Clearly BBM should change its name to “Science.”
2 Likes
I will admit I’m not Andy’s accountant, so I definitely don’t know the fine details, but it’s easy enough to put the pieces together. Even if his website doesn’t have any SS branding (which he would have to pay money to license the brand to do this, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t), all of his content is geared mostly towards intermediate training for people post SS. If you combine that with his presence on the SS forums (which even in a reduced state not running the official Programming board anymore, he is still very active on), and the facts that you mentioned that he co-authored both Practical Programming and the Barbell Prescription which are within the SS canon. Now he obviously is going to get some word of mouth, and some people in the local kingwood area that are going to search him out based on his gym. But I would be willing to bet money that 80%+ of his income comes directly from exposure through the SS world. SS gives Andy global exposure on a very large scale. SS affiliation makes any SSC a lot of money. A coach like Andy who has been around for a long time, earned the respect of the community, has co-authoring credits on 2 of the big SS canon books, and moderated the main programming forum for years… well let’s just say that SS generates him a ton of income. I don’t think Andy ever would leave SS, so it’s probably a moot point to debate, but if he ever were it would be very difficult for him to transition without some financial pain. He would definitely have to up his hustle game big time to keep his income the same.
From BBL #71 @ 44:27: “Nursing homes are full of people doing 75% intensity sit-to-stands, and they don’t get better. So why don’t they get better? Well it’s because their 75% isn’t heavy at all.”
¯_(ツ)_/¯
1 Like
You will be terminated for associating with BBM.
LMAO Oh my god is that actually real, thats is ridiculous
It is, and I heard it on the podcast too. I get it though…I watched my grandparents get to that point years before they died. The atrophy really took off when they were both about 75. But they spent the majority of their day sitting in front of the TV, only getting up to do necessities, like eat, use the restroom and go to bed. Sit-to-stands were difficult for them eventually, but I also have no doubt that if programming BEGAN with sit-to-stands they probably could have gotten stronger. It would have taken VOLUME with sit-to-stands to get them better before they could have ever thought about LIFTING a heavy object at a high intensity off the ground. But training high intensity and generating maximum force really wasn’t a necessity for them in their late 70’s, at least not for health. Work capacity at moderate force output was the main issue, because they were too tired and easily exausted to get out of their damn chairs to do anything at all. Who cares if they would have been able to deadlift 85-90% of their 1RM if they had to hurry up and get back in a chair shortly thereafter? I know that intensity training increases work capacity in the untrained, but at some point there is no substitute for intentionally developing some work capacity.
Training the elderly who are far down the path of sarcopenia is such a specialty in my mind. I have a lot of respect for Sully to do that and make it his passion. That’s great in every measurable way in my mind. I lose a lot of respect for him when he gets away from that and uses his limited training knowledge as a basis for casting an entire mode of training using RPE as bull shit. Like Izzy said over on the SS Forums, the evidence that RPE-based training works is beyond arguable these days. Just look at the number of lifters who use it and make progress. Sully to me is the most glaring example of dismissiveness in this regard. Rip is second simply b/c I can’t tell that he’s ever tried it, and am surprised that he knocks it so readily. But then again, he is highly opinionated about a broad number of topics, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. I think he’s just getting old and cantankerous.
2 Likes
I listened to that episode expecting to find their solution to the post-novice training. It seems that the solution is Andy, and his version of HLM as a general illustration. Other than that, it’s different cases for different individuals and please hire a coach. They also didn’t mention conditioning or work capacity. If I misunderstood or misrepresented their ideas, please set me straight.
This might be a dumb question so I’m hoping the brilliant members here could answer it before I go harassing the doctors: Is there any argument to be made that the HLM version - one heavy exercise a day plus variations of other lifts at lighter (about 80%) weight - Andy mentioned in the podcast is wrong for post-novice training? Or is it just less optimal than the BBM approach with the Bridge program and other templates sold here?
It isn’t a dumb question at all; if there is congruence it would be there, with caveats. In the thread that precipitated to the split, Austin wrote that HLM, with or with out exercise variation can be viable. Further, Jordan has said a bunch of times on IG live that HLM where each day is more of a ‘medium’ day makes more sense than concentrating all of the heavy lifts on one single session. Last, if you look at the General Intermediate Program Jordan wrote a few years back, it looks an awful lot like an HLM program if you wanted to recategorize each slot as Heavy, Light, or Medium.
