I use Mark Lauren's You Are Your Own Gym program (book + companion app), and it's been great. The program is 10 weeks long, it's all bodyweight exercises using stuff you have around the house. There are 4 difficulty settings, and program is 10 weeks long. The app is nice because it walks you through the exercises with videos and timers. I feel like I've got a ton more energy and I'm in a more positive mood more often.

Not having to go out to a gym is a huge plus for me. I don't like gyms much, always feel out of place and like I'm competing with other people there. Plus there's the hassle of having to drive there, shower, drive back... it just adds a lot of overhead to something that needs to be as easy as possible to ensure consistency.

Also, you can lurk http://www.reddit.com/r/bodyweightfitness and http://www.reddit.com/r/yayog. Every question has already been answered.

[0] https://www.t-nation.com/workouts/531-how-to-build-pure-stre... Scroll to the very bottom for the program.

Is medium weights + high repetitions all there is to it, or is there some more theory here? Got any links? :)

Can only find references to German volume training - not sure if that's the same.

They do. Volume, usually defined using tonnage (weight x reps x sets) at a certain intensity (% of your maximal strength) is the main predictor not only of hypertrophy but also of strength gains in training. That is why all of the strongest powerlifters, who are only interested in moving as much weight as possible, train in that way (medium/heavy weights). Coach/powerlifter Greg Nuckols has written two books on the topic (The Art of Lifting and the Science of Lifting) which are sort of summarizing the literature on the subject, but you can find a lot of the content for free on his blog strengtheory (for example this post: http://www.strengtheory.com/more-is-more/)

Two other web pages offering meta analysis of the literature are http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/strength/#3 (about strength) and http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/hypertrophy/#... (about hypertrophy)

Here is Kai Greenes(runner up Mr. Universe) take on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wZNGL4iA4 . You probably don't want to look like him, but you have to admit he knows what he's talking about.

Just google "volume vs intensity training" for a million hits on the subject.

That has nothing to do with volume training, that's just proper weightlifting in general.

If the weight makes a noise loud enough to draw every gym goers attention, you are lifting too much and should deload. Or you just might be that guy ;)

That's not to say that you won't benefit from working with a weight where it is possible to control when lowering, but there's a lot to be said for power cleaning a higher amount and dropping upon completion of the rep.

Gyms are not libraries. They should be dirty and loud.

You can be out of the gym in 30 minutes or less. It's 3 exercises 3 times per week. 15 sets total per gym session (not counting warm-up sets).

The whole point is to start with a very low weight (empty bar) and work your way up by adding 2.5lbs to each side every time you go back in. It's the fastest linear progression workout for beginners.

From my experience, Strong Lifts 5x5 is the recommended beginner's workout. You need a solid base to start off with. and 5x5 gets you there the quickest, because you are doing compound lifts. Biggest gym noob mistake is to go in there and start doing isolation exercises, when you are already lacking a base. That causes muscle imbalances which can then result in tendon and joint issues.

Edit: Just wanted to add that the 5x5 can transition into 3x5 and then 1x5 as you move up in weight and plateau. This can keep you going until you squat 400-500 pounds and deadlift 500-600.

I think 30 minutes in the gym is disingenuous. Within weeks that quickly balloons to about 1.5 hours as soon as the weights get remotely challenging.

Very very very few people can continue even a 1x5 linear progression to a 400# squat or 500# deadlift.

But I'd like to understand better your concern about volume. If I face this deficiency, what will it feel like? How should I get around it?

You'd be better off doing Deadlifts only and perhaps add pullups.

My gym has bumpers and people do power cleans all the time. Should I consider replacing rows?

I think the olympic lifts are really cool, but I feel it'd take significant motive to go off program and include them at least until I top out on 5x5s.

Starting Strength, 2nd edition:

- There is a whole section on barbell rows in the "Useful Assistance Exercises" chapter. See page 263.

- Barbell row substitution is mentioned in the "Programming" chapter. Page 289, start of 5th paragraph: "People without access to bumper plates may choose to use the barbell row instead of the power clean. This is not a terrible substitution, but be aware of what you're giving up if you do..."

