The BBM general model

[ithryn]

I'm trying to catch up on this but is this a good "explain like I'm five" summary of what's developed here?

1. SS/SSC/SSOC is still operating on the idea that heavy weights for low sets are the main driver of progress (strength increase).

2. BBM is showing that hypertrophic growth of the muscle matters, you simply need to increase muscle mass period and you can do this better without hitting the 90-95% wall all the time.

3. It's coming to a head over the subject of training old people merely because you probably have to choice with these people, they need the correct training. And because Sully is coming out more as the old people training guru, yet might be wrong about the need to decrease volume on these folks when in reality they need more volume - but more intelligently programmed volume, not just 5x5s.

4. As an Andy Baker guy myself....he seems to be on Team Rip/Reynolds/Sully, but also programs shitloads of hypertrophy work, clearly maintains muscle growth is a driver of progress, seems to informally use an RPE framework, and does not pull his rows from the floor.

I guess I'm getting excited about what BBM is laying down but I'm already getting (some of?) that with Andy.

[stevan]

Why the hell would you wanna read some weird study after 40 years of experience??? I freaking love that argument.

[Manveer]

Once again, everyone else needs data (eg where are the double blind studies on RPE), but SS/SSOC has experience with old people. (Implied: And no one else has experience..)

[quark]

It says something that SS/SSOC refuse to engage in a discussion with BBM. At best, they attack a strawman version of the BBM arguments.

It also says something that SS/SSOC publish a paper on intermediate programming, but then many SSCs contradict that paper in practice, without appearing to care or even notice the contradiction.

I would really like to see a serious discussion, but suspect it will never happen. By all appearances, it won't happen because SS/SSOC have no rejoinders beyond "years of experience".

[MattimusMaximus]

Look, just do your fahves and keep adding weight until you can't do your fahves anymore. Reset your best fahves weight by 10% and perform progressive fahves again. Keep repeating until injury or you feel like giving up, then eat moar, take Ibuprofen and reset again.

You're welcome. #truestorybro #beingfacetious

[Stenson]

I admit this is kind of a weak argument, but...

Do any high level IPF lifters use Asgaardian programming? If any, it's gotta be a very small percentage compared to DUP, RTS, etc. That alone should tell you their knowledge of advanced programming with regards to "experience"

It seem that rather than address this fact, Rip and his lap dogs would rather just shit on powerlifting in an attempt to de-legitimize the sport, rather than swallow this pill of information

[Wilhelm]

And then get their lifters beaten in their own federation by those using different methods.

[Manveer]

And then get their lifters beaten in their own federation by those using different methods.

GODDAMMIT!!! FUCK!!!

[Stenson]

And then get their lifters beaten in their own federation by those using different methods.

Not only get beat, but their golden boy's numbers went DOWN in the 3 months between meets.

[quark]

I really look forward to Part III of BBM's podcast on programming in which they are scheduled to discuss practical advice, after having laid the theoretical groundwork in the first two parts and the model outlined in this thread.

And then get their lifters beaten in their own federation by those using different methods.

Just because Chase regressed and Jordan is advancing and beat him doesn't mean science is better than 40 years of coaching experience, does it?

[Manveer]

I really look forward to Part III of BBM's podcast on programming in which they are scheduled to discuss practical advice, after having laid the theoretical groundwork in the first two parts and the model outlined in this thread.

And then get their lifters beaten in their own federation by those using different methods.

Just because Chase regressed and Jordan is advancing and beat him doesn't mean science is better than 40 years of coaching experience, does it?

Chase’s performance was declining from one meet to the next, which was clear before the meet happened. If you use RPE/e1RM.

It’s not 40 years of coaching experience vs science, it’s Rip’s (or whoever at WFAC programmed for Chase) programming vs. Mike T’s.

[GlasgowJock]

Don't get why hypertrophy blocks or work to increase mass for further strength gains comes across as a revelation in some quarters; WSM competitors have been highlighting for years they do it in between comps ("need to get bigger to subsequently get stronger ") likes of eddie hall highlighting this competing against Thor, Shaw etc.

[BigDave]

Don't get why hypertrophy blocks or work to increase mass for further strength gains comes across as a revelation in some quarters

It’s not. SS have been saying for as long as I can remember that hypertrophy is necessary to continue getting stronger. The difference seems to be that SS believes heavy high intensity work + food emphasis does enough to promote hypertrophy in the intermediate population, whereas BBM emphasize doing more volume etc.

Reminds me of this notion that SS never admitted that volume has to go up over time. They’ve always said that. The difference is that BBM emphasizes this earlier (ie no TM style peak before moving on from a novice program), believes that volume accumulation at a lower intensity makes more sense than near maximal fahves, and uses more variation and autoregulation to achieve it.

There’s many real philosophical differences, no need to get cult like, assume the worst at all times, attack strawmen.

