Questions/Criticism re Starting Strength

Kadongy

I need to get back in shape. I decided to try Starting Strength because I like the idea of squatting every workout, and like the way it is mental and tells you to deadlift and squat on the same day. So far it seems great.

However some aspects of it raise questions in my mind:


1. Blocked Mineral Absorption

Firstly the "drink a gallon of milk" recommendation. The benefits are fairly obvious - you get loads of protein and calories as well as growth hormones. However in the long run it might create a bigger problem than it addresses, and I don't see this potential issue even mentioned, let alone adequately addressed. What I am talking about is the possibility of iron deficiency, as well as difficulty getting enough zinc, copper, magnesium [one of these might be out of place]. Calcium blocks the absorption of iron and [I think] the other minerals listed there. They also block the absorption of each other. All of them are pretty important for progressing in a weight training progamme...You also store enough of them that you are unlikely to develop a deficiency right away, so it is not going to be really obvious to make the connection without already knowing something about this.

It is very easy to become deficient in iron without unusual dietry adjustments that increase the possibility. Iron deficiency is the single most common nutritional issue in the world. If you look at the amount you should be getting, and the amount you typically consume, a lot of people will get a surprise. With the consumption of a gallon of milk a day, in addition to the fact its absorption is likely to be blocked by constantly flooding your system with calcium, you are also likely to be replacing good natural sources of it to some extent (ie: meat. Iron from meat is absorbed far better than vegetable iron).

It probably is possible to consume that much milk, and still get enough of these minerals. However it would require careful meal planning. If you just follow the suggestion of drinking loads of milk, without consideration to this issue, the odds are you are not going to get enough iron (or other minerals).


2. Lack of Variation

I'm not questioning the efficacy of the lifts the programme is based on. In fact the strong focus on big lifts is what attracts me to the programme in the first place. What I am questioning is the wisdom of not including some other exercises for other areas.

Plenty of people argue that the bench, press, deadlift and squat exercise the whole body sufficiently. I dont think they do; not without some additional work. This view is based on personal experience, from focusing very strongly on the bench, deadlift and squat before. My lower back was way stronger than my abdomen - an imbalance which manifested itself in it going into spasm when I tried very light Olympic Lifts. My chest and front shoulders were much stronger than my upper back - something I think was manifested by inadequate flexibility to perform overhead squats [my general flexibility is pretty good].

I should mention that the assessment that I had/have muscular imbalance came solely from myself, based on what I read and observed, and I am not a healthcare or fitness professional. However I am quite satisfied that clear imbalances existed. My conclusion is that additional exercises should be included for these areas, and possibly also for the hamstrings.


3. Philosophy

The stuff about physical strength being the most important thing in life. That's just stupid tbh. Maybe if you are a professional athlete or an advanced trainer. For most people, no of course it isn't. I don't even feel the need to support this, because I dont think statements like that should be taken seriously enough to do so.


----

Otherwise it seems great though.

d'Oracle

1. Drinking GOMAD is recommended as a strategy for very skinny young men who want to put on mass. Its neither an integral part of the programme nor is it recommended for most people.

2. Its one programme, which is intended for a finite period of time. There are a number of versions of it, but it works off the logic that for people with little or no training under their belts will get enough benefit from the core lifts than from specific assistance exercises. Deadlifts and squats as outlined in the book strengthen the hamstrings. Cleans and Deadlifts will strengthen the back. If one wants to to Chins or Pullups, there is a version which will allow that.

Also its a programme plan in a book, its not possible to plan for every possible imbalance or joint problem a person can have in one book. Thats what coaches and physios are for. If you do this alone you need to look after these things yourself.

3. I don't think it is stupid at all. I think everybody can benefit physically from increasing their strength. Like whats good about being weak? Why is it only top athletes and "advanced trainers" that should strive to be stronger?

jive

For point #1 - you don't have to drink that much milk - try blending up a glass of milk with oats / peanut butter / fruit / whey. More calories in less time and a larger variety of nutrients.

#2 - Throw in some barbell rows, ab excercises and hamstring isolation excercises if you need them. Maybe every 2nd or 3rd week you could hit the areas that you feel are neglected, either give them a day to themselves or fit one body part in after each day of starting strength.

#3 - If you don't want to get stronger..... why are you doing it then?

Remmy

I think all those questions can be answered with..It's a beginner program.

Kadongy

d'Oracle wrote: »

1. Drinking GOMAD is recommended as a strategy for very skinny young men who want to put on mass. Its neither an integral part of the programme nor is it recommended for most people.

