6 ms·

For those curious to get started, Starting Strength, by Mark Rippetoe is the gold standard in beginners programming. http://startingstrength.com/ http://startin

by gxs 9y ago

For those curious to get started, Starting Strength, by Mark Rippetoe is the gold standard in beginners programming. http://startingstrength.com/ http://startingstrength.com/ It takes you through the basic compound exercises and talks about some important concepts in weight training, highly recommend it. I worked on this basic program that requires you to go to the gym 3 times a week and basic linear progression got me up to a 400lbs squat for reps at the age of 28. It took about 18 months to get there. My biggest regret is that I stopped going to the gym, if you do start, please keep going. It's better to go and do something easy than to undo the habit.

vinay427 9y ago
There's no consensus that Starting Strength is the gold standard. Other popular programs are StrongLifts and now a variant on Greyskull LP [1]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/iLhAJBl_d.jpg https://i.imgur.com/iLhAJBl_d.jpg
- appleiigs 9y ago
  FWIW, I've heard of it as the gold standard too. At minimum, it's a good place to start.
- dpark 9y ago
  None of those are meaningfully different. At core, they're all the same program: 1. Basic compound lifts 2. Linear progression 3. 3x5 (StrongLifts also switches to 3x5 once the weights get heavy) There are some differences, but they're pretty minor and people nitpicking them for beginners are mostly wasting time because it really doesn't matter that much.
  - TheCapn 9y ago
    They're meaningfully different in how they approach failure. StrongLifts is worse off in this regard for the reason that they teach reducing volume once you start running into plateaus in order to artificially progress. "Benching that lift too hard? Well cut out 40% of the volume and keep going!" Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year. It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable.... but at that point you might as well just run a better program. They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term. Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Starting Strength is a starting programme for strength development. It's not a lifetime lifting regime. That's ... not made entirley clear, though Rippe does address this.
      - wayn3 9y ago
        its literally 50% of the name. programs not called perpetuity strength or elite strength or bodybuilders delight.
    - wdewind 9y ago
      > Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology No, starting strength tells you to take exactly two runs up until your failure weight and then move on to another program, which for many people works very well and allows them to progress far beyond weight they failed at. People who can run an SS linear progression for a year straight are rare, but they exist and they end up in the upper 3s, 4s and 5s for bench, squat and deadlift after their first year.
    - dpark 9y ago
      > They're meaningfully different in how they approach failure. All 3 of these programs do deloads to handle failure. StrongLifts also starts dropping sets/reps, but that's after deloading repeatedly at which point Starting Strength just says to go do a different program. So no meaningful difference until you have outgrown the program. > Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year. That's not running the program. You can't deload and work back up to the same weight repeatedly. You can call that Starting Strength but it's not. You get some number of deloads (3? can't recall) and then move to a different program. Pretty sure Starting Strength coaches will also tell you you're not eating/sleeping/training right if you keep getting stuck at a novice weight. > It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable.... Sure, but for someone untrained, this really doesn't matter much. Hence nitpicking. > They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term. They teach you to grow muscle and to learn to push yourself in the gym. Not sure what else a beginner program is supposed to teach. > Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs. What programs do better?
  - whiddershins 9y ago
    Agreed. The reason I would recommend Starting Strength for beginners is the tremendous detail in written instruction, forums with free feedback on form, and zero ambiguity about training program, which act together to remove the barriers to entry for many beginners.
- whiddershins 9y ago
  Yes and no. In a scientific sense you may have a great point. In a pragmatic/popularity and also anecdotal/conversational sense, I think Rippetoe can be comfortably called the gold standard. Anyway, I think his books are unparalleled.
- Nadya 9y ago
  What is this, an image for ants? Sorry, but I'm legitimately curious what that image was meant to be and it looks like you linked a thumbnail. Mid-post edit as the Google Image Search result comes in [0]. Amazing how I was able to find it with a reverse image search. I hadn't heard of the Greyskull variant, and I do 5x5 Stronglifts. [0] http://i.imgur.com/TxOyhuh.png http://i.imgur.com/TxOyhuh.png
dpark 9y ago
> My biggest regret is that I stopped going to the gym ? So go back.
Boothroid 9y ago
I think that for most people any (safe) strength training is the best programme. I'm also a bit sceptical about monstrous squats - enough of those and you'll compress the discs in your spine and end up shorter! I recall a Polish friend telling me that when Polish blokes came back from their military service they were generally a couple of inches shorter and a foot wider from all the intense lifting.
- dpark 9y ago
  > I'm also a bit sceptical about monstrous squats - enough of those and you'll compress the discs in your spine and end up shorter! No you won't. You're only spending a few minutes under the bar per day, even if you're a serious powerlifter.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    A quick google doesn't resolve it either way it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there is clear evidence.
    - dpark 9y ago
      There's literally no evidence. If lifting heavy weights made you shorter, there would be plenty of evidence.
- mslate 9y ago
  Citations, please
majjam 9y ago
I would also recommend Wendler 531 (https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/4sbgpw/531_how_to_build_pure_strength/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/4sbgpw/531_how_...), I switched to it from SS and have found it an excellent follow up program.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  By the time you're looking at follow-up programmes, you should start reading about periodisation, and why sticking with any one programme indefinitely limits further development. Stronglifts / 3x5 programmes are a good initiation. Once you're initiated, you want to understand the stimulus / response / rest / nutrition relationships, and identify what your specific training and fitness goals, needs, and limitations are. That's what you end up building a programme around. The problem with beginners -- in any field -- is that they tend to develop One True Religionism. If you've been doing nothing, then doing virtually anything is better. But that virtually anything can progress in response only up to a point. That's where the complications come in. The key point is that your goals determine your methods. Though the basics remain, for strength: full-body, compound, freeweight movements, with training frequency, set, rep, and inter-set rest intervals selected to address your specific goals. Similar principles drive other elements of fitness: cardio (if that's your thing), skill-based activities, etc. They can even be generalised to other domains of life.
  - Mc_Big_G 9y ago
    FYI, Periodization is built into 5/3/1

