The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
A beginner would be fine on those program's because their real 1RM is so much lower than their strength due to lack of co-ordination
-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
lol @ Mehdi not being bigger because he doesn't take steroids
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
Precisely...
The time in these programs would be well earned as a step to doing something more advanced...
Bench Polkov
SIR BENCHALOT
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
Lol.... Nazzy gets owned....
With the exception that a novice at home will struggle to do that on their own... Would need some one to show them...
Last edited:
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
Lol....
Oni and Ryan... Go back and read this thread from 2011...
It's Interesting how much both your views have changed...
http://ausbb.com/power-lifting/15951-strong-lifts-5-x-5-a.html
Oni and Ryan... Go back and read this thread from 2011...
It's Interesting how much both your views have changed...
http://ausbb.com/power-lifting/15951-strong-lifts-5-x-5-a.html
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
RyanF
Member
Times do change.
In that thread, I pointed out that less weight for more sets gives a beginner more practice and helps ingrain the movement pattern before the weights get hard, and I still stand by that. I also said that if you're competent at the lifts, you don't need as much practice. Since then I've come to the conclusion that technique is always a work in progress, so I'm not sure I'd still stand by that statement. I no longer stand by the claim that SS is worth its weight in gold for technique instruction, although it is very clear on what Rippetoe thinks each lift should be like and how he wants you to do each lift while on the program, which is perhaps more useful for a beginner than a dot-point list of descriptions. At the time, I would have taken Rippetoe's technique points as the way to lift, now I take them as a way to lift. I'm not sure if there are any exercises that I still do by the book.
On the second page, I said this: "It's really not a matter of one program being better than the other. Each has its pros and cons. I just think SL suits the complete beginner better, and SS suits the lifter who's coming back from layoff better." I'd probably still go by that, although, as I've addressed throughout this thread, I still think that both programs warrant modification to make them properly balanced. Again, I don't have any issues with what's in the SS or SL programming, but with what isn't in it. SL is less imbalanced than SS because of all the rowing, but there's still twice as much pushing in it.
On the second page, I also said that pull ups are better than barbell rows. FWIW, at the time of writing that I know I didn't think that vertical pulls are better than horizontal pulls (haven't thought that since 2008, although I did before that when I considered pull ups a test of strength), I'd just had crap experience with Pendlay rows in particular. Still haven't managed to use them effectively, although I get a lot out of seated rows. I probably would have been quicker to bash Pendlay rows back then due to my experience with them, but I know that they work for a lot of people, so now my stance is the more mellow "row in a way that works for you." I do think that some form of vertical pull and some form of horizontal pull should be in any cookie-cutter program, and that they should be worked just as much as the pushes.
In that thread, I pointed out that less weight for more sets gives a beginner more practice and helps ingrain the movement pattern before the weights get hard, and I still stand by that. I also said that if you're competent at the lifts, you don't need as much practice. Since then I've come to the conclusion that technique is always a work in progress, so I'm not sure I'd still stand by that statement. I no longer stand by the claim that SS is worth its weight in gold for technique instruction, although it is very clear on what Rippetoe thinks each lift should be like and how he wants you to do each lift while on the program, which is perhaps more useful for a beginner than a dot-point list of descriptions. At the time, I would have taken Rippetoe's technique points as the way to lift, now I take them as a way to lift. I'm not sure if there are any exercises that I still do by the book.
On the second page, I said this: "It's really not a matter of one program being better than the other. Each has its pros and cons. I just think SL suits the complete beginner better, and SS suits the lifter who's coming back from layoff better." I'd probably still go by that, although, as I've addressed throughout this thread, I still think that both programs warrant modification to make them properly balanced. Again, I don't have any issues with what's in the SS or SL programming, but with what isn't in it. SL is less imbalanced than SS because of all the rowing, but there's still twice as much pushing in it.
