Mark Ripptoe is an idiot

[SumDumGoi]

I can find scientific studies that support cold fusion. Anyone "in the know" about those matters can tell you in practice it doesn't work and the study "over-reached" with its conclusions of the data. The point Ripp is trying to make is "scientific studies" with limited data can often spin their data into whatever conclusions support their hypothesis. While he has thousands of real life data points to support his claims. If you are a scientific person this should not surprise you about scientific studies.

Please find me those studies about cold fusion.

[Bumpus]

Please find me those studies about cold fusion.

I don't really care to. Plus the studies were from the late 80's so I'm not even certain they can be found on the internetz. This article sums it up a bit:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-...resurface.html

[LukePie]

Wait, so he really denies neurological adaptation exists in weightlifting?

[SumDumGoi]

I don't really care to. Plus the studies were from the late 80's so I'm not even certain they can be found on the internetz. This article sums it up a bit:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/cold-...resurface.html

So two scientists made claims about it. Now, where were the results of their work published? Anyone can make a "claim". The question is did thy actually go through the scientific rigor of performing a experiment and undergo the peer review process to get their work published. Even so, was their opinion supported by the majority of experts in the field?

Using your example and given the largely exaggerated claims that Mark commonly makes, and his refusal to provide any evidence or controlled studies of his own to support his claims, he is the equivalent of the cold fusion supporters whom you are dismissing.

[Engineer_Guy]

Wait, so he really denies neurological adaptation exists in weightlifting?

He didn't claim they don't exist. He said neural adaptations and hypertrophy will always occur together. Which is probably true. I don't see how you can lift weights in any way without creating SOME level of hypertrophy.

[SumDumGoi]

Wait, so he really denies neurological adaptation exists in weightlifting?

In the end, even after all the maneuvering regarding his stance on the position, he is denying that you can improve strength without increasing muscle mass. So basically, even a novice lifter who increases strength quite dramatically at the beginning of their program he is saying that this increase of strength is caused by an increase in muscle mass.

It is hard place the line regarding his exact position on the matter as he constantly redraws it wherever he likes.

[LukePie]

He didn't claim they don't exist. He said neural adaptations and hypertrophy will always occur together. Which is probably true. I don't see how you can lift weights in any way without creating SOME level of hypertrophy.

I completely agree. In fact, I've made some of my best size gains on a 5x5 program.

[MichaelCJ]

To be honest, I don't know either way for sure, as I haven't studied the right stuff. Beyond a bit of reading online, and a few books at home, that is.

But, what Rip's saying does make some sense, on the face of it - after all, you don't lift weights with your mind.

And no, I'm not committed to him always being right (or wrong, or whatever), just for the record. He's just another guy, as far as I'm concerned.

[SumDumGoi]

Let's look at an example. A 12-year old kid goes out in his back yard and throws a football for the first time. He doesn't know how to hold the ball, he is not releasing it at the appropriate time, etc, etc. After throwing the ball his dad shows him the proper grip, identifies when to release the football and corrects his stance, etc, etc.

After doing so the kid is able to throw 20 yards further than his previous attempt. Did he become stronger or more efficient with the throwing process?

Same thing happens with weight lifting, except now you are talking about the coordination of thousands of individual muscle fibers as they undergo cross bridge cycling and form an efficient movement pattern.

[Bumpus]

Yup, they tested it and published it, much to the eventual embarrassment of everyone involved.

[y0lked]

It's fun to listen to bigots argue, a never ending cycle.

I personally agree with Mark because he has many "lab subjects" to prove his methods work. Otherwise, people wouldn't buy his book and do the programme. A lot of studies in every area of life are too specific and don't always cover all bases. just because 3x10 knee extension showed to increase some newbie's leg size, doesn't necessarily mean we should all ditch squats in favour of the knee extension. That would be backward and illogical. But I don't completely disregard studies either.

/opinion

walking sheep i tell you.

