Is there a conventional definition for "novice," "intermediate" and "advanced"?

[EliKoehn]

Beginner is pretty self-explanatory, and no one bothering to ask is elite, but this range represents what exists on this forum.

I've seen multiple times that "novice" tends to be defined by one's capacity for linear progression - which makes sense as far as it goes, but the criterion is nevertheless subjective. One guy might linearly progress to weight which is conventionally considered intermediate or even advanced, while another might stall out much lower and have to work a lot harder and for much more time to achieve the same results.

Intermediate seems to be ambiguous; that grey area between when linear progression ceases and when your lifts are considered "impressive" - another indefinite term.

Advanced is in my impression colloquially defined loosely as something that takes many years of hard and correct training to achieve, but again, these results could look quite different from case to case, and is furthermore still a subjective measure.

Are there any formal standards or definitions aiming for objectivity that these categories are based off of? Are they mostly subjective terms used simply for the sake of one's own self-progression?

[air2fakie]

Whether subjective or objective, you're combining how they're used to describe both people and programs into one.

One can start out on non-linear programming and continue on a slow progression over a course of numerous years to build an impressive body and lifts.

It also gets a little muddy when you're talking about building muscle vs. powerlifting and esp when you consider things like bodyweight and enhancements. Like is Kumail a novice or advanced after he changed his body in <1 year for Eternals?

[safcpaul]

People have their own definition for novice, intermediate and advanced but my definition is based on their strength on the key exercises or variations of them in relation to their bodyweight. Some guys might class themselves as intermediates despite having low lifts because they can't progress on a novice routine. The problem with this is that the novice probably can progress on a novice program still but because they're a novice they're doing something incorrectly wether it be in relation to their nutrition, workouts or recovery.

[Heisman2]

This was published recently but unfortunately is not open access: https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Ci...odel_of.7.aspx

However, I don't find their model to be particularly eye-opening, pretty sure most regular posters here would be able to come up with something similar if they used the same components.

[coachcalande]

Beginner is pretty self-explanatory, and no one bothering to ask is elite, but this range represents what exists on this forum.

I've seen multiple times that "novice" tends to be defined by one's capacity for linear progression - which makes sense as far as it goes, but the criterion is nevertheless subjective. One guy might linearly progress to weight which is conventionally considered intermediate or even advanced, while another might stall out much lower and have to work a lot harder and for much more time to achieve the same results.

Intermediate seems to be ambiguous; that grey area between when linear progression ceases and when your lifts are considered "impressive" - another indefinite term.

Advanced is in my impression colloquially defined loosely as something that takes many years of hard and correct training to achieve, but again, these results could look quite different from case to case, and is furthermore still a subjective measure.

Are there any formal standards or definitions aiming for objectivity that these categories are based off of? Are they mostly subjective terms used simply for the sake of one's own self-progression?

I don’t think theres an established standard however I would think the ability to tolerate volume, intensity, frequency is part of the equation from a physical standpoint while it’s important to understand that a more advanced lifter also knows his or her body and can train more instincts based.

I would also think intermediate and advanced lifting requires a greater understanding of anatomy and kinesiology as well as nutrition and recovery.

[EiFit91]

I like to just go by strength levels. That will lead to some people who just lifted for 1-2 years to be classified as «advanced» and some may never get there, but still I think this approach has more pros than cons compared to other approaches.

[ECGordyn]

Rate of progression.

Beginners progress weekly.
Intermediates progress monthly (or bi-monthly?).
Advanced progress slower than intermed.

^ Stolen from Candito advanced bench program, pdf page 5.

Consistency of progression might also be a factor, as well as need for various stimuli.

[coachcalande]

I like to just go by strength levels. That will lead to some people who just lifted for 1-2 years to be classified as «advanced» and some may never get there, but still I think this approach has more pros than cons compared to other approaches.

The problem with that is that there are high school football teams around this country with 1200-1500 lb club guys who have no clue about lifting whatsoever. I had a kid who could rep 225 the first time he picked up a weight.

[EiFit91]

The problem with that is that there are high school football teams around this country with 1200-1500 lb club guys who have no clue about lifting whatsoever. I had a kid who could rep 225 the first time he picked up a weight.

Fair point!

But there are also guys who lifted for years and know a ton about diet and training who are still weak.

[coachcalande]

Fair point!

