****Official Beginner Question Thread****

[milesdyson]

Originally Posted by 00Snitch

Thats another thing I have wondered too...

If 8-12 reps is best for hypertrophy, why don't we tell guys that come here wanting to get ripped or toned or whatever to eat a deficit and do ss but with 8-12 reps?

rank novices can do **** for weight in that rep range and should finish SS before starting any kind of bodybuilding routine.

[kyleb]

Again, this is something Rippetoe has already commented on elsewhere. For people overly worried about their physique, he advocates adding some high-rep work on some days. I can't remember exactly.

Regardless, all novices are nearly the same and should come close to completion of SS before starting bodybuilder nonsense.

[anklebreaker]

Originally Posted by 00Snitch

Thats another thing I have wondered too...

If 8-12 reps is best for hypertrophy, why don't we tell guys that come here wanting to get ripped or toned or whatever to eat a deficit and do ss but with 8-12 reps?

Some quick sign-posts. At work, so I can't elaborate now.

> Why would train in a "hypertrophy range" if you are eating at a deficit?
> Myofibrilar v sarcoplasmic hypertrophy
> Progression gets harder
> The entire "8-12" reps is best for hypertrophy is marginal at best, and arguably meaningless when compared to total volume

[theblackkeys]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Again, this is something Rippetoe has already commented on elsewhere. For people overly worried about their physique, he advocates adding some high-rep work on some days. I can't remember exactly.

Regardless, all novices are nearly the same and should come close to completion of SS before starting bodybuilder nonsense.

For intermediates on the texas method or other similar intermediate program he advocates a back off set at higher reps after the main work sets. His opinion on novices is pretty firmly in the do not **** with the program.

[SmileyEH]

Yea, the more I read, the less rep ranges seem to matter. As long as you're lifting something "heavy" (70%+ 1rm) and you're progressively going heavier, you will gain muscle provided you eat a surplus.

[SmileyEH]

The problem for a novice doing a set of 12 squats is his concentration and technique is going to go to **** at about rep #6.

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by SmileyEH

The problem for a novice doing a set of 12 squats is his concentration and technique is going to go to **** at about rep #6.

Mine go to **** on rep 4 in the standard 3x5, FFS.

Originally Posted by theblackkeys

For intermediates on the texas method or other similar intermediate program he advocates a back off set at higher reps after the main work sets. His opinion on novices is pretty firmly in the do not **** with the program.

Ah, that's it. Thanks.

[Micturition Man]

Here's my question:

So you generally need a caloric surplus to get stronger, but why *precisely* is this so?

I noticed a bunch of people on Lyle's forum advocate the idea that you only need a 500 calorie per day surplus because this is the energy equivalent of about 1 pound of LBM in a week which is according to them the most you can realistically gain.

Ignoring the second part of that theory, aren't they grossly simplifying the actual function of caloric excess with respect to strength gain?

It seems to me that the major function of the excess calories has more to do with putting the body in an anabolic state, stabilizing hormones, and generally reversing the effects of the stress you have put on your body rather than just providing legos to build muscle out of.

I have NFI tho.

[Thremp]

Yes.

Their idea of maximal LBM gain is also false. You can gain significantly more LBM if you just eat a **** ton of food.

[kyleb]

Yes, the 2-4 lbs of LBM per month for rank beginners is the biggest WTF on Lyle's forum. It makes literally no sense.

[Thremp]

Even for people who're blowing up their weight. I'm considering trying to gain like 20 lbs if/when I come back to America (lol barbells). We'll see what happens. But to support a gain of 2/2 a day, you'll need 9k extra cals per week, plus whatever is necessary to account for the various X factors that happen in the body. You could easily need 15k+ more per week. And magically we're in the range of people consuming vast quantities of food.

[Genz]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Again, this is something Rippetoe has already commented on elsewhere. For people overly worried about their physique, he advocates adding some high-rep work on some days. I can't remember exactly.

Regardless, all novices are nearly the same and should come close to completion of SS before starting bodybuilder nonsense.

He mentioned that in the first edition of PPST. It's not in the 2nd edition. There is an example of a young trainee who wants to add lean muscle mass after completing SS. So he would go on the Texas Method and instead of doing the Intensity Friday with a new 5RM PR every week, he'd do 5 sets of 10 to 15 reps instead and try to progress strength wise with 5x5 on Mondays. The volume days actually include training to failure etc. All the BB techniques. If there is interest, I can get the book and type that passage. It's not very long.

This is not a good thing for novices because the "moderate" weights will be way too low and you won't have a nice linear progression. And novices gain mass anyway, so the payoff of training for strength gains and adding weight to the bar is much greater.

Varying the intermediate programming like that is one instance of how you can decide what you want to focus on as soon as you are beyond the novice stage. Some people want to add muscle mass and do a more physique oriented training and do not care about pure strength gains that much anymore. That is perfectly fine AT THAT POINT IN TIME. Not earlier.

I tried this for like three weeks. 5x10 of squats across is ****ing brutal. This is not for beginners. You need to have solid form, you need to have the attitude and the experience to squat while you are basically blacking out.

[Thremp]

Training for mass is the same as training for strength in novice trainees.

[Genz]

2nd paragraph, beginning of 2nd sentence. If you were refering to what I wrote.

[JohnnyFondue]

Ok this is a little tricky to explain what I am asking, but I'll try my best.

Scenario:
Take 3 guys, 6' tall, 200 pounds, no formal weight training, basically sedentary lifestyle. They all start doing SS at the same time. The first guy eats at a deficit, the second guy eats at maintenance, and the third guy eats at a surplus.

I imagine that for a while (1-2 months?) they will all make similar gains, and the food consumption will not come into play for a while. Is that time period correct, or will there be noticeable effects right away? Or maybe it will be longer than 2 months because they have a fair amount of weight on their bodies to start with?

Also, how long do you think you could expect to make gains eating at only maintenance and doing SS?