Yeah sorry I get a bit annoyed by Rip's articles? Maybe his writing style just irks me. What about the differences in squat style and grip width. Rip seems to always ignore these anatomical driven differences that I think are pertinent in the discussion. His teaching "how" is a very narrow minded method that most other strength guru's would disagree with. Squat style for example, low bar, wide bar, stare at the ground etc... there is just no flexibility with him, so yeah I agree examine the teacher. But overall it is really hard to mimic the potential of squats, deadlifts, presses and bench with other exercises or machines. I do think they should make up the backbone in any lifting program. Or if you make them the backbone of your program it will likely be much more efficient at strength development than most other programs. I'd like to make a generalization too about the steroid usage theory but I really have no frame of reference so maybe Rip is right about people starting drug use too early?
Yeah I have been thinking about how to optimize the whole body concept this week. The split routine feels pretty good to me this week and I don't want to make any premature predictions about the benefits, although I kind of miss that full body pump. As for descending sets I am working in the ranges 4/3/2 for DL's and the 5/3/2 for the upper body stuff. With always increasing weights. It is exactly like what you used to do.
Some good things I have noticed, the high rep sets aren't too hard or the low rep set isn't too easy which I experience on my straight weight 1/2/3 ladders in the squat. Also a set of two doesn't give you any room for hitting a max weight like I could get away with a single rep. This also forces me to keep the set of 4/5 heavy but not in danger of failure if I keep the weights split by 5 or 10kgs between sets.
I have been semi-supersetting my lifts. Today I did the power cleans and presses together and the high rep pull ups and bench. I think if you are doing 3 intensity lifts you could probably get away with coupling them with the higher volume lifts. Then you get some overall intensity and density effect as well?
But yeah I think 6 intense full body lifts is very likely too much to sustain for longer periods of time so splitting might be good. I am actually kind of surprised you still want to do some assistance work after that. I was toast after my full body sessions.
Yah, Rip's put-upon, grumpy old man schtick wears thin, I know what you mean. On the other hand, I find his technical descriptions clear and engaging, kind of like a sweaty Earnest Hemingway.
Different squat styles serve different purposes, but I think the point about everyone being able to do some kind of barbell squat might be valid. I really have no idea. But it doesn't seem like both Rip and Brad can be right, and I trust Rip's honesty. He's a dickhead at times, but I don't think he's a bullshitter. I know it took me a while to figure out how to squat and what grip/stance/bar-position/depth best suited me, so it's easy to imagine a coach prematurely ruling out an individual's ability to squat due to the coach's laziness in figuring those things out. And of course, it's still commonly thought that "squats will ruin your knees" or "deadlifts will ruin your back" so that explains a little bit Rip's frustration and bluntness when he has to argue against all the fitness bs on the internet and in lower level certification courses and state university exercise science classes. I'd much rather listen to someone who's trained thousands of average athletes than some poorly organized study conducted among college students, sometimes untrained even, for 12 weeks.
Anyway, that wasn't directed against you, just me writing down my two cents' worth with respect to the debate in the comments. After a while one gets a sense of who makes the most sense and Rip is one of those guys, along with Wendler, Dan John, Cosgrove, and some others. Guys who focus on the basics and have thought long and hard about the logic behind their programming choices. You still have to modify their ideas to suit your goals, results, motivation, etc., but it's easier when most of the BS has already been filtered out by their no-nonsense experience. Yesterday while stretching out in my straddle stretch contraption, I was going over Rip's "Practical Programming" book, and I was impressed with his rhetorical style and reasoning. On the websites he tends to adopt more of his pissy aggressive style.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I thought the second article I linked to in my last comment was a particularly good summary of the volume/intensity, sets/reps options we've been discussing lately. I think it's right to introduce some variety within one's weekly routine, but as you point out the trick is trying to optimize the variety for one's goals, time available, and motivation. Although sometimes I wonder if I'm just looking to adjust things for the sake of change alone. I dunno. But does seem like there's been a slow, steady improvement in my understanding and implementation of strength training protocols, principles, and parameters over the last year. It's hard to say with the recent spat of injury and rehab, but I feel like progress has sped up during this time.
So there's really no reason to change this cycle's 3/10/5 wave scheme, but if there's a little tweak that might improve it, then why not, right? I guess it's mostly a feeling I got this morning, feeling good after a semi-decent running session the day before, that it might be time to do some singles again. Just a feeling, no real reason for it. So then doing something like you're doing popped into my mind. Descending rep-counts and percentages are already worked out in my chart, so it would be easy. Then I thought what it would be like to do drop-sets or something like that more often, and the idea of splitting things up a bit came in. I'm not sure if I agree that it will be any easier that way, because the volume and high rep workouts also take a lot out of me too. But it would be a way of attaining an even fuller workout twice a week if I work volume and intensity in both workouts. Don't know what the implications are physiologically. It's true intensity days are intense, but so are volume days. I think a full body routine is always going to be hard if you're pushing a parameter. So yeah, you're right that it's hard to motivate for assistance stuff after either the intensity or volume day. Hench the idea of possibly throwing all that stuff into Wednesday's workout. Of course, I could just stick to doing the same six lifts with higher reps on Wednesdays, but a little more variety might help keep things fresh. So basically two hard days and one easy day in the middle.
Anyway, thanks, as always for your input.
One thing about your split routine, I think I've read Cosgrove and a few others from the 'back to the basics' school of thought say there's really only two good or necessary programs for 80-90 percent of the population, and those are either a full body routine or an upper/lower split routine. I think your adoption of a split routine makes perfect sense given your ambitions as a runner. Now that I'm running again, I'm once again a little concerned with how all the squat work is going to fit in. It was easy to do squats every workout when I wasn't running much.
I don't know anything about the steroid argument. Some of the posters in the comments section called bullshit on Rip's claim that players are using steroids as a substitute for strength training. I didn't play college football but my older brother did and all his teammates did serious free weights, but that was way back when. Personally, I have never had any curiosity about using PEDs, and the potential side effects scare me. One guy I lifted with in Chicago blew out his elbows that way. I guess I didn't really find the article itself as interesting as the exchange between Rip and Brad. I had recently become acquainted with Brad's name because he commented on Thibaudeau's Ratios/Weaknesses article and said that he had also worked out a ratio scheme for a lot of the basic lifts. It was Brad, I think, who said a 7/5 ratio of deadlift to squat (140%) is more realistic than a 5/4 ratio (125%). That jibes with my experience, so I found it interesting that he disagreed with Rip about different joint types and their ability to do the basic barbell movements.
The supersetting idea is interesting, thanks. The problem with supersetting for me is mental. I tend to like to stay focused on one lift until I'm done with it. Whether it's volume, or intensity, or higher reps, I need to stay focused in order to summon the motivation for each set. But I should give it a serious try at some point, and your idea of supersetting or alternating between an intensity lift and a volume lift could really be a great approach to the proposed split volume/intensity protocol. I tend to take longer than you and BA to work out, so any time-saving idea is appreciated.
Good luck on the race this weekend!
...
