SS

So is SS just a meme that high school football coaches push that's going to turn me into t-rex mode? I see a bunch of guys that are like "just hit SS and eat 4000 cals and get big" but I want to be ripped and not just a fat powerlifter guy who can lift a lot.

The program is designed to increase strength and overall muscle mass as quickly as possible. And there's a reason it's so well known, and that's because it works. It also has an entire book dedicated to it, which means it's very hard to fuck up (although people manage to do it all the time anyway, but morons will be morons)

That being said, it's not a bodybuilding program per se. It's well balanced in terms of major muscle groups, but there is zero focus on all the little things e.g. calf development, inner pecs etc.
Personally I think this is a good thing as focusing on these things is just a distraction for the beginner. But that's my opinion and many people disagree.

And finally it's just a fucking program. And this is what people really get wrong. At the end of the day there are a million legit ways to train. As long as you're not doing borderline retarded stuff, OTHER factors than the program itself matter far more. I'm talking stuff like motivation, diet, genetics, work capacity, effort, beliefs etc.

And yes, SS will give you big legs.

Yes. If you’re going to do SS, at the very least add accessory exercises for the vast majority of muscles it fails to work. Those muscles includes abs, biceps, triceps, calves, and upper back.

Don’t do a brosplit, but also don’t do SS. SS and Rippetoe are surrounded by cult-like mentality. The reality is, the best way to gain muscle and strength is to work every muscle multiple times a week, but SS fails to hit most muscles. SS is good for quads, ass, and rear delts. That’s it.

Just because a fat Texan wrote a book doesn’t mean he’s correct. Rippetoe is anti-science. He actually talked about how the scientific peer-review process is just a way for friends to help friends get their incorrct work published. That view is naive beyond belief.

>It’s well balanced in terms of major muscle groups
No, it’s not. The program overemphasizes quads and neglects: core, lateral delts, traps, lats, calves, hamstrings, biceps and triceps. That is NOT a balanced routine, and it’s not even optimal for building strength.


OP check out some upper/lower or push/pull splits. Good routines for beginners work each muscle twice per week, and have a decent level of volume (~40-60 reps per muscle per workout). Check out Lyle Mcdonald’s generic bulking routine. That routine is essentially a template you can use and modify to construct to your own liking

>beginner program
>making you strong
Sub 400 detected

It is the best 'beginner program' that gives the most reliable results.
The 1/2/3/4 meme was made to tell new fags when they have gotten good enough at the basics to start bodybuilding.
Due to the influx of cross boarders form /r9k/ and /pol/ a lot of oldfags have left or kept to containment generals, most have gone dormant.

>>It’s well balanced in terms of major muscle groups
>No, it’s not. The program overemphasizes quads and neglects: core, lateral delts, traps, lats, calves, hamstrings, biceps and triceps. That is NOT a balanced routine, and it’s not even optimal for building strength.

Read the book before commenting on it's program.

I began with Lyle’s routine, and modified it into this version, which I have been doing for a few months now and have been seeing consistent progress in every lift (I never saw consistent progress with SS, even when I did GOMAD).

Upper A:
Bench press: 4x8
Power cleans: 5x3
Lat pulldown: 4x8-10
Dumbbell OHP: 4x8-10
Cable rows: 4x10-12
Dumbbell flyes: 2x10-12
Upright rows: 3x8
Curls: 5x10
Tricep isolation: 3x12
Push ups: 1xF
Sit ups: 2x30
Crunches: 2x30-45

I superset curls/triceps and push ups/abs. This workout usually takes me about two and a half hours.

