HBBS/Sumo Heresy and Hyperspecialization

Training Q&A [Moderated]
1

This is a question for Jordan (but I am also curious if Austin and other BBM members feel the same or differently).

I’m certainly not trying to pit you against SS here, but SS orthodoxy has often maintained that LBBS is superior to HBBS and conventional is better than the sumo DL because they follow the criteria that they use more muscle mass, which in turn allows the use of the most weight across the greatest effective range of motion.

In your last couple of videos, however, if I understand you correctly, you seem to dispel the notion that the conventional deadlift is superior to the sumo, and the LBBS is superior to the HBBS (according to the criteria used by SS): rather the most effective version is the one that you can train productively over a long period of time.

Towards the end of your live stream, if I remember correctly, you also said you didn’t necessarily have a preference which version of the squat a novice began with; that there wasn’t an advantage of one over the other; and that if they could do both correctly (and didn’t have to default to other one), that they probably should do both and figure out which works for them over the long term.

As someone who came to training through SS (though I certainly I don’t care about or subscribe to their recently promoted ethos of voluntary hardship and other values etc…), this is confounding for me after everything I read in their books/articles.

So here’s my question (but actually there are tons of questions!): In a trainee who can do either version of squat or DL (i.e. has no pain, anthropometry issues, or other limitations that would necessitate doing only one kind), how would you recommend one over the other? Or would it come down to personal preference or what feels better?

Perhaps another way of asking all this is to say I really can’t wait to see what the BBM NLP will look like! I recall that one of your criticisms of SSLP is its hyperspecialization, and so will you include both versions of the squat and DL? And for someone who has already done a NLP, would you recommend introducing these other versions in as variations to see if they should become the primary version? I suppose for someone who isn’t competing, perhaps there is no reason why they can’t train all exercises hard at the start - but then would further strength gains require some specialization?

Sorry for the long post but this is really throwing up a lot of questions! I’ve only quickly glanced at BBM’s differences from SS, and I gathered that much of it had to do with “intermediate” programming (and I’ve become a fan of RPE). But it seems that there are other differences too – and would love to hear more about the question of hyperspecialization either here or on a vlog/live stream sometime. It is really interesting stuff!

Thanks again for all your content!

1 Like
2

I’m certainly not trying to pit you against SS here, but SS orthodoxy has often maintained that LBBS is superior to HBBS and conventional is better than the sumo DL because they follow the criteria that they use more muscle mass, which in turn allows the use of the most weight across the greatest effective range of motion.

We do not believe that these use substantially different “amounts” of muscle mass, in general.

In your last couple of videos, however, if I understand you correctly, you seem to dispel the notion that the conventional deadlift is superior to the sumo, and the LBBS is superior to the HBBS (according to the criteria used by SS): rather the most effective version is the one that you can train productively over a long period of time.

Correct, this is our general position.

Towards the end of your live stream, if I remember correctly, you also said you didn’t necessarily have a preference which version of the squat a novice began with; that there wasn’t an advantage of one over the other; and that if they could do both correctly (and didn’t have to default to other one), that they probably should do both and figure out which works for them over the long term.

I would add the caveat of considering the individual’s goals - for example, if an individual is a competitor for whom the absolute load on the bar matters more than anything else, that could clearly influence one’s choice here.

So here’s my question (but actually there are tons of questions!): In a trainee who can do either version of squat or DL (i.e. has no pain, anthropometry issues, or other limitations that would necessitate doing only one kind), how would you recommend one over the other? Or would it come down to personal preference or what feels better?

The first consideration should be training goals, as discussed above. To what extent does absolute load on the bar matter here (e.g., for competition)? If it matters more than anything else, we should do everything we can to train the variation that facilitates that - though we sometimes still need to make compromises for tolerability.

If, on the other hand, our trainee is an uncontrolled diabetic and our goal is to help get their Hemoglobin A1c down for health reasons, putting the bar two inches lower on the back probably makes no difference over the long run, assuming the two variations are equally well tolerated and trained.

Perhaps another way of asking all this is to say I really can’t wait to see what the BBM NLP will look like! I recall that one of your criticisms of SSLP is its hyperspecialization, and so will you include both versions of the squat and DL? And for someone who has already done a NLP, would you recommend introducing these other versions in as variations to see if they should become the primary version? I suppose for someone who isn’t competing, perhaps there is no reason why they can’t train all exercises hard at the start - but then would further strength gains require some specialization?

This is a big, complex topic, and likely one that we’ll have to discuss more in the future - either in article or podcast form. The basic consideration here is: what do we want a novice training program to accomplish? Ideally, it would build good training habits, technical proficiency (which, based on the motor learning literature, is probably improved with some variation), and improve work/recovery capacity so they are better prepared for the much longer post-novice phase of training. We feel that the absolute weight on the bar at the end of the short novice phase is of little practical significance – for example, see all the people who “milk” their novice training up to a squat in the 300s (i.e., above average), and are still squatting approximately the same loads several years later after several resets/quits/restarts – if they’re training at all.

5 Likes
3

Austin,

Thanks for your response - it clarified a lot of things and also raised a lot of interesting questions!

