A question on increasing weight

[Waldo]

Horseshit. Steven Low hit a dip with 190lbs added and without ever training for endurance, could do 50 bar dips straight.

That's great, list off how it applies to someone else without any personal cross reference.

My first time really ever doing dips I could pop off a dozen without issue. Why is that? Because it is overall similar to a number of other movements that I do work on. You can't tell me that a guy who uses a primarily gymnastics based approach isn't building a ton of strength endurance, especially in that plane. Anyone that heavily practices handstands and spends a lot of time in PB support is going to have a ton of endurance for dips.

A few weeks ago I could do 40+ BW squats. I've done virtually nothing endurance-wise for that particular use of strength and instead focused on maximal strength since, and have made big gains. Given that climbing big hills when running has gotten noticably harder, I have absolutely no doubt that the maximum number of BW squats I can do has declined, despite the strength increase.

Getting to a freaky high bench strength will not give you the ability to do 100 pushups. To be able to do 100 pushups you specifically have to train strength endurance in that movement plane.

[Horsedog]

Dudes, please It seems likely that you're both right, to an extent. If the 1RM can be used as a measure of pure muscular strength, and if, for example, the 50RM (have yet to see a definitive "gold standard" for muscular endurance) can be used as a measure of muscular endurance, then increasing 1 will contribute to increasing the other.

However, they are separate measures for a reason...and you train differently depending on your goals for a reason. I would hazard an educated guess that muscular strength contributes more to muscular endurance than the other way around, but I don't think it's a simple black or white issue...

[jdanger]

Getting to a freaky high bench strength will not give you the ability to do 100 pushups. To be able to do 100 pushups you specifically have to train strength endurance in that movement plane.

And putting 10% on your max bench at the same time is going to help too. Claiming something is only minimally correct then citing relatively extreme cases to support that claim sorta supports the opposite assertion.. you're only minimally correct. Until you get out into the extreme ends of strength endurance improving maximal strength helps a lot. And even once out there, it still helps.

Bottom line is why does this matter? Do I have to choose one type of training and remain there forever? Remember all training is complementary and our performance is a composition of our means of training, all of them - past and present. Your points about Steven Low demonstrate you understand this. If the goal is 100 pushups getting really strong is going to get you a large amount of the way there. This fact alone disproves the original assertion that Rip was minimally correct.

And believe me, I'm not in the habit of defending a lot of the things Rip says.

[Waldo]

And putting 10% on your max bench at the same time is going to help too. Claiming something is only minimally correct then citing relatively extreme cases to support that claim sorta supports the opposite assertion.. you're only minimally correct. Until you get out into the extreme ends of strength endurance improving maximal strength helps a lot. And even once out there, it still helps.

But most training for strength will have an endurance component. Even Rip's 5x5 program has an endurance component. Train for strength with singles and doubles only and the story is a little different. Every rep area between the extreme ends of the spectrum has components of both. Obviously if both components are included in most common rep ranges used, improving one component will improve the whole.

My main point is derived basically from the whole thing that lifting noobs have that seem to think that you will gain all the benefits of lifting at a high rep range by lifting in a low rep range, plus additional benefits; that working in a low rep range is SUPERIOR, not just for some goals, but for all goals. And this is flat out false. Many seem to think that lifting in the 12-20 rep range is pointless. IMHO, if anything it is in fact more useful than low rep ranges outside of purely weight room related endeavors. You tend to need to use strength more than 10 second bursts.

[jdanger]

But most training for strength will have an endurance component. Even Rip's 5x5 program has an endurance component.

Exactly. Weird how that works.

Train for strength with singles and doubles only and the story is a little different. Every rep area between the extreme ends of the spectrum has components of both. Obviously if both components are included in most common rep ranges used, improving one component will improve the whole.

You're arguing against a specter. No one who's serious in the strength game trains like that for very long. Certain cycles? Sure, but no one is constantly doing nothing but heavy singles and doubles for long periods of time.

My main point is derived basically from the whole thing that lifting noobs have that seem to think that you will gain all the benefits of lifting at a high rep range by lifting in a low rep range, plus additional benefits; that working in a low rep range is SUPERIOR, not just for some goals, but for all goals. And this is flat out false. Many seem to think that lifting in the 12-20 rep range is pointless.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think that is by and large the case. By far most lifting noobs believe the higher rep ranges is where they should be working. Or, if they don't believe that it is where they spend their time anyway (if only because that's all they know to do). So when they do some digging and discover the novelty of low rep, high intensity training it is pretty much magic to them if and when they try it. It works so well they take their passionate confirmation bias to the interwebs to proclaim the wonders of low rep training when in fact it's often little more than doing the right thing at the right time. The old saying is the best program is the one you aren't doing - and in the case of the guy doing 10-12 rep hypertrophy work for six years it's absolutely true. So maybe we forgive them when they haven't done all the due diligence in light of their new found eagerness to be healthy and strong and spread that word to others.

IMHO, if anything it is in fact more useful than low rep ranges outside of purely weight room related endeavors. You tend to need to use strength more than 10 second bursts.

From a quality of life and longevity standpoint I'd agree with this. For a lot of sport performance contexts outside the gym I disagree.

[Shoshie]

So, I don't know a ton about fitness theory, but it seems to me that strength is a pre-req for endurance. If I don't have enough strength to do a single push up, then there's no way that I'm ever going to do 100 of them. But if I can push 1.5x my bodyweight, such that pushing my bodyweight is relatively easy, then it seems to follow that I would be starting at a better place than someone who can barely do a single push up. So I think the comparison is not between someone who has trained for endurance and someone who has trained for strength, but how easily endurance can be achieved when starting from different pure strength capacities.

And believe me, I'm not in the habit of defending a lot of the things Rip says.

I was also curious about this, to further hijack the thread. I've heard pretty much only good things about Starting Strength, though I haven't read it myself, and I'm curious about what you don't agree with.

[161803398874989]

I was also curious about this, to further hijack the thread. I've heard pretty much only good things about Starting Strength, though I haven't read it myself, and I'm curious about what you don't agree with.

Rip talks out of his arse when the topic is Oly lifting.

[bigm141414]

I was also curious about this, to further hijack the thread. I've heard pretty much only good things about Starting Strength, though I haven't read it myself, and I'm curious about what you don't agree with.

Rip talks out of his arse when the topic is Oly lifting.

Rippetoe is great for beginners in the power lifting world. But he is not the be all end all guru of lifting. He focuses on strength and proper form for power lifts. Oly lifting is a different beast. Starting Strength is a novice lifting program designed to bring ones strength and technique up to a certain level. After that other programming needs are required to continue to make gains.

He's a good coach, with lots of experience and has helped many. But he's not 100% on all things barbell.