Lower A:
Squats: 3x8
Calf raises: 3x12
Back extensions: 3x12
Hamstring isolation: 4x10
Leg press: 3x8
Sit ups: 2x30
Crunches: 2x30

Upper B:
OHP: 4x6-8
Power cleans: 5x3
Lat pulldown: 4x8-10
Dumbbell bench press: 4x6-8
Cable rows: 4x10-12
Dumbbell flyes: 2x10-12
Upright rows: 3x8
Curls: 5x10
Triceps: 3x12
Push ups: 1xF
Sit ups: 2x30
Crunches: 2x30

Lower B:
Romanian Deadlifts: 3x8
Calf raises: 3x12
Hamstring isolation: 3x8
Leg press: 4x10
Sit ups: 2x30
Crunches: 2x30


The weekly format is xxAAxBB. So monday is Upper A, Tuesday is Lower A, Thursday is Upper B, and Friday is Lower B.

You don’t need to do as much volume as I do. 3 sets of most of those exercises would be fine, and you only need to do abs twice a week, not four. But I do all of that because I enjoy it.

you are a fucking idiot, please post body pics and videos of your lifts

I’ve read 3 of Rippetoe’s books. Practical programming, SS 2nd edition, and Strong enough. In fact, I even have a signed copy of SS 3rd edition.

Rippetoe makes it quite clear, that if you alter ANYTHING at all from the basic 3 lift program he set ups, then YNDTP.

And no, 3 sets of bench press and overhead press is not enough to grow your arms, and it’s not enough to even strengthen your arm muscles as efficiently as a novice can. You need a more diverse range of exercises, and a larger amount of volume to efficiently strengthen those mucles. Otherwise, your arms will lag behind your shoulders and ultimately cause plateaus

Here are my current stats:

Body weight: 195lbs
Bench press: 155x7
Overhead press: 105x8
Power cleans: 140x3
Squats: 215x8
RDL: 245x8
Upright rows: 110x8

I have been lifting on/off for a few years. When I first started lifting I did SS and GOMAD. My strength gains were pathetic.

I have been doing this program since mid-january. I had previosuly done it from august-october of last fall, before taking a hiatus due to poor time-management in college

those lifts are pathetic for somebody that has been lifting for years. why the fuck are you giving advice?

>did SS
>didn’t reach a 2plate squat
Are you a grill?

These are pathetic fucking stats. Im low test and i blow these out of the water. You did gomad and still squat that much? You fat low test piece of shit.

Thanks friend.

I said that I have been lifting on/off. My lifts are quite good relative to where I have been, and my gains have been faster than I expected since I returned to lifting.

Let’s make it clear that you’re not going to bench press 225 for reps in your first year of training, and probably not even in your second year if you’re an average Joe and you’re natty.

Actually my squat was the ONLY lift tgat increased when i did SS. It went up to 295x5 at my best. I’m currently making my way back up to that number, and believe I can get close to it by summer

Congrats buddy

You're rationalizing. It's fine that your lifts suck, but it's not fine that your lifts suck and you think you can give lifting advice. Especially when your advice is shitting on an established program like SS.

Lol kid ss the best program for beginners to get into barbell training.
Reminder most of the people on this board are dormant 24/7 and have fuck all conditioning.
Reminder we are dealing with the lowest common denominator here, that is neets with muscle atrophy and 70 year old woman.

Obviously if the gpp is height enough we would put them on a different program (i like texas method) to actually build the foundations for a successful strength athlete.

The starting strength theory can take you far past sub 1/2/3/4, but i do agree with you when it comes to the lack of upper body hypertrophy work as that is a large part of increasing your bench.

It took me like 2 years to get a 225 bench, if i did ss it would of taken me a shorter time to reach it.
That is why i recommend it to noobs because it is a good structured program that is what i belve i missed out on as a 16 yearold teenage brospliter.

Try texas method it got me to a 320 squat in like 2 and a bit months from 275 for 5

Have you ever heard of appeal to authority? Or in this case, ad hominem.

How about you attack the argument. All of these lifting stats posted on the internet are fake and/or exaggerated. I’m not lying to your face like Rippetoe who claims you can gain 40lbs of muscle in 3 months

I’ve heard about the TM, and it’s something I might consider in the future, but as for now I am satisfied with my routine. It’s enjoyable, and the gains are still coming.