2. Its one programme, which is intended for a finite period of time. There are a number of versions of it, but it works off the logic that for people with little or no training under their belts will get enough benefit from the core lifts than from specific assistance exercises. Deadlifts and squats as outlined in the book strengthen the hamstrings. Cleans and Deadlifts will strengthen the back. If one wants to to Chins or Pullups, there is a version which will allow that.

Also its a programme plan in a book, its not possible to plan for every possible imbalance or joint problem a person can have in one book. Thats what coaches and physios are for. If you do this alone you need to look after these things yourself.

3. I don't think it is stupid at all. I think everybody can benefit physically from increasing their strength. Like whats good about being weak? Why is it only top athletes and "advanced trainers" that should strive to be stronger?

1.
Nice acronym.
In the book he does put that as a general recommendation, and only says that maybe some fatter/older people might not want to follow it. He says nothing about the potential problems it could lead to. So it was recommended for most people; and it could be taken as an integral part of the programme. Your attitude makes more sense imo. But I think any advice saying you should drink huge amounts of milk should be accompanied by advice on how to maintain sufficient nutrition for what are key minerals for strengh training.

2.
Good response.
I decided to do some pullups after finishing deadlifts today. Not much chance of that lol. I'm sure I can work them in on the non-deadlift day though.

3.
Yes everyone could benefit from being stronger. Of course I consider strength training a worthwhile activity, or I wouldn't be having this discussion. I wasn't disputing that - what is stupid is saying that physical strength is the most important thing for a man.

Even some of the examples he uses to show why it is important are stupid - Like utility on a battlefield. I'd prefer to use my mental and social skills to avoid being in that situation in the first place. Statistically, a common soldier is probably stupid or sociopathic. Success on a battlefield is pretty irrelevant when you consider your presence on it at all to be an indicator of failure.

d'Oracle

Kadongy wrote: »

1.
Nice acronym.
In the book he does put that as a general recommendation, and only says that maybe some fatter/older people might not want to follow it. He says nothing about the potential problems it could lead to. So it was recommended for most people; and it could be taken as an integral part of the programme. Your attitude makes more sense imo.

He doesn't really believe in those problems. Which is cool. If we believed every potential problem that is suggested in Health media, we would all be eating like Gwenyth Paltrow and suffering from osteoperosis in our 30s. That said, I can say from experience that GOMAD (not my acronym, the internets acronym) is mental.

Kadongy wrote: »

2.
Good response.
I decided to do some pullups after finishing deadlifts. Not much chance of that lol. I'm sure I can work them in on the non-deadlift day though.

There is a version in Practical Programming that Rippetoe actually advocates on his forums more. It involves CHins on Monday, Deadlift on Wednesday and Pullups on Friday. He probably should have put that in SS:BBT but he didn't. MAybe he will put it into the 3rd ed.

Kadongy wrote: »

3.
Yes everyone could benefit from being stronger. Of course I consider strength training a worthwhile activity, or I wouldn't be having this discussion. I wasn't disputing that - what is stupid is saying that physical strength is the most important thing for a man.

Even some of the examples of why it is important are stupid - Like utility on a battlefield. I'd prefer to use my mental and social skills to avoid being in that situation in the first place. Statistically, a common soldier is probably stupid or sociopathic. Success on a battlefield is pretty irrelevant when you consider your presence on it at all to be an indicator of failure.

To quote Infectious Grooves, "You take the pen and I'll take the sword, you can write some **** till I cut your ****ing head off."

I reckon that it is better still to be well informed, intelligent AND strong cos you might find yourself in a situation where you are unable to think/talk your way out of the battlefield.
Then you would be best set if you can employ both intellectual and physical strength. Rather than being really sharp and really weak.

Also I'd like to see your statistics. I know and have met some military people. I can tell you that most of them are neither stupid or sociopaths.

Kadongy

d'Oracle wrote: »

He doesn't really believe in those problems. Which is cool. If we believed every potential problem that is suggested in Health media, we would all be eating like Gwenyth Paltrow and suffering from osteoperosis in our 30s. That said, I can say from experience that GOMAD (not my acronym, the internets acronym) is mental.



There is a version in Practical Programming that Rippetoe actually advocates on his forums more. It involves CHins on Monday, Deadlift on Wednesday and Pullups on Friday. He probably should have put that in SS:BBT but he didn't. MAybe he will put it into the 3rd ed.



To quote Infectious Grooves, "You take the pen and I'll take the sword, you can write some **** till I cut your ****ing head off."

I reckon that it is better still to be well informed, intelligent AND strong cos you might find yourself in a situation where you are unable to think/talk your way out of the battlefield.
Then you would be best set if you can employ both intellectual and physical strength. Rather than being really sharp and really weak.

Also I'd like to see your statistics. I know and have met some military people. I can tell you that most of them are neither stupid or sociopaths.

1. Well in principle I agree with you. But in this case I do think it is a serious consideration, and it's people who eat like GP who are most likely to be deficient. The best thing you can eat for iron is lamb's liver - not too many brittle boned hippies eat lamb's liver...

2. Cool I'll check that out.

3. Not all military people - Common soldiers. Possibly it is only combat soldiers. Not officers etc. The source is a journal paper by an American general who is gushing over what excellent soldiers sociopaths make. I shall attempt to find a link and edit this post if I do.

edit: Here it is - http://www.abstractatus.com/files/natural_killers.pdf

The natural killer has above-average intelligence. Like sociopaths with no economic resources, those without above-average intelligence end up in jail. Therefore, sociopaths in our military are usually intelligent. The HumRRO study found that the intelligence
quotient (IQ) of fighters was, on average, 13 points higher than nonfighters’. The study subjects were all infantrymen and the mean group IQ was only 85, 15 points below the national average of 100. This indicated that less intelligent men were sent forward to fight, but within that group, the more intelligent ones were better fighters

- The average IQ of a combat soldier is significantly below average. The average IQ of a sociopathic combat soldier is about average.

d'Oracle

Don't bother actually.

If its only the US armed forces then its a bad sample to begin with.

Scuba Ste

There's no direct back work. That's the biggest criticism i would make of it.

I don't buy the idea that deadlifts and power cleans are enough for your back because they're simply not, especially when you're pressing in some form three times a week. Personally I think rowing is important for shoulder health and I wouldn't do any pressing without at least one pulling exercise whether it's vertical or horizontal pulling.

It is a simple program and that's one of the things I liked about it. You'll get better at those five exercises because your only doing those five, although I don't think you'll get that good at power cleans without coaching.

If you like the squatting three times a week and the style of training I'd go for one of the other Rippetoe programs that have pull ups/rows and some other variations.

Points 1 and 3 aren't really relevant to the program to be fair.

Kadongy

Remmy wrote: »

I think all those questions can be answered with..It's a beginner program.

No they can't.

d'Oracle wrote: »

He doesn't really believe in those problems. Which is cool. If we believed every potential problem that is suggested in Health media, we would all be eating like Gwenyth Paltrow and suffering from osteoperosis in our 30s. That said, I can say from experience that GOMAD (not my acronym, the internets acronym) is mental.

He does believe in those problems. Look:

Mark Rippetoe wrote:

Severe vitamin and mineral deficiencies are not common in the United States, but they do occur. Mild deficiencies are much more common—the majority of American females are consistently iron and calcium deficient to a small but significant degree, for instance. Calcium has a tremendous variety of physiological roles in overall body function, growth, and performance, and a deficiency can limit recovery from training. Similarly, iron has a crucial role in oxygen transport and metabolic function. A mild iron deficiency can have significant negative effects on the body's ability to drive restoration after exercise.

Scuba Ste wrote: »

There's no direct back work. That's the biggest criticism i would make of it.

I don't buy the idea that deadlifts and power cleans are enough for your back because they're simply not, especially when you're pressing in some form three times a week. Personally I think rowing is important for shoulder health and I wouldn't do any pressing without at least one pulling exercise whether it's vertical or horizontal pulling.

It is a simple program and that's one of the things I liked about it. You'll get better at those five exercises because your only doing those five, although I don't think you'll get that good at power cleans without coaching.

If you like the squatting three times a week and the style of training I'd go for one of the other Rippetoe programs that have pull ups/rows and some other variations.

Points 1 and 3 aren't really relevant to the program to be fair.

Seems like good advice. Points one and three directly address statements in the book though.

Poccington

Kadongy wrote: »

Even some of the examples he uses to show why it is important are stupid - Like utility on a battlefield. I'd prefer to use my mental and social skills to avoid being in that situation in the first place. Statistically, a common soldier is probably stupid or sociopathic. Success on a battlefield is pretty irrelevant when you consider your presence on it at all to be an indicator of failure.

An indication of failure? Not really. Trying to discount Officers doesn't cut it either, in the Brits or Yanks most of them will lead a Platoon, Company or Battalion in combat at some stage. The common perception that soldiers or indeed, combat soldiers is bull****.

