Mark Ripptoe is an idiot

[SumDumGoi]

If you want proof, i present to you this:

http://startingstrength.com/resource...ad.php?t=30751

Go ahead and read that nugget. I make my appearance about half way through the thread. 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.

He then blindly disregards any evidence that is presented to disprove this fact and states that all increases in muscular strength, even in beginners, is caused by an increase in hypertrophy.

I have basically taken to calling him an F'ing idiot in every post and hope to be banned soon. This man may know how to teach someone how to squat, but it is astonishingly how little knowledge of basic physiology he has.

absolutely incredible!

[xigotmailx]

I will go ahead and agree with this, I felt my time on SS was a waste compared to other workouts

[GodMadeDirt]

well at least you're taking the high-road

[qoohhlt]

You made him famous .

[Quadzilla99]

plz link us to more of ur internet posts

[SumDumGoi]

plz link us to more of ur internet posts

Its been a while since I posted on here, but I do remember this board being flooded with SS zealots who treated this man like a god. If those posters are gone from here these days then I apologize. I just find it amazing how little understanding he has of basic physiology.

[omahawk]

He is very very good at what he does, teaching beginners to get strong. but his blind dedication to his own beliefs does often rub people the wrong way

[Determinednoob]

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.

[Braveheart999]

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

[BrotherWolf]

absolutely incredible!

LOL it is... you misquoted him on purpose or did you not understand what he was telling you ??

[ThatOneLurker]

LOL it is... you misquoted him on purpose or did you not understand what he was telling you ??

/thread

[palumboism]

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.

So does Tony Horton.

[Engineer_Guy]

So you're trolling the SS forums now?

[gjohnson5]

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

[gjohnson5]

So does Tony Horton.

LOL , My muscles are confused just reading this thread :-)

[rdferguson]

Dis gon b gud.

[Jasonk282]

So does Tony Horton.

P90x works for getting overweight people to lose weight and get in shape.

Just like SS works for getting weak people stronger.

Both have their pros and cons...

[qoohhlt]

posts& articles are just some examples . Ppl should start creating their own routine and believe in themselfs.

[germaine07]

posts& articles are just some examples . Ppl should start creating their own routine and believe in themselfs.

Why start your own routine when you can optimise results by training in proven methods.

[Determinednoob]

Why start your own routine when you can optimise results by training in proven methods.

Its so awesome to be a "pioneer" in something that has been around for decades already...

[nutritionfix1]

Oh, the internet... to think back in the day of the amount of effort it took to argue with someone...

[pumplikecuming]

Why is he an idiot? You're a dumb fuk if you think starting strength make you look like a bodybuilder. STARTING STRENGTH IS THE BEST BOOK ON STRENGTH TRAINING TO DATE (for beginners), AND MARK RIPPETOE HAS DONE A HUGE SERVICE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET INTO POWERLIFTING.

Fuk off OP.

[SumDumGoi]

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.

Actually, no, I did not misquote him. I told him that the terms "strength" is not synonymous with "hypertrophy" and that this is true because the majority of strength gains that occur in novice lifters are caused by neurological factors (what this board typically refers to as "newb gains".

He then scoffed at this, which is basic physiology, and stated very bluntly that you can't increase strength without increasing muscle mass. The part which you are quoting him is after he slyly decided to redefine the argument.

[SumDumGoi]

Why is he an idiot? You're a dumb fuk if you think starting strength make you look like a bodybuilder. STARTING STRENGTH IS THE BEST BOOK ON STRENGTH TRAINING TO DATE (for beginners), AND MARK RIPPETOE HAS DONE A HUGE SERVICE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET INTO POWERLIFTING.

Fuk off OP.

Whoever said anything about his "program" in the argument? I maintain he is a good coach, however, his understanding of physiology is lacking.

[Bumpus]

Are you saying when I first started lifting the neuro signals from my brain to the required muscles were just like "hey, plz lift this weight", but after training for a time those signals got stronger and are now like "LIFT THAT WEIGHT *******!" which results in me lifting more weight?

[SumDumGoi]

LOL it is... you misquoted him on purpose or did you not understand what he was telling you ??

Me: Strength and mass are not synonymous terms. This is clearly observed in beginning lifters whom gain a disproportionate increase in strength compared to an increase in muscle mass. This proportionate increase in strength is caused by improvements in neurological efficiency

Mark Rippetoe: You can't increase one without increasing the other, they are inseparable.

Me: Do you believe that you can't gain strength without an increase in mass?

Mark Rippetoe: Yes

At this point several counterarguments were provided that clearly demonstrate that strength gains can and do occur without a concurrent increase in mass (all while maintaining that muscle mass does represent the "ceiling" for strength). At which time Mark claimed that all such studies were wrong, because....... you know, they contain facts.

You really need to read the whole argument instead of the last post where Ripp decided to change the rules in the middle of the game.

[nerd_power]

If you want proof, i present to you this:

http://startingstrength.com/resource...ad.php?t=30751

Go ahead and read that nugget. I make my appearance about half way through the thread. 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.

He then blindly disregards any evidence that is presented to disprove this fact and states that all increases in muscular strength, even in beginners, is caused by an increase in hypertrophy.

I have basically taken to calling him an F'ing idiot in every post and hope to be banned soon. This man may know how to teach someone how to squat, but it is astonishingly how little knowledge of basic physiology he has.

absolutely incredible!

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

[SumDumGoi]

Are you saying when I first started lifting the neuro signals from my brain to the required muscles were just like "hey, plz lift this weight", but after training for a time those signals got stronger and are now like "LIFT THAT WEIGHT *******!" which results in me lifting more weight?

I'm saying that those signals became more coordinated and as they do you are able to lift heavier weights. I have had a myriad of stupid arguments with people on this board before, but never have I ran into anyone who disagreed that strength gains in beginners are caused primarily by improved neurological factors.

[SumDumGoi]

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

I'm wrong for having a disagreement with a guy because its his board? Welcome to the internet douchebag. See how that works? Also, given his reputation for being a dick, I don't think dickishness is a major concern with him.

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". The whole argument started because I said that strength and hypertrophy are not synonymous. What you appear to be reading is his rephrasing of the argument near the end.

However, even after later agreeing with me that strength and hypertrophy should not be used as synonymous terms he maintains that any study that shows that the majority of strength gains occurring in beginners are caused by improved neurological efficiency are wrong. So basically he is disagreeingt with the consensus of scientific research that can be found in any beginning physiology textbook.

I admit, he placed a nice spin on the argument towards the end, but that was not the argument that was originally being made.

[Bumpus]

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.