Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So has even SS' Chase converted to [email protected] style programming?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So has even SS' Chase converted to [email protected] style programming?

    Exhibit: https://www.instagram.com/p/BhpGgZQh...y=chaselindley

    That looks like a [email protected], -12% 5x5 to me.

    t. 12 week strength template


    Definitely not what I would expect from a WFAC SS-style program....

  • #2
    But he's doing heavy fahves, not [email protected], so it's not silly bullshit

    Comment


    • #3
      I expect the SS rebuttal would be that Chase is not intermediate at this point, but advanced. I believe the "pale rider" has done his time on the SS-prescribed Texas Method in the past, and Rip has stated that RPE can become useful for a sufficiently advanced trainee. Chase and his coaches may also still deny that RPE is involved in the workout you linked. Those weights may have been determined on a percentage basis ahead of time. We would really be splitting hairs at that point, but it's still a potential difference.

      Now, given that the most recent BBM podcast rejects the Novice/Intermediate/Advanced model of advancement and takes particular issue with the differentiation between Intermediate and Advanced, the operative question (for us) is whether Chase would have been better off switching to this style of programming much earlier. BBM says yes, SS says no.

      In related news, it looks like Baker just went on Barbell Logic, presumably to hold the party line. Given that Andy's programming philosophy has never completely matched that of Rip and SSOC, I'm wondering how many words Reynolds and Hambrick had to put in his mouth. I'm about to go listen and find out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Listened to the podcast. Matt Reynolds spoke more than anyone, but actually thought it was pretty balanced. Interesting to hear them say that the intermediate/advanced distinction isn't helpful. I like Andy Baker a lot. I think his content is well thought out. Having run GGW twice, his programs work as well.

        Comment


        • #5
          I listend to it and wondered what significant differences SS and BBM were having. It sounded a lot like what Austin and Jordan have been saying.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by slhuckstead View Post
            I listend to it and wondered what significant differences SS and BBM were having. It sounded a lot like what Austin and Jordan have been saying.
            Weird, huh?
            IG / YT

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by leGDE View Post
              Exhibit: https://www.instagram.com/p/BhpGgZQh...y=chaselindley

              That looks like a [email protected]8, -12% 5x5 to me.

              t. 12 week strength template


              Definitely not what I would expect from a WFAC SS-style program....
              I thought the exact same thing when I saw it yesterday on the IG.

              Comment


              • #8
                We will almost certainly never know all the details. For now the official explanation is that SS thinks RPE is bullshit for all but the most advanced trainees and BBM thinks it is very useful for almost everyone.

                It actually is a pretty big difference, as illustrated by Reynolds being completely unable to say RPE 10 without the phrase "no shit" or "bone on bone" in front of it, as though there is something magical or rare about a set where you couldn't have done another rep, or that it is somehow difficult to identify such a set. My SSLP involved a handful of failed sets and dozens of sets very near failure. I do not think this is unusual. This means I was already familiar with RPE 9.5/10/10.5 as a newly-minted intermediate.

                I was surprised and pleased to hear SSOC admit that it is unclear if a trainee is getting any stronger going from 405x5 to 425x3. At least we seem to agree on that now. However, what they are either unaware of or unwilling to admit is that their insistence on peaking the weight on the bar immediately following novice programming detrains the lifter's ability to handle the volume they will eventually need. If it were presented as a choice, I suspect not many would choose to take a detour into "voluntary hardship" that does not make them stronger in the short term and that stunts progress in the medium term. Maybe this is what Rip really means when he says "narrowcasting".
                Last edited by Eric Mark; 04-18-2018, 02:42 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Austin Baraki View Post

                  Weird, huh?
                  As an onlooker, I've been very frustrated by this split, I can't imagine what you guys have felt. Mentors, friends, and colleagues split over legitimate differences in what is, it seems, a field that has had little scientific rigor. I appreciate SS for advocating a scientific approach, but now it seems like it's moving into an entrenched mentality like all the other lifting movements. I hope BBM does not become a personality based endeavor. For all SS's critique about religion and hierarchy, their reaction has been laughable.

                  What I appreciate about you and Jordan, is that you generally don't bite our heads off if we present a reasonable viewpoint contrary to your own. Unless we are just being dumb. Except for the time on the SS forums when I stupidly said someone should take Test. because their levels were low. I repent of that statement.
                  Last edited by slhuckstead; 04-18-2018, 03:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Listening to said podcast now.

                    So unbelievably frustrating to hear almost the exact same points reiterated almost verbatim and agreed to on this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One important difference that I noticed is that Reynolds, Hambrick and Baker dug in on the "intensity dependent" position for training older folks.

                      It seemed clear that the recent BBM podcasts were in the background of the discussion--it would nice to see an acknowledgement of that, and some more direct response to points of disagreement. It seems like they don't want to acknowledge the "debate" (to the extent that there is one), but also can't help responding to criticisms.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He's probably rotating a heavy single, triple or fahve before his primary/ heavy squat day. I'm doing the same right now. Except for much less weight. This dude is a monster. He probably has a 700lb squat in his future.
                        Last edited by ChrisZ; 04-18-2018, 04:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          and the last 12 minutes kindof went off the rails.

                          definitely the last one of those I'll be listening to.
                          Last edited by briangoldstein; 04-18-2018, 04:21 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yeah I listened to the podcast on the way to work this morning. What I found most interesting was at about the 43 minute mark, when Reynolds started to get into the running it out debate, he freely admitted that this aspect of his programming was only his "opinion" and that he had no data or anything to back it up. I do like Andy a lot, so I'm glad to see that he didn't change his stance on any topics.

                            That being said, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that post novice programming is the root of the issue between BBM and SS. I think in all honesty that this is mainly a symptom of the problem. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Rip is positioning Reynolds to be the heir apparent to the SS brand. Rip also in the past never had any skin in the game when it came to post novice programming, he focused on novice programming and let the talented army of coaches that he put together do their own thing in regards to post novice programming. However, with SSOC now licensing the SS brand, and with SSOC coaches not being allowed to have their own online programming businesses, as well as being forced to stick to the script for programming choices, lines were drawn that weren't there in the past. BBM had luckily already built a large following on their own and no longer needed Rip's platform for exposure. Most of the other SSC's (including Reynold's and Andy) don't quite have enough reach to go fully independent, it would be quite painful on the pocketbooks.

                            At the end of the day, it is a business. Money rules all in this world, whether we want it to or not. Having separate opinions and debate is healthy, and it eventually leads to the truth (though that process can take years, if not decades). SS once was a community that believed in debate, but once they started collecting $300/month for online post novice coaching it was no longer beneficial to the company to entertain differing opinions. They instead chose to draw a line in the sand and create the SS way of post novice programming. It's a shame it came to this, but I'm just glad that BBM was able to build up enough following to give those of us that don't buy into the SS way of post novice programming a new home!
                            Last edited by PWard; 04-18-2018, 07:01 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lane Foulks View Post

                              I thought the exact same thing when I saw it yesterday on the IG.
                              He did the same thing with the press/bench the next day !

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X