Re: Bill Starr's 5 x 5 program... Variation per Madcow2 (thanx) So here it is! K up n
I think his optimization is more concerned with making sure the body is in the best state possible to handle the program before beginning. Not necessarily a bad thing. There has been at least one person here who was training heavy and went right into it and just burned himself right now. Given that it's a spectrum, I'm sure there are a few that wound up with suboptimal gains from not getting enough rest and recovery beforehand.
He's pretty technically inclined and interested in the internal "bio-mechanisms" of it. Whether what he says is true or not, I can't say. I really doubt anyone can at that level, conclusively at least. It's probably a valid theory though. Frankly it's an area that I don't know in depth enough to truly evaluate unless something is glaringly wrong. It's one thing to have a theory but it's another thing to have an encompassing grasp of the entire body of research in the area in order to really evaluate and see if there are contradictions (this is the same in any field and the one I know at this level isn't related to exercise science - to be honest, no one knows an entire field at this level but mainly portions or specialty interests).
Obviously he knows it works and what's behind it. Maximal strength increases in a valid hypertrophy range in the most stimulative compound lifts will drive strong adaptation. Caloric excess will provide the means for the body to adapt with hypertrophy. As long as caloric excess isn't rediculously out of line, it will be mostly muscle. That's the utilitarian view along with proper balance in factors and loading tailored to the individual.
Now, I can't speak to his successes and I don't know the guy but I don't see anything terribly out of line. Also, something to keep in mind is that some of the best coaches and training minds are not the most successful - I'd say in most cases they've had very limited success relative to the athletes they coach (and this is accross many sports - think golf for instance). Perhaps it was a passion to make the most out of their limited resources that allowed them to accumulate knowledge and really build an understanding. Maybe just love of the sport. I've generally found the HST guys to be pretty knowledgable. I'm not familiar with them all or even many and I've never read anything from vicious I don't believe but the few I've seen are generally really open minded, interested in learning, and open to re-evaluating if compelling evidence is presented to the contrary - that's a pretty good recipe for learning and success.
Anyway, that was more time than I could spare. I'm going to have to make some excuse to the boys in NYC for getting my stuff in late. I hope that sheds some light though.
Lesaman69 said:I waited for the 5x5 "review" by vicious. And as i thought, i didnt´get disappointed, his answer is up. He now showed an optimization of the dual factor 5x5. What an jackass.
With every post, he shows more and more idiotic thoughts. Just another 100lbs expert.
I think his optimization is more concerned with making sure the body is in the best state possible to handle the program before beginning. Not necessarily a bad thing. There has been at least one person here who was training heavy and went right into it and just burned himself right now. Given that it's a spectrum, I'm sure there are a few that wound up with suboptimal gains from not getting enough rest and recovery beforehand.
He's pretty technically inclined and interested in the internal "bio-mechanisms" of it. Whether what he says is true or not, I can't say. I really doubt anyone can at that level, conclusively at least. It's probably a valid theory though. Frankly it's an area that I don't know in depth enough to truly evaluate unless something is glaringly wrong. It's one thing to have a theory but it's another thing to have an encompassing grasp of the entire body of research in the area in order to really evaluate and see if there are contradictions (this is the same in any field and the one I know at this level isn't related to exercise science - to be honest, no one knows an entire field at this level but mainly portions or specialty interests).
Obviously he knows it works and what's behind it. Maximal strength increases in a valid hypertrophy range in the most stimulative compound lifts will drive strong adaptation. Caloric excess will provide the means for the body to adapt with hypertrophy. As long as caloric excess isn't rediculously out of line, it will be mostly muscle. That's the utilitarian view along with proper balance in factors and loading tailored to the individual.
Now, I can't speak to his successes and I don't know the guy but I don't see anything terribly out of line. Also, something to keep in mind is that some of the best coaches and training minds are not the most successful - I'd say in most cases they've had very limited success relative to the athletes they coach (and this is accross many sports - think golf for instance). Perhaps it was a passion to make the most out of their limited resources that allowed them to accumulate knowledge and really build an understanding. Maybe just love of the sport. I've generally found the HST guys to be pretty knowledgable. I'm not familiar with them all or even many and I've never read anything from vicious I don't believe but the few I've seen are generally really open minded, interested in learning, and open to re-evaluating if compelling evidence is presented to the contrary - that's a pretty good recipe for learning and success.
Anyway, that was more time than I could spare. I'm going to have to make some excuse to the boys in NYC for getting my stuff in late. I hope that sheds some light though.