On the second page, I also said that pull ups are better than barbell rows. FWIW, at the time of writing that I know I didn't think that vertical pulls are better than horizontal pulls (haven't thought that since 2008, although I did before that when I considered pull ups a test of strength), I'd just had crap experience with Pendlay rows in particular. Still haven't managed to use them effectively, although I get a lot out of seated rows. I probably would have been quicker to bash Pendlay rows back then due to my experience with them, but I know that they work for a lot of people, so now my stance is the more mellow "row in a way that works for you." I do think that some form of vertical pull and some form of horizontal pull should be in any cookie-cutter program, and that they should be worked just as much as the pushes.
Jungnaut
YOLO Kunce
How do I go about balancing a program with the push pull aspect? Is it a matter of making sure the number of push reps equals the number of pull reps for each workout? Or do I have to take into account that some exercises have a higher push/pull factor than others or that its upper body/lower body? eg Bench > Overhead press due to weight being much greater?
So lets say for example for this workout:
Squats 3 x 5 (15 push)
Overhead Press 3 x 5 (15 push)
Deadlift 3 x 5 (15 Pull)
Pull Ups 3 x 10 (30 Pull)
Total 30 push : 45 pull
would this be balanced, even though pull > push, the weights with the push is greater than the pull and hence it balances out?
The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
There are too many variables to give a cookie cutter answer
Eg posture, muscle imbalances
For me I know I have to do a lot of trap and rear Delt orientated work to help fix tight pecs and lats. So I'd be doing more shrugs and seated rows than Pulldowns for example
Eg posture, muscle imbalances
For me I know I have to do a lot of trap and rear Delt orientated work to help fix tight pecs and lats. So I'd be doing more shrugs and seated rows than Pulldowns for example
RyanF
Member
I wouldn't say this is accurate 100% of the time, but I'd be focusing more on the number of sets than reps, and the intensity (bodybuilder intensity, not %1RM intensity) of those sets. So, that workout you've suggested there looks reasonably balanced to me. In saying that, as Grahamburgler pointed out, there are a lot of factors to consider, so it's not always easy to give a clear-cut answer. Technically upright rows are a pull, but you probably won't get as much counter-balance from them for your bench press or overhead press as you would from rear delt rows or lat pull downs (in fact, upright rows have a lot of doubling up in the muscles they train compared with overhead press). The nuts and bolts of balancing out a program come from understanding antagonist muscle groups and what muscles you're training (not just using) in a given lift.
nazzysmith
kuncesmith
jj80
Member
Something like this is fine.
Something I found out recently for what it's worth...
The round shouldered look and some shoulder issues are caused by weak rhomboids and rear delts. If you do rows with your arms alongside your body, these muscles are not really worked, it becomes a lat exercise. You need facepulls or barbell rows with your elbows 'flared' (just like they shouldnt be in bench press).
The Hamburgler
Spotter Loader
That and the lats internally rotate the shoulder too, which catches a lot of people out
"Oh my shoulders are rounded, I'll do lat Pulldowns and DB rows"
Then f*ckin bang, blown cuff
"Oh my shoulders are rounded, I'll do lat Pulldowns and DB rows"
Then f*ckin bang, blown cuff
Goosey
.
I believe it is, as with all basic programs a very good starting point.
Although at some point in time the neophyte will need to adjust.
In a perfect world, just doing a rotation of exercises (incline dumbbell press, barrel/sphere work, bent-arm pullover and dips and such) as part of a well thought out routine should suffice.
We know there are more muscles in the back, what we are trying to do here is maintain shoulder stability.
jj80
Member
Yep, lat pulldowns and DB rows are exactly what I did.... Lots of pulling to balance the pushing! (I hate that term, its more complex, its almost as bad as "turning fat into muscle")
I did hurt my shoulder, but I think it was more due to pulling past parallel on rows and pulling my chest to the bar on chins (rather than just chin to the bar, big ROM difference for me).
Not sure if I hurt my rotator, but it definitely pulled my shoulders forward, and I'd get a lot of aching after chins/DB rows.