But there are also guys who lifted for years and know a ton about diet and training who are still weak.

That’s why it’s HOW FAR YOU HAVE COME vs How far you go….some guys are “weak” but were a helluva lot weaker before they started.

Example: have had a handful of 300 pound club kids come out for football. One stayed with it and gradually worked his way to low end of 900 pound club. He tripled his total.

Now consider the guys that started 700-800 and four years later we’re only 900-1000 because they barely ever showed up to actually train.

[TAWS6]

Novice day 1 to about a year
Intermediate year 1-3
Advanced year 3 and beyond

All this assumes diet and proper progressive training. Ie not chasing the pump and training like a sissy.

[WolfRose7]

Not really.

The differences are largely overstated, particularly in terms of what type of routine to run, how much volume, what intensity etc.


I don't think the terms make much sense at all in a casual environment.

Now if you take a sport, that's much easier to set defining features whether that's years competing or lifts relative to elite to standardise those categories.

Power lifting has one of these, though this chart is quite old.
https://www.lift.net/2013/05/09/clas...aw-elite-uspa/

[GrouchyUSMC]

In my personal opinion -

A novice lifter can increase their working sets on a daily to weekly basis.

An intermediate lifter can increase their working sets on a weekly to monthly basis.

An advanced lifter can increase their working sets on a monthly to yearly basis.

[EliKoehn]

But if we just use progression rates, that does leave a pretty big essential gap in what it describes between two different people. Shouldn't it have to be a threshold relative to age, sex, experience level, exercise, etc., not merely how quickly someone progresses only relative to themselves?

Someone with a "C" letter grade of genetic potential would be considered advanced at a point which someone with a "B+" is intermediate. I don't really see the problem with calling someone who is experientially a novice "advanced" when the quality of their performance is what is being assessed.

[Darkius]

Beginner: someone whose strength is mostly limited by nerves, CNS.

Novice: Someone whose strength is at least half limited by muscle size, but still needs to gain significant nerve control.

Intermediate: someone who has pretty good control of the fibers he/she has, and now must build size.

Advanced: someone whose size is at least 90% their genetic potential and now must get creative to stimulate muscles for growth, going to full failure, doing drop sets, hunting for small overlooked muscles that still might have intermediate gains left in them, etc.


Strength vs lean mass spots a beginner, and strength vs height spot intermediate and advanced, with some genetic variation. Pretty accurate for most. I'm a beginner and not super far from novice. Knowing that told me to hold off on extra sets and not accept slow gains. If I slow down, I'll add more protein.

[nightanole]

How about the amount of gains left benchmark?

first year you gain "up to" half your lifetime gains
second year you gain half of the first year
3rd year you gain half of the second year
4th year you gain half of the 3rd year
by year five of solid progress, you have 90-95% of lifetime gains.

And there isnt a n00b window. If you fart around your first year, that just mean there is more potential for year 2 etc.

[Darkius]

Rate of progression.

Beginners progress weekly.
Intermediates progress monthly (or bi-monthly?).
Advanced progress slower than intermed.

^ Stolen from Candito advanced bench program, pdf page 5.

Consistency of progression might also be a factor, as well as need for various stimuli.

What if the reason someone progresses slowly is because he is doing it wrong.

BTW, my bench press goes up 5 pounds every 48 hours for 2 weeks straight since I started going to near failure. And I work between 16-20 reps mostly.

If I told you the weight, you'd sneer. At least I'm back at it. Also, I'm getting these gains with 2 sets per workout.

My row is going up just as fast.

[Darkius]

... One guy might linearly progress to weight which is conventionally considered intermediate or even advanced, while another might stall out much lower and have to work a lot harder and for much more time to achieve the same results.
...

The one who stalls early is probably just doing something wrong, or is a rare case of bad lifting genetics and should try out marathons instead if that is his muscle fiber make up.

[air2fakie]

What if the reason someone progresses slowly is because he is doing it wrong.

BTW, my bench press goes up 5 pounds every 48 hours for 2 weeks straight since I started going to near failure. And I work between 16-20 reps mostly.

If I told you the weight, you'd sneer. At least I'm back at it. Also, I'm getting these gains with 2 sets per workout.

My row is going up just as fast.

Must be the can of baked beans you eat before every workout to keep your small intestine fuel dump rate in order.