So to that extent, I don’t think it’s an assumption to say that HLM is accepted as a useful organizing method by all.
However, that’s not really what the disagreement is about; the disagreement is about how stress is selected and applied.
The doctors (reductive and over simplified) position is: Accumulate more work at an appropriate intensity, defined as 70-90% of 1RM. Accumulating more work requires increases in frequency and volume, but not necessarily that the weight on the bar increases linearly week to week.
The (reductive and over simplified) BBL position is: Adding weight to the bar is the name of the game, and training should be managed to add weight to the bar in as close to a linear fashion for as long as possible. In the case of running it out, that means that volume decreases (as you go from 3 sets of 5 to 3 sets of 3 to 5 singles, for example), frequency stays the same, and intensity increases.
a key difference here is measurement. If the only measure is weight on the bar, then 320x5 means you’re stronger than 315x5. As the doctors have pointed out though, this isn’t the whole story and not even a good proxy for how you’re adapting. A qualitative measure, like RPE, can help a trainee and coach manage training with a better grasp of the trainee’s readiness and performance day to day. Further, using an estimated 1RM helps answer the problem that comes up if I did 315x5@8 last week, and I did 340x3@8 this week, which is: did I get stronger? In this case, yes. the e1rm went from 315/.81 = ~ 389 to 340/.86 = ~395. Using RPE and e1rm helps us measure apples to apples.
1 Like
Before any of this giant fiasco occurred, Jordan specifically referred to Andy’s programming and HLM approaches as a viable and quality approach. Additionally, there really just aren’t huge differences in Andy’s philosophy and BBM’s. Andy uses percentages as a starting point and tweaks based on his work with the individual lifter he is coaching. He doesn’t use RPE, but doesn’t have a problem with it–he views it as a tool. But when you break down a lot of his programming, you discover a couple of things: there is significant volume, it is dosed primarily in the 70-85% range, and he suggests changes in intensity on the volume work to stay in that range (back off sets instead of sets across-as one example). He champions the importance of singles work (heavy is relative) especially if you’ve never trained singles. He programs 8’s, 6’s, 4’ 3’s and singles along with the 5’s. He uses a lot of accessory lifts that are close to, but not the core lifts. He programs based on goals for, Hypertrophy, GPP and Strength and targets conditioning as appropriate to goals. Sound familiar?
There IS an BBM HLM template. It uses variations throughout for the medium and light movements. The lifts are not all that different than what is on the Bridge. The only differences really are where the lifts are, and the rep/sets used. I have heard Jordan say that he could argue that the HLM template really isn’t an HLM program at all, and I can definitely see that because it has much higher volume on the light/medium days than an HLM from Andy would. But, looking at the average intensity on the BBM HLM template, you can definitely see how it drops significantly from the heavy day lift performed on the other days. So, in the sense that Andy says that HLM is more of an organization method rather than a program (and I agree with him), the BBM HLM very much looks like an HLM to me, but it uses BBM principles of intensity-appropriate volume throughout.
Also, don’t forget how and why HLM every came around in the first place. It was used because going all out with high intensity was proving TOO much for many lifters. HLM regulated intensity to a large degree if properly followed. Not only that, in Bill Star’s original version, he used ASCENDING sets on HLM, so you can kind of think of that as being similar to the Bridge where you do a set @6, @7 and finally @8. The @6 and @7 (or Starr’s ascending sets) also help keep the intensity on the top set from being TOO high while introducing some more moderate volume at lower intensities. Very BBM like also, eh?
And last but not least, central to all of this is the RPE argument. The “P” as Rip says is the problem they have with all this. My guess it that you could take one of Andy’s programs, using his own rep/set/percentage schemes and translate that into RPE (which is super easy to do), and they’d still think it was horse shit. Conversely, I bet if you took one of the BBM templates, removed all the RPE stuff and just used percentages, well they’d probably think it was okay.
Basically, Reynolds/Andy think we’re all too stupid to learn and use RPE. Rip said in one of his Q&A session on Youtube (with Austin sitting right next to him) that it takes at LEAST 4 or 5 years of lifting before someone nows what they are capable of. To me that is more horse shit than anything.