[MichaelCJ]

One guy whose brains I'd like to pick on this topic is Lyle McDonald. Sure, he's also just another guy, lol, but as far as I can tell, he researches and backs stuff up, an awful lot. His approach seems sound. To me.

Might see if there's an article about it, there, or somewhere else I'm likely to look.

[Bumpus]

Let's look at an example. A 12-year old kid goes out in his back yard and throws a football for the first time. He doesn't know how to hold the ball, he is not releasing it at the appropriate time, etc, etc. After throwing the ball his dad shows him the proper grip, identifies when to release the football and corrects his stance, etc, etc.

After doing so the kid is able to throw 20 yards further than his previous attempt. Did he become stronger or more efficient with the throwing process?

Same thing happens with weight lifting, except now you are talking about the coordination of thousands of individual muscle fibers as they undergo cross bridge cycling and form an efficient movement pattern.

I think you are trying to think too deep on improving form. If I always benched with a flat back and then switched to an arched back which provided a more stable base for me to perform the lift on and upped my bench press 10lbs, I don't think I'd call that a neurological adaptation. The muscles still fire in the same way, they now just have more resistance to push against.

[Engineer_Guy]

Let's look at an example. A 12-year old kid goes out in his back yard and throws a football for the first time. He doesn't know how to hold the ball, he is not releasing it at the appropriate time, etc, etc. After throwing the ball his dad shows him the proper grip, identifies when to release the football and corrects his stance, etc, etc.

After doing so the kid is able to throw 20 yards further than his previous attempt. Did he become stronger or more efficient with the throwing process?

Same thing happens with weight lifting, except now you are talking about the coordination of thousands of individual muscle fibers as they undergo cross bridge cycling and form an efficient movement pattern.

That's not neural adaptations either. That's learning proper technique. Completely different subjects.

That's like a guy squatting more by fixing obvious flaws in his technique. It's not a neural adaptation.

[DCSpartan]

Mark Rippetoe has written several books and has a pretty big client list and has other fitness experts praise him

He may not be infallible, but I will take him over some random internet screen name who cant offer any RL examples of their performance as a strength coach.

[Esthetique]

I improved all my lifts alot by changing to 5/3/1 WHILE cutting - in just a month. I don't really think I gained any muscle lol

my bench improved by over 20 pounds (calculated 1RM) for example

[Engineer_Guy]

I improved all my lifts alot by changing to 5/3/1 WHILE cutting - in just a month. I don't really think I gained any muscle lol

my bench improved by over 20 pounds (calculated 1RM) for example

Myofibrillar hypertrophy

[RockCrab]

You seem to deliberately misinterpret his statements for the purpose of being argumentative. Also you went on his site and led with rudeness rather than respectful disagreement. Even if you're right (not weighing in on that, myself), you're in the wrong.

-Andrew

This is my issue with most everything I've ever seen SDG post. the words 'respectfully disagree' aren't in his vocabulary. It's usually a holier-than-thou, nose in the air attitude followed by the construction / perpetuation of straw men. Today it's the 'cold fusion' response, because that's germane to the conversation, right?

Whether his opinion is right or wrong, supported or unsubstantiated, his communication style causes others to tune him out rather than respectfully consider his input. It doesn't matter what you know if you can't effectively communicate it.

/fact.

[nerd_power]

I'm wrong for having a disagreement with a guy because its his board?

That's not nearly what I said. You're really entrenched in this habit of arguing with straw men.

Also, he stated very clearly that you cannot gain strength without a concurrent increase in muscle mass. This was a direct question that was asked of him which he responded "no".

Yeah, I read the thread. In the same post where he answered "no", he went on to explain why he answered no, which you totally ignored and acted as if he had said the two concepts were one and the same. His explanation for why he answered no made a lot of sense to me, and you never really rebutted it, because you built a straw man instead. Whether you're right or wrong about the strength-hypertrophy correlation, you argue your point dishonestly, and I don't really blame Rippetoe for getting heated in response.

-Andrew

[SumDumGoi]

That's not neural adaptations either. That's learning proper technique. Completely different subjects.