I guess Rip changed his mind?

there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense: it is sub optimal for increasing mass, is hard and not that enjoyable compared to less intense weightlifting routines, increases the length of workouts, interferes with training for other sports, is incompatible with serious participation in sports (outside of powerlifting), requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...

even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.

> strength training 3x a week will with no other exercise will leave the average person with extremely poor cardiovascular fitness.

This is actually not true. I wont argue it's going to give you the same level of cardiovascular conditioning as running daily, but it absolutely gives you a baseline of cardiovascular conditioning. Since we are talking about basic fitness, I would still hold to my recommendation that strength is the most important thing for the first few months, especially for a sedentary population that is likely to hurt themselves doing high impact running. I would agree that after those first few months cardiovascular fitness should be considered, and in fact most strength programs include conditioning as well. Starting strength does not because it's not meant to be run for more than a few months before going into intermediate programs that do in fact contain conditioning.

> there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense

Re: evidence of preventative benefits, I'd suggest reading this article http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/article/barbell_t... Re: looking better, this thread is not about that...so...

> it is sub optimal for increasing mass

On the contrary, given a year and body building goals I would absolutely be recommending strength based training for a great amount of that time. I suggest you read Practical Programming which goes into detail about why this is, but the short version is myofibrilar hypertrophy vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a very real difference, and the former is far more important for mass during the novice phase, and for allowing the latter to be quickly added during intermediate phases.

> requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...

This is a pretty poor understanding of the starting strength program and its nutritional recommendations. Have you read the book or just internet forums like /r/fitness where idiots talk about it?

> even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.

If you think starting strength is a sports training routine then you do not understand the basic principals of the program or the philosophy. Please respond to my initial justification, which is that strength is the basis of all fitness and provides gains in every area, as well as the fact that I explicitly recommend a short period of time for strength training.

your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource. The linked article links to evidence that resistance training can aid health (in elderly subjects). This does not support the idea of high intensity barbell training as a magic injury prevention tool.

Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength. Lots of guys have strong physiques yet use mostly "inferior" bodyweight exercises and machines. Take a look around you in the gym next time you're there and you might be a little surprised :).

Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus. This is a pretty good reason why such a training program should not be your default recommendation!

Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness. Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights. Even if this rather bizarre statement was true, it does not explain why powerlifting training of this sort is ideal for everyone. I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity -- one of the most compelling reasons why the average person should not do Starting Strength and why it is most definitely a powerlifting specific training regime.

You may have had a great experience with Starting Strength. But other people will often have a very different response to training and health goals. Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.

I have to disagree with you on the machines though. From what I've read, they tend to train large muscle groups but fail to build up stabilizer muscles, which can cause some nasty problems if you keep at it for a long time. A good friend of mine worked out exclusively on machines for a while and wound up having to work (as a developer) in wrist braces because the muscles in his arms were all out of whack. He thought he'd gotten carpal tunnel syndrome or something similar, but his physiotherapist did a quick exam and asked him if he worked out on machines X or Y. He answered in the affirmative, and she told him to stop immediately and start stretching and do some bodyweight stuff.

Bodyweight or barbell exercises won't lead you down that path, but machines can and do cause problems. Be careful!

I think you're arguing against a straw man...I've repeatedly stated that cardio is important and something that should be considered after a baseline of strength is established.

I've repeatedly stated that if mass is your goal don't do a strength program once you've established a baseline of strength.

> your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource.

Practical Programming was written by a PhD, and the article I sent is written by an MD. So...unscientific? Please do send sources for your assertions though.

> Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus.

I'm sorry this is completely ridiculous. I'm not suggesting people become powerlifters. I'm suggesting people build up a base of strength before doing other physical activity. In order to do so you do not need to put on weight.

> Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength.

Dude I have said over and over again that people should not be running starting strength past a few months. Rippetoe says the same. It's not a long term program meant to meet any and every goal. If your goal is mass and you are at step 0, start with strength and move to volume later. If you have a reason that is suboptimal I'd happily hear it, but you are arguing against things I'm not saying. To be 10000% clear: I'm not arguing people who are interested in mass should be doing low rep workouts forever.

> Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness.

