Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: # Greyskull.png (47KB, 547x465px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 547x465px
The following is ripped straight from the GSLP 2nd Ed. book.
>“Why the A/B setup on the press/benchpress, and not on the squat/deadlift”
>The press and bench press both use significantly less muscle mass than do the squat and deadlift. The resulting loads used for the former two lifts are smaller than the latter two, thereby placing less systemic stress on the body and its recovery ability. This allows one to train the two lifts in an alternating fashion each training session without any detrimental effects. Remember, the more opportunities for individual stress/recovery/adaptation (read: strength and muscle gain) cycles, the greater the potential for growth and strength development. We want to keep the frequency high and the load and the volume significant enough to elicit an adaptation, without providing an unnecessary beatdown that forbids us from getting back into that glorious growth cycle with another stimulus within the desired timeframe.
I still don't understand, are the muscles used for squats and deadlifts not strong enough to recover from an alternating workout? How does that make sense? For that matter, if you only do deadlifts 1/week and squats 2/week, won't your squat weight eventually overtake your deadlift weight? How would you reach 1/2/3/4 in relatively equal time if your squat would reach 3pl8 WAY before your deadlift would hit 3pl8, let alone 4pl8, barring excessively frequent deloads on your squat?
>>
>>41665992
>The following is ripped straight from the GSLP 2nd Ed. book.
No it isn't.
That's some plebbit fags "version". Deadlift is +10lbs per workout. Never trust these retarded infographics that condense and entire book into a braindead photo. It's also completely missing the frequency work, which is the cornerstone of the upper body work on this program.
>>
>>41666038
read > comprehend > post
>>
File: Capture.png (33KB, 497x324px) Image search:
[Google]
33KB, 497x324px
>>41666038
The green text is from page 17 of the book.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/192081024/Greyskull-LP-2nd-Edition
>>
>>41666038
>That's some plebbit fags "version". Deadlift is +10lbs per workout.
Page 21, deadlifts and squats are 5lbs increases.
>>
>>41665992
>How would you reach 1/2/3/4 in relatively equal time if your squat would reach 3pl8 WAY before your deadlift would hit 3pl8, let alone 4pl8, barring excessively frequent deloads on your squat?
if you can do 10 reps of deadlift you double the weight increase...
>>
>>41666611
But could you do that for the entire time you're doing this program? It just seems like the squat numbers would eventually catch up and overtake deadlifts if you could just do the same 10 rep double gain with squats 2/week.
>>
>>41666629
You'll probably need to deload squats more often, so the proportionality (is that a word?) will be maintained.
>>
>>41665992
Who cares? It's a fucking ripoff of Starting Strength, the only "logic" involved was "how can I change this to not get sued?" and "how can I make money off someone else's work?" He's also full of shit and pins, so his advice to nattys might not be so hot.
Anyways, the whole "deload/amrap" thing is overblown. In SS, the deload is only supposed to be for one or two sessions, not some formulaic crap that keeps you below your 3x5 max for a long time, so Johnny PAAAAAAAAIIIIIIN's explanation of why his method is "better" is full of shit. Additionally it's not like a deload amrap of 5, 5, 8 is really that fucking much more "volume for hypertrophy" than 5, 5, 5. It's 18 reps vs 15, fuckwad.
Also, chins are in SS. Just not immediately, but after you get your deadlift form and clean form ironed out, SS has you doing chins every other session (just like in the pic).
FWIW I do think the Deads by themselves are better than always doing them after squats, but I think it's kinda pussy to still do 1x5 in that case. If Deads are your only lower exercise that day, may as well do them 3x5.
>>
>>41667861
>Anyways, the whole "deload/amrap" thing is overblown.
So wait, should I just be doing greyskull without the amrap and just deload after 2-3 failures?
>>
>>41667889
I mean, do the math. If you can't do an honest 3x5 at, say, 200lbs - say you made 5, 5, 3 - then you deload to maybe 180lbs. Do you REALLY think that 5, 5, then repping out the last set which may be, idk, 8 or so, is THAT much more "volume for hypertrophy" than doing the 3x5 at 180? It's 18 reps vs 15. Even if you got 10 on the last set, it's 20 reps vs 15, and it's only for a few sessions that you're doing extra reps, it's not as if you're doing a dedicated block of 3x10 for 3 weeks. Then balance that against the reason Ripp gives for the deload: to allow you to rest your muscles to take another stab at that weight.
> The extra rest and recovery – the small “peaking” effect from the temporary reduction in training load – should allow success with a weight slightly above that which the trainee was successful with previously, and the act of lifting this heavier weight should spur further progress for several more workouts.
I'd try the weight at least a couple of times, then reset by a bit (it doesn't need to be some exact formula) and plan to work up to try the failed weight again in 4-5 sessions from the reset. If I kept hitting resets at the same weight, I'd change the programming for that lift as suggested in Practical Programming, and if a bunch of lifts were getting stuck at the same time, I'd switch to an intermediate program.
>>
>>41667962
Very good points, I think I'l apply this. Thanks a bunch.
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2