Anyway, dealing with the actually point, what he says is true. While a soldier needs endurance, it's not gonna be 6 minute miles that'll pull you through a window while wearing 60lbs of gear, or help your fireman carry your wounded mate who weighs about 80kg not including the kit he's wearing or even stopping your arms from dying a death while carrying a GPMG or parts of .5 etc.

Strength is quite relevant on the battlefield.

Kadongy

Poccington wrote: »

An indication of failure? Not really. Trying to discount Officers doesn't cut it either, in the Brits or Yanks most of them will lead a Platoon, Company or Battalion in combat at some stage. The common perception that soldiers or indeed, combat soldiers is bull****.

Anyway, dealing with the actually point, what he says is true. While a soldier needs endurance, it's not gonna be 6 minute miles that'll pull you through a window while wearing 60lbs of gear, or help your fireman carry your wounded mate who weighs about 80kg not including the kit he's wearing or even stopping your arms from dying a death while carrying a GPMG or parts of .5 etc.

Strength is quite relevant on the battlefield.

What are you talking about? My comment is supported with my source of information, which is military academia. It is very straightforward.

I never questioned that strength is important on a battlefield. I questioned what it says about someone if they put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Meh I'm not wasting time replying any further to such a stupid post. You clearly didn't read and understand mine, so I shan't bother with yours. If you are a combat soldier trying to disprove the stupidity of combat soldiers then you probably should try to make your post coherent tbh. To follow it up now would just drag this thread off topic, so if you want to address that, you'd be better off doing so by editing your existing post.

Remmy

Kadongy wrote: »

What are you talking about? My comment is supported with my source of information, which is military academia. It is very straightforward.

I never questioned that strength is important on a battlefield. I questioned what it says about someone if they put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Meh I'm not wasting time replying any further to such a stupid post. You clearly didn't read and understand mine, so I shan't bother with yours. If you are a combat soldier trying to disprove the stupidity of combat soldiers then you probably should try to make your post coherent tbh. To follow it up now would just drag this thread off topic, so if you want to address that, you'd be better off doing so by editing your existing post.

Op, did you come on here to actually find an answer to your questions or just argue with people?

itsallaboutheL

Two trailer park girls go 'round the outside.

Kadongy

Remmy wrote: »

Op, did you come on here to actually find an answer to your questions or just argue with people?

That is an unhelpful argumentative post.
Your first post made no sense, was unhelpful and smartarsed.
Most posts on this thread contribute to a discussion. Poccington's doesn't really, but I think that was because he took something I said personally. Your posts are just smartarsed nonsense on the other hand.
I shouldn't be even answering this. Quit trying to spoil the thread.

Poccington

Kadongy wrote: »

What are you talking about? My comment is supported with my source of information, which is military academia. It is very straightforward.

I was merely trying to make the point the point that combat soldiers is a wide spectrum that contains more than just infantrymen, which is what the report tested. Didn't take anything personal.

Now, back to SS and Rippetoe being a bollocks.

deadlybuzzman

Poccington wrote: »

I was merely trying to make the point the point that combat soldiers is a wide spectrum that contains more than just infantrymen, which is what the report tested. Didn't take anything personal.

Now, back to SS and Rippetoe being a bollocks.

well apart from that presumeably being a defamatory statement and also you questioning the validity of how important the strength aspect is of a programme called starting strength-how about you come up with a better beginners strength programme...and do it by tomorrow afternoon because that when I was going to start my cousin on starting strength

Poccington

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

well apart from that presumeably being a defamatory statement and also you questioning the validity of how important the strength aspect is of a programme called starting strength-how about you come up with a better beginners strength programme...and do it by tomorrow afternoon because that when I was going to start my cousin on starting strength

Wait... What?

deadlybuzzman

Poccington wrote: »

Now, back to SS and Rippetoe being a bollocks.

see above for the 1st point and for 2. you questioned how important strength was while referencing a strength programme

Poccington

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

see above for the 1st point and for 2. you questioned how important strength was while referencing a strength programme

I was quite obviously joking, I'm sure Rippetoe is a lovely bloke.

Not once did I question how important strength was. I said strength is quite relevant to the battlefield.

Hanley

So you don't like the nutritional recommendation, you don't liek the way the exercises are prescribed, and you don't like the philosophy behind it?

Unless there's a guy standing there behind you RIGHT NOW forcing you to do it, I'd recommend doing sometihng else, and just managing your squat load and volume so you can do it 3x per week, if you want to.

deadlybuzzman

Poccington wrote: »

I was quite obviously joking, I'm sure Rippetoe is a lovely bloke.