>2 years to get to a 225lb bench
Congrats on that. The point I am precisely trying to make is that gains come slowly, and I believe your progressshow that exactly. My problem with Rippetoe is that he makes teenagers think they can get a 225lb bench in 6 months of lifting, and that they can gain 40lbs of muscle in 3 months. Which they can’t, unless they are in the genetic elite (or juicing)

>Congrats on that. The point I am precisely trying to make is that gains come slowly, and I believe your progressshow that exactly. My problem with Rippetoe is that he makes teenagers think they can get a 225lb bench in 6 months of lifting,

He does, i allways asumed you where running ss for like 9 months to increase your gpp and barbell skills.
I wouldn't have a lifter do ss for more than 9 months, and move onto texas method.

Most of this board full of new fags and larpers, go to panzers Veeky Forums census, a 2pl8 puts you in the top 25% of people on the board.
It is kinda pathetic.

Ahhh, okay. I see what you mean now. My routine certainly requires some previous conditioning.

And yeah, this board is quite sad anymore (or has it always been this way?). Ever since lifting memes became popular, this board has been doomed

>
>
>Just because a fat Texan wrote a book doesn’t mean he’s correct. Rippetoe is anti-science. He actually talked about how the scientific peer-review process is just a way for friends to help friends get their incorrct work published. That view is naive beyond belief.

The schism that exists between geology, anthropology, amd archeaology should be enough to make you realise and accept that there is a huge problem with peer-review im academia today. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not replying in support of SS or Rippetoe but because he is not wrong in his statements on the matter.

What we have today is a handful of accepted positions that must be adhered to in all spheres of academia. Publically touted "peer-reviewed" papers almost always rely on a circle jerk of references back to one another. That's what the public sees and therefore what they accept as correct. What the public never sees are the dozens or hundreds of other papers that remain locked behind paywalls or or otherwise difficult for the public to search for and see themselves. Papers that would otherwise support unpopular but not incorrect positions.

Want to finish graduate or post-graduate? Want a "good" job? Better toe the part line or else. The problem is real and Rippetoe's position is not as naive as you make it out to be.

Of course it works user, trust me.

>upright row PR
>doing RDLs to failure
>those lifts at that weight and years of training
Please do not give advice

>I never saw consistent progress with SS
didn't do the program
>this workout usually takes me about two and a half hours
JUST

:|/

Interesting

Can I simply buy a weight bench/barbell and do this program at home? An actual gym is out of the question but I want to get fit for work. At present I only have a couple shitty dumbbells.

Check stronglifts.com

barbell will cost you 200 quid alone
a decent rack the same or more
bumper plates will be about 6-700 quid

>Here are my current stats:
>Body weight: 195lbs
>Bench press: 155x7
>Overhead press: 105x8
>Power cleans: 140x3
>Squats: 215x8
>RDL: 245x8
>Upright rows: 110x8
>I have been lifting on/off for a few years


THESE ARE THE DYELS CALLING SS SHIT AND GIVING OUT ADVICE

When I had done SS for 3 months, all my stats where better than your "a few years" stats, by a lot.

A topical example recently is the big push in the past year that it magically turns out that Europeans were never white at all and that all of our European ancestors were somehow black and turned white over time. This is because of and in response to a number of recent anthropological finds have thrown yet another wrench into the resoundingly debunked "Out Of Africa" theory.

Rather than refute the actual evidence that shows how wrong that theory is, academia has simply moved the goal posts to make everyone magically black (the most recent example being the Cheddar Man debacle) and, therefore, "Out Of Africa' still works.

Ask yourself why they do this if "science" is truly their primary concern? Ask yourself why there is the overwhelming preponderance of "supporting" peer reviewed papers being touted in the media all of a sudden?

It's just weird. Go talk to a geologist about strata dating and the disreprencies between what they see and the dates given to archealogical and anthropogical finds. Get ready for a mind fuck.

If you want to be ripped why would you do SS?