[Darkius]

That’s why it’s HOW FAR YOU HAVE COME vs How far you go….some guys are “weak” but were a helluva lot weaker before they started.

Example: have had a handful of 300 pound club kids come out for football. One stayed with it and gradually worked his way to low end of 900 pound club. He tripled his total.

Now consider the guys that started 700-800 and four years later we’re only 900-1000 because they barely ever showed up to actually train.

My starting bench press before high school was 35 pounds. Hmmm... or that was my 13 rep max. My father had us do 3 sets and reps till our form broke, adding 10 pounds when we hit 18 reps, which took us back down to 13. After 3 months I was doing 105 pounds, 13 reps.

My strength has not increased a lot since then, but right now it is climbing fast, a lot of that coming back to where I was.

So, I might be nearing the end of my newbie gains soon and needing to add sets. I better enjoy it while it lasts.

[ECGordyn]

How about the amount of gains left benchmark?

first year you gain "up to" half your lifetime gains
second year you gain half of the first year
3rd year you gain half of the second year
4th year you gain half of the 3rd year
by year five of solid progress, you have 90-95% of lifetime gains.

And there isnt a n00b window. If you fart around your first year, that just mean there is more potential for year 2 etc.

In this case you'd only know your level retrospectively, after you'd measured your lifetime gains. How could I measure half my lifetime gains if I didn't know the full value until the end of my lifetime?

Even that could be problematic, as over a lifetime there would be many, many factors that could make training suboptimal compared to the fullest lifetime potential.

The question is splitting hairs. That's fine, but studying the question would be best done with real scientific literature and wide experience from a variety of coaches.

[paulinkansas]

My starting bench press before high school was 35 pounds.

I think my bench for 6-8 reps in high school was around 60 pounds. Fast forward to college and grad school. Could do 225 for 8 reps without a spotter. Just keep at it, eat right, sleep and don't overtrain. I see idiots on here that do something like 8-12 sets per bodypart 2-3x a week. I hit everything 8x a week. YMMV.

[paulinkansas]

And I work between 16-20 reps mostly.
I'm getting these gains with 2 sets per workout.
.

Sometimes you get information that criticizes what you are doing. I'm not critical on anyone unless I don't like them or I think they are an idiot. You are neither, so take that as a compliment.

I'm just going to say this. I do all my sets at 12 reps and increase the reps to 20 with the same weight. When I hit 20 I go back to 12 and increase the weight and repeat. I do 2 sets and 2 accessory sets, which is pretty close to what you do.

btw: 5'8" and dumb bell bench press 2 60 pound dumb bells for 22 reps before proper form breaks down. I have to modify dumb bell spinlock handles to accommodate more plates.

[mdonnelly80]

The charts on this site and others like it provide a quantitative answer to your question. I've used these types of standards consistently over the years and found them to be fairly useful with respect to programming choice. Much of this is relative and comes down to experience though. It's pretty obvious when a beginner/novice level program isn't appropriate; you'll stop making gains and the progression will beat the chit out of you. It's not quite so clear when you're at upper intermediate/lower advanced as gains come much slower. It's easy to bounce around between programs at this level because the plateaus can be frustrating.

https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards

[EliKoehn]

The charts on this site and others like it provide a quantitative answer to your question. I've used these types of standards consistently over the years and found them to be fairly useful with respect to programming choice. Much of this is relative and comes down to experience though. It's pretty obvious when a beginner/novice level program isn't appropriate; you'll stop making gains and the progression will beat the chit out of you. It's not quite so clear when you're at upper intermediate/lower advanced as gains come much slower. It's easy to bounce around between programs at this level because the plateaus can be frustrating.

https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards

Ah, yes.

A staple for me since 2017. Only concerns I have with that site is the data are self-reported, and people are going to claim inadequate form and exaggerate their own numbers.

For instance, my bench (much to my chagrin) is not a comp lift, because I failed to pause, and apparently was holding wider than would be meet-legal. So if I go login and plug my number in, it'll make it look like it's not wide grip T&G. But overall it does seem about right, just can't put my nose on any specific criteria it uses since it relies on a show of hands, so to speak.

[TolerantLactose]

I'm fairly certain most people who submit bench numbers are doing touch and go. I'd take that site with a grain of salt. They have machine lifts and things like rack pulls which you can't standardize.