by gxs 9y ago

vinay427 9y ago

There's no consensus that Starting Strength is the gold standard. Other popular programs are StrongLifts and now a variant on Greyskull LP [1]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/iLhAJBl_d.jpg https://i.imgur.com/iLhAJBl_d.jpg

appleiigs 9y ago
FWIW, I've heard of it as the gold standard too. At minimum, it's a good place to start.
dpark 9y ago
None of those are meaningfully different. At core, they're all the same program: 1. Basic compound lifts 2. Linear progression 3. 3x5 (StrongLifts also switches to 3x5 once the weights get heavy) There are some differences, but they're pretty minor and people nitpicking them for beginners are mostly wasting time because it really doesn't matter that much.
- TheCapn 9y ago
  They're meaningfully different in how they approach failure. StrongLifts is worse off in this regard for the reason that they teach reducing volume once you start running into plateaus in order to artificially progress. "Benching that lift too hard? Well cut out 40% of the volume and keep going!" Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year. It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable.... but at that point you might as well just run a better program. They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term. Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Starting Strength is a starting programme for strength development. It's not a lifetime lifting regime. That's ... not made entirley clear, though Rippe does address this.
    - wayn3 9y ago
      its literally 50% of the name. programs not called perpetuity strength or elite strength or bodybuilders delight.
  - wdewind 9y ago
    > Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology No, starting strength tells you to take exactly two runs up until your failure weight and then move on to another program, which for many people works very well and allows them to progress far beyond weight they failed at. People who can run an SS linear progression for a year straight are rare, but they exist and they end up in the upper 3s, 4s and 5s for bench, squat and deadlift after their first year.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > They're meaningfully different in how they approach failure. All 3 of these programs do deloads to handle failure. StrongLifts also starts dropping sets/reps, but that's after deloading repeatedly at which point Starting Strength just says to go do a different program. So no meaningful difference until you have outgrown the program. > Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year. That's not running the program. You can't deload and work back up to the same weight repeatedly. You can call that Starting Strength but it's not. You get some number of deloads (3? can't recall) and then move to a different program. Pretty sure Starting Strength coaches will also tell you you're not eating/sleeping/training right if you keep getting stuck at a novice weight. > It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable.... Sure, but for someone untrained, this really doesn't matter much. Hence nitpicking. > They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term. They teach you to grow muscle and to learn to push yourself in the gym. Not sure what else a beginner program is supposed to teach. > Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs. What programs do better?
- whiddershins 9y ago
  Agreed. The reason I would recommend Starting Strength for beginners is the tremendous detail in written instruction, forums with free feedback on form, and zero ambiguity about training program, which act together to remove the barriers to entry for many beginners.
whiddershins 9y ago
Yes and no. In a scientific sense you may have a great point. In a pragmatic/popularity and also anecdotal/conversational sense, I think Rippetoe can be comfortably called the gold standard. Anyway, I think his books are unparalleled.
Nadya 9y ago
What is this, an image for ants? Sorry, but I'm legitimately curious what that image was meant to be and it looks like you linked a thumbnail. Mid-post edit as the Google Image Search result comes in [0]. Amazing how I was able to find it with a reverse image search. I hadn't heard of the Greyskull variant, and I do 5x5 Stronglifts. [0] http://i.imgur.com/TxOyhuh.png http://i.imgur.com/TxOyhuh.png

dpark 9y ago

> My biggest regret is that I stopped going to the gym ? So go back.

Boothroid 9y ago

I think that for most people any (safe) strength training is the best programme. I'm also a bit sceptical about monstrous squats - enough of those and you'll compress the discs in your spine and end up shorter! I recall a Polish friend telling me that when Polish blokes came back from their military service they were generally a couple of inches shorter and a foot wider from all the intense lifting.

dpark 9y ago
> I'm also a bit sceptical about monstrous squats - enough of those and you'll compress the discs in your spine and end up shorter! No you won't. You're only spending a few minutes under the bar per day, even if you're a serious powerlifter.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  A quick google doesn't resolve it either way it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there is clear evidence.
  - dpark 9y ago
    There's literally no evidence. If lifting heavy weights made you shorter, there would be plenty of evidence.
mslate 9y ago
Citations, please

majjam 9y ago

I would also recommend Wendler 531 (https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/4sbgpw/531_how_to_build_pure_strength/ https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/4sbgpw/531_how_...), I switched to it from SS and have found it an excellent follow up program.

dredmorbius 9y ago
By the time you're looking at follow-up programmes, you should start reading about periodisation, and why sticking with any one programme indefinitely limits further development. Stronglifts / 3x5 programmes are a good initiation. Once you're initiated, you want to understand the stimulus / response / rest / nutrition relationships, and identify what your specific training and fitness goals, needs, and limitations are. That's what you end up building a programme around. The problem with beginners -- in any field -- is that they tend to develop One True Religionism. If you've been doing nothing, then doing virtually anything is better. But that virtually anything can progress in response only up to a point. That's where the complications come in. The key point is that your goals determine your methods. Though the basics remain, for strength: full-body, compound, freeweight movements, with training frequency, set, rep, and inter-set rest intervals selected to address your specific goals. Similar principles drive other elements of fitness: cardio (if that's your thing), skill-based activities, etc. They can even be generalised to other domains of life.
- Mc_Big_G 9y ago
  FYI, Periodization is built into 5/3/1