TL Health and Fitness Initiative 2011 - Page 496

On August 13 2011 06:41 eshlow wrote:
I already linked some studies on previous pages, but he ignored it and went off on Lyle's link (and he's one of people who probably knows more than me on some stuff). So lol to that.

Also, if he wants to post his experiences with his random crappy routine, and then we can compare it to some of the people who have done SS in this thread.

I am sure we can come to the agreement that SS is vastly superior to anything he is recommending.

The basics of putting on mass & strength have not vastly changed since the 70s. What works is what works and that is getting stronger + adding weight.... which can be most effectively done with the 5-8 repetition range.

(i) status (coded as untrained: less than 1 year of consistent strength training,
recreationally trained: more than 1 year of consistent strength training or high school athlete, and
college,professional, and/or elite athlete);

On August 13 2011 08:58 Velocirapture wrote:
Hi all,

This is my first post in this thread so I guess i should start with my story. A few years ago I was 6'1'' and just short of 300 pounds. Through diet and exercise (all cardio) I got down to 180. I was very proud of myself but became frustrated because I had hit a plateau on cardio and was too intimidated by the weight room to ask for help.

Well long story short i stopped working out and ended up stable at a chubby 210 lbs. Now don't get me wrong, I like how I look and feel at that weight but the way I see it, I only have one life to live and I want to experience the full spectrum of what life has to offer. Since I have already been obese I feel highly motivated to be fit.

For the last month I have been very good about diet and going to the gym 5--6 days a week and have rewarded myself by investing in some personal training at my gym to get started on a more rigorous and well rounded routine. My first appointment is this upcoming Tuesday and this brings me to my reason for posting.

There are MANY varied opinions on healthy workout behavior from nutrition to posture and everything in between. While I know my trainer will be a professional and I will trust in his advice, id like to find reputable sites with fundamental information for beginners like me. As much as I enjoy reading many of the studies posted here (as I am a cell/molecular biologist by profession), they mostly seem to address very specific issues. To put it in Starcraft terms, they seem like scientific papers on splitting drones when i am still learning to macro.

My own efforts to find information is plagued by doubt due to many bad experiences with sites that look reasonable until i see clear pseudoscience at work (a luxury afforded me by my education). The links in the OP are good, but I'm basically wondering if there is a site or piece of literature that is to the athletic community what TL is to the Starcraft community.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

On August 13 2011 08:12 infinity21 wrote:

I don't think my body is capable of exceeding 170 lbs if I maintained low bf%. Am I mistaken here?
I did some quick calculations and if I were to drop to awesome territory (~7% bf) at my current LBM, then I would need to lose 20 lbs of weight. To exceed my current weight by putting on 20 lbs more muscle seems like a rather difficult task. Again, I don't know much about the amount of muscle that people can put on with proper nutrition and weight training so let me know if I'm wrong.

On August 13 2011 09:14 JeeJee wrote:


Yeah, he definitely didn't approach this right. Anyway, I took a look at the two studies you recommended (usually I'd take your word for it but I figure I might as well start building up some knowledge), and I have some questions/concerns (bolded for TLDR)

For the first study, well a meta-study to be precise.. they never seem to define what exactly constitutes a 'untrained', 'recreationally trained', 'trained', 'athlete', 'elite' etc. Kind of frustrating, so I'm not sure how to apply it to real life.
The closest thing I found in there was

But that wasn't even referring to the numbers used within the meta-analysis, but part of their argument about several studies and "blatant discrepancies between .. published analyses and .. critiques". Basically not exactly relevant.

Particularly I found it very interesting that untrained improve fastest with 60% 1RM (with quite large variation), whereas 'trained' improve best with 80% 1RM (with VERY low variation).
The reason it confuses me is that.. in SS, you're definitely not working with 60% 1RM. You're kind of working in the 5RM-6RM area, which is about 85% 1RM. Isn't that too heavy for just about everyone starting SS (i.e untrained)? At least, according to this?

And the other question in general is.. how do you analyze a meta-study? I mean, a typical study, I know how to put my skepticism hat on (i.e that study from bdictkam with a one-time leg extension routine with no control set off alarm bells). But for a meta-study.. short of reading every study that's part of the meta-analysis, I don't see what to do apart from take their word for it.

Sorry if slightly off topic on that last one.

On August 13 2011 09:29 infinity21 wrote:
Well I've read through both SS and SL. SL says that you can make linear growths for a long time as a beginner but I know if I raise my bench from 125 to 135, I may be able to do 1 set but certainly won't last 3 sets, let alone 5. I just don't see how it's possible to lift more weight every session and be able to pump out the whole 5x5 every time given my experience. I think I'm eating enough since my weight hasn't changed much.

On August 13 2011 09:41 eshlow wrote:


Here's the writeup for the first workout with SS:
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ:The_Program#The_First_Workout

You work up to a "5 RM" with good technical form until bar speed decreases.

When the Russians were experimenting with periodization and weightlifting, they formulated a bunch of things that are still used today include Prilepin's chart:

(bit more about that here: http://www.elitefts.com/documents/prilepins_chart.htm

In particular, the thing with reduction of repetitions where the speed of the bar decreases in the 3-6 repetition range corresponds to around the 55-65% 1 RM range which is exactly what is indicated for optimal progress in novice. (Also, Westside barbell uses it's speed/dynamic days around this range as well).

So in reality, Starting Strength first working encourages the lifter to start PRECISELY where they need to be to gain strength and mass for the novice which is around that 60% range as seen in the study.

Remember that novices have a great capacity to adapt so increasing the weight 5-10 lbs per workout actually keeps the "5 RM" of SS down near 60 -> 70% for a while. It generally takes a 3+ months (if not 6 or more) for linear progression to end, and that's when you actually reach your ~85% 5 RM.

That make a bit more sense? SS actually follows what is "optimal" very closely.


But anyway, analyzing a meta study you'd need to see their inclusion and exclusion criteria and their analysis of the data aggregation. So.. if you can get ahold of the article we can do that.

On August 13 2011 09:12 infinity21 wrote:
Yeah, I read that article before but kind of miscalculated I guess
According to Martin's formula, my potential is at ~175 lbs but I'm guessing this is after years of training? How much can I expect to grow within 1 year? That's the time frame I'm looking at right now, to coincide with the time that I'm graduating uni.

I know it's pretty dependent on genetics but for some background info, I used to weigh about 65kg in highschool with around the same bf% (guesstimated) and gained ~30 lbs during university (5 lbs of which I lost on a mini diet last month), probably mostly on my upper body. A guy from my dorm took me to the gym and got me to do stuff like bench, curls, etc. and I gained mass pretty quickly.

I've been going to the gym irregularly in the last couple of months. I've made some tiny gains on my lifts. e.g. 115 bench to 125, 115 squat to 135 (though to be fair I've done a set of 5 @ 155.. just didn't have the stamina for additional sets). The only major improvement imo was 3-2-1 bw chinups (lol) to 3x5 with 10 lbs, which I did religiously for the whole term (put 3 guys that like to work out into a house with 2 chin-up bars... random 2 am chin-up sessions will ensue lol).

I plan to get a pair of 2.5lb plates because the gym I go to doesn't have them so I haven't been able to make steady increases in my lifts. I think that was the missing piece for me since I have no freaking idea how people can make linear gains for so long. I'm more or less a beginner too I haven't been able to stick to a solid program and need to start doing deadlifts and overhead presses. What the fuck did I just write :/
/ramble

On August 13 2011 09:14 JeeJee wrote:
Particularly I found it very interesting that untrained improve fastest with 60% 1RM (with quite large variation), whereas 'trained' improve best with 80% 1RM (with VERY low variation).
The reason it confuses me is that.. in SS, you're definitely not working with 60% 1RM. You're kind of working in the 5RM-6RM area, which is about 85% 1RM. Isn't that too heavy for just about everyone starting SS (i.e untrained)? At least, according to this?

On August 13 2011 09:50 infinity21 wrote:

Yeah, I was just responding to what glurio said and I still plan to get 2.5 lb plates since 10 lb jumps are simply too much for me. Maybe it works for other people but unless I worked up my 125 bench to something like 6x6 and then go for 3x5 @135, I don't see myself making that jump so easily or as consistently.

I'm just hoping my fat magically turns to muscle if I do enough chinups :D

On August 13 2011 09:47 JeeJee wrote:



Ah, that does make more sense.
But it raises another question! So if SS takes you from untrained to trained (roughly), you're still working with 85% 1RM at the end -- i.e. once you're "trained". According to the meta analysis (full paper I uploaded here btw [url blocked] for trained folks, the peak strength gains are at 80% 1RM, and are significantly worse at 85% and 75% 1RM.

I can't really believe 5% matters that much tbh, which is why I'm questioning this whole meta-study, heh. Then again, maybe that comes back to their reluctance to define 'trained' and 'untrained' and 'athlete' etc. I suppose if you're a super advanced athlete, 5% will matter a lot.. but then most of us would fall in the 'untrained' category where, again, 60% 1RM rules.

Bah confusing.

On August 13 2011 09:58 eshlow wrote:


Link don't work :\

I agree with your assessment though.

One of the things I don't liek about "trained" or whatever else definitions in the literature are is that they're not based on weightlifting standards which are a better gauge of if someone is "beginner/novice" "intermediate" etc. I know people who have been in the gym for 10+ year and they're "trained" but still doing the same weights and not making any progress.

But yeah, some intermediate programs like the Texas method vary % per week:
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/The_Texas_Method

In general, with training I am kinda distrustful on the science in a lot of cases since training methods have been spelled out since the '60s and '70s and been developed in the weight room to progress. You don't need science to tell someone what works based from decades of anecdotal experience.

On August 13 2011 09:59 infinity21 wrote:

I think the advice in this thread is pretty consistent and wrong info gets shut down pretty quickly by eshlow
When I'm done exams, I'm going to spend some time to work out a routine and set some specific goals. Atm my goal is to get as strong as possible while cutting down to 7% bf over a 1 year period. I'll prob end up following SS or SL but add weighted chin-ups since I <3 those.
I'd like to hear some recommendations. I think posting it here is fine since I'd want other people's inputs as well anyway.