I personally don’t lump Andy into all this bickering. I’ve heard him comment around RPE a number of times and have never heard him say something negative about RPE specifically. I’ve done a couple of his templates, and was a member of his barbell group for a while. Lot’s of volume in his barbell group, at much lower intensities, building up over time to heavy triples, doubles and singles.
1 Like
Right. Many think that the Texas Method is a great program, but it just doesn’t work for you. It only works for people on the far end of the athletic young male spectrum, but every program works for them. It simply isn’t a good program, it doesn’t even have as much volume as SSNLP. As far as HLM gives you more stress at appropriate intensities the better it is.
I would put money on that. The “P” is way too close to “feelings”, and any “Man” doesn’t care about feelings.
So…Andy Baker is joining BBM? and Chase is being coached by the Doctors? Plot thickens…
No, no that’s all wrong. The Dr’s are coaching Zach Evetts and they’ve convinced him he’ll have better outcomes if he gets his waist under 40".
OMG man! This shits getting crazy! What’s next?
Today’s BBL episode had Sully. The content included Matt’s butthole, some dude’s erection (he broke his dick) and reverse cowgirl, and them all but calling BBM stupid (they doubled down on intensity over volume for Masters)
2 Likes
Lol… This is why I stopped listening to the podcast awhile ago. They seem more interested in whiskey, guns, and being a man than they do in providing an informative lecture and thoughtful discussion.
1 Like
I listened to that episode also… I don’t really agree they called BBM stupid in the sense that they weren’t at all pejorative about it. Sully made a solid argument about the flaws of purely physiological reasoning and trusting personal historical practice in the face of not a lot of dispositive evidence. I think the obvious objective problem with that is when personal historical practice between multiple practitioners disagrees… lots of people who’ve been coaching for a long time think programs work that Rip wouldn’t propose for his lifters. Regardless I think Sully made his points clearly and intelligently, even if I am dubious of the conclusion. He also wasn’t dismissive or insulting. Frankly, having read a lot of Sully’s forum posts, I think the spoken word format is a much more effective and respectful way for him to communicate.
But yea, if you cut out the ridiculous crap about Reynolds’s ass, it’d be way better and less self-indulgent, and more about the actually interesting subject of the episode, Sully.
2 Likes
I feel like I’m back in high school…
1 Like
Finally listened to the most recent BBL podcast with Sully, and the episode opened up with Reynold’s saying “we tell people they’re old at 36”. My nocebo radar was on high alert after that.
I have a sample size of n=1, but my 55yo mother, who was sedentary her whole life and should be very ‘volume sensitive’, is handling 12-15 sets of squats and 6 sets of DL per week with no recovery issues, feels better and more alive, reduced knee and back pain, and is stronger than ever. Increased volume between RPE 6 and 8 seems to be working exceptionally well. No one told her she was too old to do it, thankfully.
1 Like
Yeah I heard that as well, and as a 36 year old this pisses me off to no avail. Especially the bullshit excuse about T-levels. In the year and a half I’ve been lifting my T levels have risen 15%. I actually had my yearly labs done 3 weeks ago and my Dr specifically called that out and asked me how I did it, I simply said barbell strength training and making intelligent food choices 80% of the time. At 36 I feel I’m in great shape, and I’m the strongest and most jacked that I’ve been to date (I spent most of my life as the weak “skinny guy”, and it’s amazing that after 30+ years of seeing myself that way, after a year and a half of barbell training I no longer view myself in that light, and neither does anyone else for that matter…). I am also currently handling the volume of the 12 week strength template just fine. I can understand their argument that someone who is 60 probably needs a bit more careful of a ramp up, but the goal should never be to keep them on low volume, but to titrate up volume over time. At that age increasing work capacity can effect their daily quality of life to a pretty great degree as well. Also, I feel that their “intensity dependent” argument is a moot point. It makes me feel like they’ve never truly looked at how BBM programs, because I can’t quite see how doing a single @8 or a top set @9 doesn’t check the “intensity dependent” box. I think that the nocebo they create by telling everyone over 30 that they can’t handle volume does way more harm than good. I would be lying if I said it didn’t slow me down worrying about that stuff last year when I was first transitioning into intermediate programming. I wasted a lot of time spinning my wheels on lower volume programs that didn’t work…
2 Likes