That's like a guy squatting more by fixing obvious flaws in his technique. It's not a neural adaptation.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The example in itself was not supposed to be neurological. I was drawing an analogy towards a situation where there needs to many parts working together efficiently to produce a specific goal. The situation is much more difficult to visualize inside of the body when you are talking about the coordination between cross bridge cycling and motor unit recruitment patterns. The example was only meant as a visual.

Perhaps a better visual would be a team of individual athletes whom have never played together before at the beginning of the season vs. at the end of the season when they should be a much more cohesive unit.

[SumDumGoi]

That's not nearly what I said. You're really entrenched in this habit of arguing with straw men.



Yeah, I read the thread. In the same post where he answered "no", he went on to explain why he answered no, which you totally ignored and acted as if he had said the two concepts were one and the same. His explanation for why he answered no made a lot of sense to me, and you never really rebutted it, because you built a straw man instead. Whether you're right or wrong about the strength-hypertrophy correlation, you argue your point dishonestly, and I don't really blame Rippetoe for getting heated in response.

-Andrew

You said:

Also you went on his site and led with rudeness rather than respectful disagreement. Even if you're right (not weighing in on that, myself), you're in the wrong.

I had a disagreement with him. His dickishness is where my rudeness came from. Also, even if he "explained" his explanation, his explanation is still WRONG. Strength CAN be increased without hypertrophy. This happens all the time and is quite common with beginning lifters. He disputes this and continues to dispute this.

[Engineer_Guy]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The example in itself was not supposed to be neurological. I was drawing an analogy towards a situation where there needs to many parts working together efficiently to produce a specific goal. The situation is much more difficult to visualize inside of the body when you are talking about the coordination between cross bridge cycling and motor unit recruitment patterns. The example was only meant as a visual.

Perhaps a better visual would be a team of individual athletes whom have never played together before at the beginning of the season vs. at the end of the season when they should be a much more cohesive unit.

An analogy of what neural adaptation is does not support your claim that you can obtain neural adaptions without any muscular hypertrophy occurring...

Simple question here: How do you create neural adaptions without breaking down the muscle at all? That's pretty much what would need to happen in order to prevent hypertrophy.

[SumDumGoi]

An analogy of what neural adaptation is does not support your claim that you can obtain neural adaptions without any muscular hypertrophy occurring...

Simple question here: How do you create neural adaptions without breaking down the muscle at all? That's pretty much what would need to happen in order to prevent hypertrophy.

Cross-education of muscle groups would support this notion as I have mentioned in Ripp's forum. For instance if one limb is trained and the other is not, there is some increase of strength to the untrained limb. In other words, the muscle became stronger without ever even picking up the weight. This is not to say that this is 100 analogous to doing squats, but it does lay the foundation that strength and muscle mass cannot be considered as inseparable terms as one can be improved independently from the other.

In regards to strength training, yes, you have two separate mechanisms occurring concurrently. However, in beginners the increase in muscular strength far surpasses the increase in muscular size. Therefore, the two terms should not be considered synonymous because strength can be increased without size. Ripp continues to dispute this notion.

To understand how this became so inflamed you have to get back to the original argument. I was making an important distinction between strength and hypertrophy. People were throwing a fit because a study which used low reps and high weight observed the same amount of muscle mass as those who used high weight and low reps. They then started complaining that the authors observed a greater increase in strength in the high weight group. The point which I was making being that you could observe a greater increase in strength in the high weight group, with no differences in muscle mass due to improved neurological efficiency with high loads. This is where the argument stemmed from.

Basically if you train one person with a 10 RM and another person with a 5 RM I would expect the person with the 5RM to improve strength (1 RM) more than the person who is training with a 10 RM, despite both individuals having the same increase in muscle mass.

[Engineer_Guy]

We are now currently locked in a debate regarding his belief that all increases in muscular strength are caused through an increase in muscular hypertrophy and that neurological adaptations do not exist, or at least can't be separated from hypertrophy.

