretty complex. Strength standards are pretty relative, aren’t they? I mean, my 275 pound squat is going to be different than an eighteen year old’s 275 pound squat relative to our respective potential. For me, at 250 pounds, or even less, I have probably maximized my neuromusculular recruitment and am now causing hypertrophy to adapt to increasing loads. Whereas the young buck probably still has some ways to go before exhausting neuromuscular gains. Maybe?

So, if I was squatting 135 for 5x12, am I really going to cause hypertrophy or just increase CNS abilities? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to use LP in a 3x5 system to max CNS improvement?

I understand. Better term suggestions?

As I understand it, the lower learning curve is less efficient - it would take more time to exhaust CNS improvement and to begin causing hypertrophy to adapt to the increasing loads.

I get your point. I think the MMC is underrated. At least it was by me, and I am just beginning to understand and implement it.

The limited selection of movements is calculated, I believe, to maximize LP in compound movements contributing to taking maximum benefit of the novice effect - do I sound like a Rip clone? Sorry! Is it the best way? I don’t know. For me, strength was more important than mass when I started the program, and I only ran it for 10-12 weeks. I felt like I had good results, but I switched for many of the reasons why you aren’t a fan of it.

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to help edumacate me - I value your expertise. I’m fascinated by this shit.

You posted this while I was overthinking this shit composing the post above, lol.

Thanks!

2 Likes

If we look at this in the most simplistic terms, yes. There are other factors including leverages, ROM, relatively stronger muscles vs weak links etc to be considered as well.

You will induce hypertrophy either way as long as you are able to activate, exert effort with and sufficently fatigue the intended muscle. My question is, why limit training to specific rep ranges especially for squats when there is a higher learning curve and the quads need quite a bit of volume for growth?[quote=“The_Myth, post:30, topic:219123”]
As I understand it, the lower learning curve is less efficient - it would take more time to exhaust CNS improvement and to begin causing hypertrophy to adapt to the increasing loads.
[/quote]
I don’t quite understand. Leg pressing requires far less technique and neural efficiency to maximally recruit the leg muscles. Why would it be less efficient?

I would just call it learning proper technique and learning to strain lol.

No problem!

1 Like

Using Bands to Get Muscles;
You know how bodybuilders do dumbbell bench presses, and they stay in the “middle” of the range of motion to keep tension on the muscle? When you start adding bands for resistance, the whole lift feels like that. The lockout goes from being the easiest part, to the hardest part.

I didn’t use the leg press, but I put a band on a squat machine and it really, really made my quads work. Almost as if I had never really extended my legs and stood up all the way straight before.

They also a good way to “practice” the Mind Muscle Connection. My elbow was bothering me, so I put my elbow thru a band, anchored it to the power rack and kinda squeezed against the resistance. At first, it seemed sort of stupid, but when I really tried I could get a nice pump. Then, after a couple weeks when I went back to chest supported rows I was way “tighter.” I could just set up for a row and already feel it working.

1 Like

I could kiss you right on your ranting lips

1 Like

alters the strength curve to give you a better MMC, basically.

1 Like

Plenty of science. I would really caution you not to look for studies. This is an area where basic physics and basic knowledge coupled with some critical thinking should suffice.

Bands modify the strength curve. The human strength curve is stronger at lockout and weaker in stretched positions. Bands match this when set up properly (ala squats for westside). So you keep increasing tension on the body as the strength curve gets stronger for you. Instead of doing 2-3 reps for dynamic work or 1-2 reps for circa max work you are now doing 8-20 reps for hypertrophy. Simple.

Specific desired effect–yes. There are several. One is as I said matching the strength curve, and also working around injury (example: you have a wonky bicep tendon from a partial tear. Stretch at the bottom of a curl hurts you. You use a lighter weight and a band to allow yourself to train curls without aggravating the tendon while it heals). Others are the fact that you NEVER get a rest–there is constant tension on the muscle depending on how you set up and perform the exercise in question. That’s obviously a benefit.

That’s roughly correct. But the thing is, intensity and volume can be used for the SAME goals just with different benchmarks. Example:

Powerlifting and Olympic Lifting–volume typically lower on all days, intensity typically higher. 5x5 represents VERY high volume for them, 3x5 or 5x3 represents fairly moderate volume, and 1x3 or 3x1 represents low to moderate volume on their key lift (remember not for the day, but on the target lift)

Bodybuilding–3x5 or 3x3 represents very low volume. Typical volume is 5x5 or 4x6-10+. The absolute intensity is lower (you’re not lifting your 3 RM for a set of 6+ unless it is rest/pause style, if you’re able to do that) but relative intensity is just as high–training to failure or close to absolute failure, drop sets, tri-sets, etc.

Athleticism–middle ground between the two, but generally higher volume than powerlifting or oly.

You measure intensity and volume BOTH on a per lift and per day basis, as well as a per week and per month/block basis. They wave up and down on a per week or per month basis. You do this for each goal with the understanding that the limits for each are a bit different. The ceiling on volume is much higher in bodybuilding because you are looking to induce metabolic stress in a way you don’t typically see in powerlifting or oly lifting. This is because you want more growth. Athleticism is again in the middle ground.

Short answer I would prefer 5/3/1 or Westside for Skinny Bastards part 2 or 3. Or a layered approach ala the Indigo programs or whatever. Texas Method can also be used.

@dt79 had killer posts here–this is exactly what I was referring to.

@The_Myth, there is a LOT of overlap. Really do not throw things into absolute territory–it is hard and you are learning which is great. And to be honest, almost every single one of us including myself made the mistakes you’re talking about while we were learning! So it is natural. It is hard to understand sometimes and it takes experience as well as reading–although very good for you on reading the literature. You have a head that thinks and analyzes, which is really essential. Your pitfall will be like mine in overthinking or breaking things black and white when they are really spectrums of gray to white or black. The literature tends to tempt one to fall into this pattern even more, which is part of the nature of the beast. Context and target audience always comes first, and things change in the literature. This is where lifting is both art and science–biology doesn’t change, even with tons of individual variation…BUT we don’t necessarily understand it 100% even though we think we would like to. It is like music, there are rules to adhere to but just as in jazz a good musician can bend and even break certain rules to come up with a beautiful sounding song. Break too much and you sound like shit. Don’t push the envelope at all and stay in the absolute rule territory and you sound bland and uninteresting and do not really get the results you are after.

@Yogi1–LOL. Well sadly I’m taken so…

1 Like

In the past, I thought lifting heavy one day, and light the other was best.

2 sessions meant twice the practice.

Later, after reading about a bunch of old-school routines, I started doing the heavy lifts first, then doing lighter back offs after. Having done both, now I like the same day, layered approach too. I used a Ditillo style routine where I did some 3’s, then lighter 5’s then lighter 8’s. It felt like much better practice. The light weights felt great after the heavier weights.

Well so long as we’re “ranting” lol, just my thoughts, and most guys on these threads (this thread especially!) are certainly more experienced than I am. As the subject is “strength training to bodybuilding”, this aspect is where I feel the majority of those who train for hypertrophy are missing out. Regardless of the rep range, TUT, exercise selection, volume, nutrition, and all the top-shelf-ultimate-ninja-hypertrophy-inducing supplements, etc., serious physique progress won’t happen until the MMC really starts to be emphasized. To truly feel the tension initiating from the desired muscle group before the movement begins and not just squeezing the muscle at the top or bottom of the movement, which is perhaps one of the most challenging things to really learn how to do (at least it was for me), to eliminate excess tension outside of the desired muscle, to learn to embrace the “pump,” the pain, to intentionally keep going as the burn increases, to view the weight in your hands as a tool to induce muscle growth and not as a number. What tool will best allow me to maximize tension in my desired muscle?

I think one of the primary aspects that separates those with well developed muscles and those without is the consistent execution of the exercise, the ability to have a well established MMC and analyzing every instant of the movement while it’s happening, versus simply moving weight from A to B. Ben Pakulski I think said something like, “when you’re doing bicep curls, your goal is to make your biceps bigger, not do a heavy barbell curl.” I’m probably not exactly right with the wording but the principle is solid. This point is one of the topics in this article I referenced earlier in the thread, https://www.t-nation.com/training/why-bodybuilders-are-more-jacked-than-powerlifters. We can also read Bret Contreras’ article about the mind muscle connection and see some interesting data that supports a well developed MMC can stimulate greater activation of the desired muscle without significant adjustments to form, but just by emphasizing mental focus during the exercise on the desired muscle.

Again just my thoughts, but there are some guys we see in the gym consistently working their asses off with the weights, but just wasting so much energy, lifting weights that are too heavy, involving every muscle group except the one they’re trying to grow, and if they took a “smarter, not harder” approach they might see better results.

4 Likes