[ithryn]

this notion that SS never admitted that volume has to go up over time. They’ve always said that. The difference is that BBM emphasizes this earlier (ie no TM style peak before moving on from a novice program), believes that volume accumulation at a lower intensity makes more sense than near maximal fahves, and uses more variation and autoregulation to achieve it.

This had been my impression. Though I suspect a lot of people just never get past the SS/TM early intermediate stage before they get to a point where you would start playing with volume like this, whereas BBM says this step is unnecessary.

[mgil]

this notion that SS never admitted that volume has to go up over time. They’ve always said that. The difference is that BBM emphasizes this earlier (ie no TM style peak before moving on from a novice program), believes that volume accumulation at a lower intensity makes more sense than near maximal fahves, and uses more variation and autoregulation to achieve it.

This had been my impression. Though I suspect a lot of people just never get past the SS/TM early intermediate stage before they get to a point where you would start playing with volume like this, whereas BBM says this step is unnecessary.

SS has been more about “recovery takes longer because volume has to go up”. That’s why you get TM with 5x5 being interpreted as “high volume” because the single session volume goes up. However, the long term volume drops.

SS is de facto asserting that MPS is all of a sudden taking longer as a result of training. That’s not true. Recovery “takes longer” because the trainee is beat up.

[ithryn]

That’s why you get TM with 5x5 being interpreted as “high volume”

Good point.

[BigDave]

SS has been more about “recovery takes longer because volume has to go up”. That’s why you get TM with 5x5 being interpreted as “high volume” because the single session volume goes up. However, the long term volume drops.

SS is de facto asserting that MPS is all of a sudden taking longer as a result of training. That’s not true. Recovery “takes longer” because the trainee is beat up.

Another good point of true distinction here: the idea of discrete "overload events" vs. a constant process of adaptation. I think BBM hits the nail on the head here. The evidence and physiological reasoning both favor that this process is ongoing, that MPS doesn't stay elevated longer as someone becomes trained, etc. This is why DUP and HLM (especially if getting a good dose of stress each day, medium-medium-medium as Jordan has said) work better than Texas Method

I always wondered why as PPST evolved and Rip's thinking on programming seemed to mature (may just have been by nature of including Andy Baker), they didn't ever discuss the fitness-fatigue model (reference: http://elitetrack.com/article_files/fitness-fatigue.pdf) as opposed to the bare bones supercompensation (SRA) model.

[KyleSchuant]

I always wondered why as PPST evolved and Rip's thinking on programming seemed to mature (may just have been by nature of including Andy Baker),

Rip's thinking didn't change, Baker just wrote some bits. There was an exchange on the forum where someone mentioned a programming idea, and Rip said, "that's not what we do," and the guy gave a page reference in PPST3e, and Rip said, "right, Baker wrote that bit and I don't have it memorised," and went on to answer some other question nobody had asked. But at least before PPST3e came out, Rip used to say, "I'm not a programming guy, I'm a coaching movement guy, talk to Baker."

I realise it's unusual that someone acknowledges the limits of their knowledge, so it's easy to miss it.

Just because Chase regressed and Jordan is advancing and beat him doesn't mean science is better than 40 years of coaching experience, does it?

I don't know if you've done a meet, or coached anyone at it, or seen someone in person going through the prep and onto the day itself, but you can't take much from the results of one lifter. You can't use them to advertise your brand, nor can you use them to say someone's approach is wrong. Many things influence all the preparation towards meet day, and many other things influence the results on the day itself. Not all of those things are under the control of the coach, and many of them aren't even in the control of the lifter.

However, these variations average out over many lifters. So while you can't judge from one, you can judge from a bunch of them. Don't look at Chase or Feigenbaum, look at larger groups. It's like if Hanley had some ideas and tried them on himself, it wouldn't tell us much, but that he's trying them with, what is it, 30 people or so? that tells us a lot more.

[cole]

This is a great thread. I really like the BBM model. I also like RTS. I don't think it's fair to say they are better than SS. Everything is relative. If you are new to lifting, SS is great! Most of us are beyond our novice phase, so BBM is a much better model.

SS is very scientific when it comes to the mechanics of the movements themselves. However, the programming is very anecdotal and traditional. BBM, RTS are much more scientific in nature regarding programming theory and overall strength gain zzzzzzz

[Manveer]

I don't know if you've done a meet, or coached anyone at it, or seen someone in person going through the prep and onto the day itself, but you can't take much from the results of one lifter. You can't use them to advertise your brand, nor can you use them to say someone's approach is wrong. Many things influence all the preparation towards meet day, and many other things influence the results on the day itself. Not all of those things are under the control of the coach, and many of them aren't even in the control of the lifter.

If a young, healthy male has been lifting for five years consistently and Texas Method is being programmed, I think you can say the approach is wrong.