Do a bodybuilder routine instead of stronglifts how is this so hard to comprehend?

Such as?

I’m referring to the hard sciences and you’re referring to the humanities. The public doesn’t view peer-reviewed articles, only scientists care to look at them. And the universities pay so that nothing is locked behind a pay-wall. Their is nothing weong with peer-review in the hard sciences. In the humanities, journals are ideologically corrupted

I did the program. It’s not true that you can gain 40lbs of muscle in 3 months.
Post yours Mr. internet elite lifting man, you got a 10 plate bench only doin SS for 3 months amirite?

Two months SS

that's a dude, right?

>The schism that exists between geology, anthropology, amd archeaology should be enough to make you realise and accept that there is a huge problem with peer-review im academia today. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Quick rundown?

Nigger, geology is a hard science, and even then there's not much difference between stem and humanities. And Universities only pay for their members.
And peer-review in hard science is fucked beyond belief too, if you think theoretical physics isn't trying to cover it's tracks for the last +70 years you're stupid and do not understand how the scientific method works. Same goes for medicine and others, researchers will change their experiment results to whatever fits their view. Outliers get cut all the fucking time, it is an enormous waste of resources. Coupled with publication pressure and you have scientists often faking data or lying to pump out another paper.

It's 40 pounds of bodyweight not muscle. You gain fat and muscle together. The reason Rippietoes has people gain weight is so they can recover and progress quickly while building muscle. The people that are supposed to gain a bunch are the really skinny dudes. People with higher bf% are supposed to not eat a shit ton like the skinny guys.

Also your numbers suck ass for having done SS for 3 months I feel like you didn't consistently do it, probably didn't eat right, and probably some more issues. Did you actually try increasing your weights every time you lifted, because it seems like you just waited for the lifts to get easier then moved up.

Is it any better that he’s telling skinny kids to gain 40lbs of weight when 35 of those pounds will be fat? No, it’s a stupid idea, it’s unhealthy, and you’re going to end up losing mass if you ever decide to end up cutting. Because it means that you’ll have to cut for a far longer period of time. Unless you never cut, like Rippetoe wants

No. But degenerate whore from Germany who has chugged a literal beer pitcher of fresh sperm.

Instead of properly doing what you were told you thought about it real hard and apparently forgot you are a brainlet. Building muscle raises your TDEE (the calories needed to maintain that muscle) which is one of a few reasons cutting us easier the more muscle you have.
>if you are so stupid that you need a program, at least be smart enough to do the entire thing to the best of your ability

This has to be a troll

same shit happens
people get fucked for having unpopular stands on how they interpret data.

lol at the newfags falling for this bait
no one could be as dumb as OP

There have been numerous archealogical and anthropological digs where they are reporting dates that are completely at odds with what numerous/mulitple geologists are finding for the strata they are found in. And it's not "a little"; it's tens of thousands of years.

There was a dig in Mexico decades ago where all the geological tests (and there were many and many different kinds) were showing human artifacts ranging from 25K to over 50K years old. Of course, this flies completely in the face of what archaeologists and anthropologists "accept" as the possible dates for human habitation in that part of the world. So, the archaelogist who ran that dig was uniformly drummed out and made an example of. They destroyed her career and have continued to show her as an example of how to be wrong (despite overwhelming amd proven evidence that she was right).

Moreover, the Mexican governmemt halted all future digs at the site (at the behest of anthropological and archealogical bigwigs at universities there and abroad) and went so far as to sell the land and let it be developed. All so two academic "disciplines" didn't have to face the music that their models and theories are not just wrong but absurbedly wrong.

There's quite of few examples out there and a really good book on the subject called "Forbidden Archealogy" or something. That book is actually based on the "peer reviewed" papers that never see the light of day because they conflict with prevailing theories and supported ideas.

I know all of this is completely offtopic for Veeky Forums and I apologize for that. I do find the topic fascinating though and couldn't keep ky miuth shut.