See here's why I'm having trouble following you. First you say he denies the existence of neural adaptions (which he did not). Then you say "or at least can't be separated from hypertrophy". Okay he said that. And it makes sense. How can you completely isolate neural adaption from hypertrophy? Using your muscles in any way induces some level of hypertrophy. Whether that results in measurable muscle mass increase is what you're arguing against I think. Just because noticeable mass isn't gained doesn't mean hypertrophy did not occur. Your muscles can undergo myofibrillar hypertrophy without any noticeable mass increase.

[SumDumGoi]

See here's why I'm having trouble following you. First you say he denies the existence of neural adaptions (which he did not). Then you say "or at least can't be separated from hypertrophy". Okay he said that. And it makes sense. How can you completely isolate neural adaption from hypertrophy? Using your muscles in any way induces some level of hypertrophy. Whether that results in measurable muscle mass increase is what you're arguing against I think. Just because noticeable mass isn't gained doesn't mean hypertrophy did not occur. Your muscles can undergo myofibrillar hypertrophy without any noticeable mass increase.

From a coaching aspect you will not be able to differentiate between the causes (hypertrophy vs. neurological) as both produce the same outcome; increased weight on the bar. From a research perspective you can absolutely differentiate between these terms. It involves measuring hypertrophy as well as other neurological factors. I can agree that this is a distinction that is largely academic, but there was a reason for differentiating between the two mechanisms given the discussion.

Ripp's perspective of the issue has changed several times throughout the argument. He says one thing then claims that he meant another and told me that if I had actually read his books I would understand his perspective on the issue he just responded to me about. But regardless of defining his stance, there was a very clear question I asked of him to which he responded "no":

"Is it possible to increase strength without hypertrophy"

Given his responses, despite appearing to be quite limber for a man of his size and age he is wrong.

Anyway, I have some real work I need to attend to so I doubt very much I will be continuing this discussion on either board for a while.

[Engineer_Guy]

told me that if I had actually read his books I would understand his perspective on the issue he just responded to me about

Well of course. The meaning of life becomes clear once you've read Starting Strength 3rd Edition

[CognitiveShift]

From what I can tell you have misquoted him both here and in that thread. What I saw him say was

I have never dismissed neurological factors in strength increase. If you've actually read what I've written you'd know this. You haven't and you don't. My point is that the adaptation to a force production-dependent stress is both neurological and architectural simultaneously, and that is is impossible to separate the two adaptations. Only a tenured academic without ant practical experience in training novices would actually believe the conventional exfizz dogma.

The terms are not synonyms, you fool. I said that the effects of the stress were inseparable, not the ****ing semantic terms!!!!! And I'm telling you that novice lifters only experience a disproportionate increase between strength and hypertrophy on one of your ****ty PT-based exercise physiology-endorsed programs. You don't have any experience in training novice lifters on correctly-designed barbell programs and you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

That was a major diss if Rippetoe actually said that

HAHAHAH I lol'd so hard at that for some reason, that bruh Rippetoe is ****ing you up, you're gettin served.


vs

[Jasonk282]

l.

Perhaps a better visual would be a team of individual athletes whom have never played together before at the beginning of the season vs. at the end of the season when they should be a much more cohesive unit.

That's not neutral adaptions either...that's holding each man accountable for their job/position and if they can't preform up to task then you fix the problem by replacing them. Just like you fix your form to me more efficient. You body didn't adapt, you were just using improper technique.

I've tossed many a Marine out of my Squat/fireteam simply because they could not perform to USMC standards and in my line of work...people return home in coffins with American flags on them.

Just like your football example...he didn't adapt, he was using improper technique.

[Engineer_Guy]

HAHAHAH I lol'd so hard at that for some reason, that bruh Rippetoe is ****ing you up, you're gettin served.

That's not Mark Rippetoe it's Roger Estep...

[Engineer_Guy]

Here's Mark Rippetoe when he was a power lifter: