6 ms·

Rippetoe's workout is not as simple as the article portrays "built around five old-fashioned lifts" and all that. The rumors people may have heard are true, he

by VLM 12y ago

Rippetoe's workout is not as simple as the article portrays "built around five old-fashioned lifts" and all that. The rumors people may have heard are true, he really does write sixty pages on how to squat properly without hurting yourself, and other exercises. The article also has a strong style over substance aspect wrt "photographs were so poorly shot". No they're actually pretty awesome if you're trying to learn how to do this safely. Its like complaining that an engineering blueprint of a perfect engine camshaft doesn't capture the fluffy marketing message of the car, well, yeah, that's kinda not the point... Its interesting how SS has taken over the field. I've been lifting on and off (mostly off) for about 30 years and will certainly start back up again sooner or later, and its interesting watching how the field has almost universally crystallized on SS for the noobs. In like, the 80s, there was a lot more variety and a lifter might start on machines or freeweights fairly randomly.

SwellJoe 12y ago
I have the same sort of, and similar length, history with weight training. I believe that's because it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. And, the difference is large enough that even people outside of weight lifting circles have a vague awareness of this. In the 80s, it was still really popular to use machines because they were "safer" (which is not necessarily true), they isolated specific muscles for training (mostly true, but not actually optimal), and they seemed easier than learning proper form for lifting free weights (it's still pretty easy to do it wrong with a machine). That said, my first exposure to weight training was via a Gold's Gym book that I got at a garage sale, which also focused solely on free weights. I think the gym rats have always known iron was superior to rubber bands and elaborate systems of ropes and pulleys.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  > it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go on about stabilizer muscles, when there's no such thing. Machines are safer than barbells. For overhead and pull-down stuff the good machines minimize dangerous shoulder stress. Barbell squats and deadlifts quite simply are somewhat dangerous and even very experienced people manage to tweak their backs.
  - HelloMcFly 12y ago
    Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      I didn't say machines are more effective. I said they're safer, and that free weights are not magically more effective than machines. I also didn't say the deadlift has no athletic benefit. I said it is fetishized and its usefulness is blown out of all proportion. It's seductive because a beginner can rapidly increase loads. But mostly it builds mass that is not very useful for real sports and impairs endurance. Always betting against the puffed up fighter has been a reliable betting strategy. If you want to spend your training capacity building up to a 500# deadlift, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's particularly impressive or will help you do much else other than deadlift.
      - HelloMcFly 12y ago
        Your comment said you doubt the increased effectiveness of free weights over machines, which seems hard to doubt. Like I said, I think debating the claim that free weights are safer is totally fair; it seems the real conversation is about which type of safety the other is talking about. As for the deadlift, I get your point. I do think that you are making it an either-or thing, in that you're either piling on mass with the deadlift or your not getting stronger. Athletes don't do starting strength, they should be using the deadlift as part of a well-rounded training routine rather than trying to set PR after PR. I agree with you that a singular focus on deadlifts/squats for most athletes is detrimental, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. I'd also bet against the athlete who focused on it in such a way. Anecdotally though, I've found the deadlift to be very functional for me. And who are you to say that someone moving from 135 to a 350lb deadlift, and then maybe to 500lbs isn't impressive? I'm impressed with anyone that can motivate themselves to some sort of physical goal. I think it's your derision that I find most off-putting. Deadlifting is hard work that takes time, so kudos to anyone that sticks with and improves themselves in a way that makes them happy. Yeah, almost everyone can do it, but most people don't. Is running a marathon impressive? What about a triathlon? Biking a century? Or are the only things worth being impressed by the things genetics make impossible for the masses?

by VLM 12y ago

SwellJoe 12y ago

I have the same sort of, and similar length, history with weight training. I believe that's because it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. And, the difference is large enough that even people outside of weight lifting circles have a vague awareness of this. In the 80s, it was still really popular to use machines because they were "safer" (which is not necessarily true), they isolated specific muscles for training (mostly true, but not actually optimal), and they seemed easier than learning proper form for lifting free weights (it's still pretty easy to do it wrong with a machine). That said, my first exposure to weight training was via a Gold's Gym book that I got at a garage sale, which also focused solely on free weights. I think the gym rats have always known iron was superior to rubber bands and elaborate systems of ropes and pulleys.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
> it's pretty widely accepted now that free weights are more effective than machines. I don't buy that. The people who say that stuff are the same ones who go on about stabilizer muscles, when there's no such thing. Machines are safer than barbells. For overhead and pull-down stuff the good machines minimize dangerous shoulder stress. Barbell squats and deadlifts quite simply are somewhat dangerous and even very experienced people manage to tweak their backs.
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  Between you believing the deadlift has no athletic benefit, and thinking machines are more effective than free weights, I'm wondering what your background in fitness is. I think the debate about safety is reasonable though.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    I didn't say machines are more effective. I said they're safer, and that free weights are not magically more effective than machines. I also didn't say the deadlift has no athletic benefit. I said it is fetishized and its usefulness is blown out of all proportion. It's seductive because a beginner can rapidly increase loads. But mostly it builds mass that is not very useful for real sports and impairs endurance. Always betting against the puffed up fighter has been a reliable betting strategy. If you want to spend your training capacity building up to a 500# deadlift, go for it. Just don't kid yourself that it's particularly impressive or will help you do much else other than deadlift.
    - HelloMcFly 12y ago
      Your comment said you doubt the increased effectiveness of free weights over machines, which seems hard to doubt. Like I said, I think debating the claim that free weights are safer is totally fair; it seems the real conversation is about which type of safety the other is talking about. As for the deadlift, I get your point. I do think that you are making it an either-or thing, in that you're either piling on mass with the deadlift or your not getting stronger. Athletes don't do starting strength, they should be using the deadlift as part of a well-rounded training routine rather than trying to set PR after PR. I agree with you that a singular focus on deadlifts/squats for most athletes is detrimental, but that doesn't mean it has no place whatsoever. I'd also bet against the athlete who focused on it in such a way. Anecdotally though, I've found the deadlift to be very functional for me. And who are you to say that someone moving from 135 to a 350lb deadlift, and then maybe to 500lbs isn't impressive? I'm impressed with anyone that can motivate themselves to some sort of physical goal. I think it's your derision that I find most off-putting. Deadlifting is hard work that takes time, so kudos to anyone that sticks with and improves themselves in a way that makes them happy. Yeah, almost everyone can do it, but most people don't. Is running a marathon impressive? What about a triathlon? Biking a century? Or are the only things worth being impressed by the things genetics make impossible for the masses?