Of the three facets that you described as accomplishments or goals of a novice training program, the one that seems by far the most interesting and important – and therefore most difficult – is building good training habits. It is probably what I’ve struggled with the hardest – and I’m willing to bet a lot of others have, too.

Here, if I’m trying to understand SS on their terms, the benefit of hard repetitions, of grinding towards the end of the NLP, of getting under a load that you don’t know you can lift and actually doing it, builds the kind of habits, discipline, commitment, and character (and I use that word only in a limited sense) that, in their minds, can keep you coming back to training. I think SS is wagering is that this ethos will encourage adherence to the program; but does this work in terms of building long-term habits? I guess your point is that it hasn’t.

So the question it raises is: to what extent is building good training habits about the training/program design itself? What would be inherent to a strength program that can inculcate habits that last?

I hope you do a podcast about this stuff and your general thoughts on a NLP sometime in the future. Thanks again for your response, Austin, I’m a huge fan of BBM!

4

When we say “good training habits” we’re mainly referring to consistency and long-term buy-in to the process of training. You have to care enough and understand the benefits of training in order to ensure you have enough time to train, to adequately fuel yourself to train, to show up consistently, and to actually train productively, for a very long time.

We’re not at all talking about the grinding, moral, and pseudo-religious aspects here. And that “ethos” dees not appear to have significantly improved adherence to the program, which is self-reported at less than 2% (though you could argue that being deeply intertwined with a small social niche or a coach that feels similarly would improve adherence on that front). The forums are littered with people who obsess over “optimal” novice progress and “milking out every drop”, running themselves into the ground with excessive, unnecessary fatigue and assuming this requires even larger caloric surpluses to recover from, all in order to put an extra 15 lbs on their 300 lb squat 5RM at the tail end of the program - and these people may become the local subject matter experts on novice training, giving their advice and experience to incoming newbies.

Most of these people (hell, most people in general) quit training in less than a year, or cyclically return to the comfort of the “optimal” LP for the rest of their lives. Doing everything you can to deliberately ensure the program is a rigid, brutally hard, pseudo-religious experienceis a great way to ensure that most people never actually start, or stick with, training - and that’s not what we’re interested in if we hope to make a broader impact on population health.

4 Likes
5

Thanks for your response, Austin. I am excited to see what material you guys develop – particularly in relation to your aim of making a broader improvement on population health.

The entire question of habits is fascinating. The very processes of getting people to buy in long-term, to care enough to stay consistent with training is reliant on so many factors (multi-factorial, as BBM likes to say!) outside training that I think that it perhaps unavoidably and inevitably relies on values or attitudes to create some type of attachment. (Of course, why I almost never visit SS forums or watch the BBL podcasts anymore is because these values are pushed towards a pseudo religious – and clearly pseudo political – platform that is alienating for many people).

But I suppose this applies to people new to training who sign up for a crossfit class, or a hot yoga class, for that matter (and it would be interesting to compare ‘retention rates’ for these activities vs SSNLP). There always seems to be – perhaps necessarily – a framework of attachment and/or social collective that is related to the kind of training done – in marketing terms, a kind of lifestyle branding that seeks to encourage compliance with the particular kind of activity. For all its emphasis on logic, this is why SS is a brand like any other, presenting the kind of training they do within a certain lifestyle (why, for example, the guys on that podcast talk about whiskey - rather than, say, wine - for 15 minutes).

I’m a big fan of BBM because I see you demystifying a lot of this, but I’m also eager to see how you design your novice LP with a view to encouraging compliance. Perhaps the key is that you do actually promote certain kinds of training ‘values’ (without necessarily attempting to transform them into some larger ethical or moral framework): namely, developing self-efficacy in training.

6

It will be a long process, I’m sure, full of mistakes and learning. But we are looking forward to it.

Yep. This is definitely how CrossFit has succeeded.

Yep. Self-efficacy is huge here - and people are generally resistant to doing this sort of thing. See the data on adherence to diets, for example - the greater the effort required to adhere (what I call “Dietary RPE”), the less likely someone is to do it, particularly over the long term. We aren’t arguing that training should be easy, but rather that insisting that it has to be bone-crushingly hard otherwise it’s ineffective - is further shrinking the pool of people likely to benefit from these interventions.

2 Likes
7

This is all so good and should be displayed prominently somewhere.

I think SS has turned into something of a personality cult or a social club in the last couple of years. It appears to be more about being part of the group, reading the right books, drinking the right whiskey, Instagramming the right stuff, and a lot less about what actually makes you stronger over the long run.

Personally, I already have family and friends. I don’t need another group of internet friends to make me feel like I belong somewhere. I’d just like to know how to get stronger over the next 20 years.

8

Thanks for taking the time to respond again, Austin - it really clarifies BBM’s approach and lays bare the philosophical differences with SS.

And now you’ve again given me something new to think about - dietary RPE! Unless, I’ve missed it, haven’t seen any content from BBM about this. Would love to see something someday when you have time.

Once again, I’m huge fan, and looking forward to watching BBM grow!