Not once did I question how important strength was. I said strength is quite relevant to the battlefield.

my bad- was the OP that questioned the importance of strength, props to d'oracle for quoting infectious grooves though!!

Kadongy

Hanley wrote: »

So you don't like the nutritional recommendation, you don't liek the way the exercises are prescribed, and you don't like the philosophy behind it?

Unless there's a guy standing there behind you RIGHT NOW forcing you to do it, I'd recommend doing sometihng else, and just managing your squat load and volume so you can do it 3x per week, if you want to.

The simplicity and neatness of the programme appeals to me a lot though. I think I'll do an adapted verison of it including upper back exercises and ab exercises.

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

my bad- was the OP that questioned the importance of strength, props to d'oracle for quoting infectious grooves though!!

You dont know what defamatory means. Your posts make no sense. I've repeatedly stated that I didn't dismiss the importance of strength; only that for most people it is not the most important thing in life.

I meant this thread to be a general discussion of the points I raised, rather than looking for advice specifically for myself tbh. It seems to be getting taken up differently than how I intended.

Kadongy

Programme seems to work anyway. One week in and squat +2.5kg, deadlift +5kg, bench +7.5kg. Think I could have increased all three by more too. Bodyweight down; hard to tell how much because I have been taking creatine.

Weird ratio though. Seems to suggest my squat would benefit more from greater rest. Bench increase is oddly high!

Have replaced power clean with rows, and added wide-grip [assisted] pullups to deadlift day. Will further adapt it as I go along, as it suits me.

cc87

Be careful that you dont make the increases too much too soon and end up stalling with your lifts and getting frustrated with the programme.

Also, without trying to knock the increases you have made in your first week, i wouldnt read a huge amount into them for a while yet as its not unusual to make large increases fast when you start weight training for the first time.

Bhoy_

http://www.angelfire.com/games5/deevious/Workout_Regiment_1.txt

This is the SS program I use, except I replace the Power Cleans with Bent Rows. Mainly because Power Cleans seem a little advanced for a newbie and especially one without a coach/trainer.

Hanley

Kadongy wrote: »

Programme seems to work anyway. One week in and squat +2.5kg, deadlift +5kg, bench +7.5kg. Think I could have increased all three by more too. Bodyweight down; hard to tell how much because I have been taking creatine.

Weird ratio though. Seems to suggest my squat would benefit more from greater rest. Bench increase is oddly high!

Have replaced power clean with rows, and added wide-grip [assisted] pullups to deadlift day. Will further adapt it as I go along, as it suits me.

Good to see you're making progress. Just don't tell people you're doing Starting Strength, cos you're not.

dartstothesea

What are the actual amounts you're squatting, benching etc, Kadongy?

Kadongy

I'm not starting for the first time; I've just regressed so much I might as well be.

I've usually managed to make gains very quickly, when training before. Was wondering if I was getting past it now. 7.5kg gain in bench in a week is weird though: I always found it much harder to increase my bench before, than my squat or deadlift.
Then again, it was lower than ever before in my adult life, so maybe the increase isn't too surprising!

Em I'll tell you the amounts when they're bigger! Nobody used to ask me that when they were big. I was stronger [and lighter] when I was 16 than I am now .

Remmy

dartstothesea wrote: »

What are the actual amounts you're squatting, benching etc, Kadongy?

.

Kadongy

Kadongy wrote: »

Em I'll tell you the amounts when they're bigger! Nobody used to ask me that when they were big.

.

seriously...

+5kg squat and +10kg press today - I think training the press is why the bench went up so much. Never did proper press before. First time I tried I was using a very light weight.

itsallaboutheL

Kadongy wrote: »

.

seriously...

+5kg squat and +10kg press today - I think training the press is why the bench went up so much. Never did proper press before. First time I tried I was using a very light weight.

Pfft that's nothing i added 99.8kg to my one arm deadlift last week.

Hanley

Kadongy wrote: »

.

seriously...

+5kg squat and +10kg press today - I think training the press is why the bench went up so much. Never did proper press before. First time I tried I was using a very light weight.

Your gains say nothing about the program.

If you're coming from a detrained state, when you were once you strong, your gains will be MUCH quicker than someone who's never trained before.

Kadongy

Hanley wrote: »

Your gains say nothing about the program.

If you're coming from a detrained state, when you were once you strong, your gains will be MUCH quicker than someone who's never trained before.

Fair enough.

I'd be interested in what you would have to say about the programme! [starting strength, that is; not the variation I am using]. I might be wrong, but I get the feeling you have an opinion on it.