Building a strength adaptation is the only way to simultaneously build an adaptation in every other type of fitness. Once again, I'm not suggesting it's the only thing to do, I'm suggesting it's the tip of the pyramid and thus the best place to start. Obviously if your goals are marathon running getting a 500# squat is not going to help you.

> Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights.

Well this is where it gets interesting. Fitness without a goal is not really a useful word. By powerlifting standards they are not fit, like a powerlifter is not fit by endurance standards. So I don't really think this is useful. In terms of day to day fitness for the general population, based on the sources above, I still assert that strength is the most useful form of fitness.

> I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity

Once again, my recommendation is for people who aren't currently fit. There is no activity to interfere with because there is no current activity at all.

> Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.

I'm sorry, there are definitely people no the internet who are dogmatic about this stuff and knee jerk to starting strength and lifting. You're right. But I'm not one of them. Recommending that people with no experience in fitness start out in strength makes a lot of sense, and you've spent the entire time arguing against a straw man that I'm trying to get everyone to train as a powerlifter, which is nonsense. 3 months of training is a drop in the bucket. Try reading the sources you've dismissed so quickly. Alternatively send me some that disagree with my statements and I will happily critique the actual content of them rather than ignore them (or hey, maybe I'll have my mind changed, you never know!)

It is very easy to get injured doing squats or power cleans with any kind of sizable weight. For example the injury rates in CrossFit are estimated to be between 20-75% [1,2] of participants which means you're more likely to get hurt than to get fit. Personally I don't think this is due to the exercises being more dangerous but rather that the excellent group motivation of CrossFit working a little too well and people overreaching in their lifts.

For people starting out I highly recommend taking it slow, being patient and giving your body time to adapt. Start with a basic fitness class or trainer and work your way up to more strenuous exercises.

The fitness subreddit getting started guide [3] and FAQ [4] have a lot of excellent information and links to other resources.

[1] http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/2/4/2325967114531177.full [2] http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/publishahead/The_... [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/getting_started [4] http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/faq

Reference: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Safety.html

My intention is to just highlight the importance of taking your time. Weight training can have very low injury rates, but the rates go up when looking at power lifting[1]. Under "soreness and injury section" in Starting Strength Mark Rippetoe himself says "...everyone who trains with weights will have: soreness and injuries."

Both Starting Strength and Crossfit utilize large compound exercises like squats and power cleans that can be difficult to master and my assumption is that more people have heard of Crossfit so I thought it would be useful for comparison. Personally I am a big fan of the squat and other compound exercises for results but it is important to learn them well before advancing to higher weights, hence Starting Strength is 300+ pages for a 5 exercise routine.

[1] Table 2 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483033/

One of the primary reasons I recommended Starting Strength is because it's not crossfit. Crossfit != squats and power cleans, and those injuries are not for squats and power cleans. Starting strength has built in regulation so you don't need to worry about going too fast or too slow. It also tells you when and when not to use power cleans. Just read the book.

This is true for all exercise, but actually if you look at insurance numbers weightlifting has by far the fewest injuries of any sport out there, so I don't think this is correct. Anecdotally I don't know a single person who runs consistently without having chronic issues with their knees or feet, whereas I know many lifters who go years without significant injuries beyond minor tweaks.

> there is little evidence that "correct" form will protect you from potential injury

This is not true at all, or else there wouldn't be a concept of correct form.

I think you are confusing strength training and powerlifting, which are two different things with pretty different recommendations for intensity etc. I agree with you that powerlifting is inherently risky, but all competitive sport is. That's basically the point.

I tried power cleaning a few times I simply didn't get it. It made me feel like a complete doofus.

When I deadlifted, I was able to lift less than a 12 year old girl.

Squat was the worst. I got up to about 235 (not counting the bar). I know this isn't a large amount, but it totally killed me. Just so brutally tough. I had some knee pain that flared up around that point and my elbows hurt all the time. Once after finishing a set, I was drenched in sweat and I felt nauseous for about 10 minutes. Another time, I felt the left side of my face go numb for a split second... I realized then that it wasn't for me.

Deadlifts are harder. I love deadlifts because they work out so much of your body at once, but they all rely on the one weakest point (which is probably your forearms). You can only hold as much as your forearms will take. Some people use straps, but I never liked them. Unlike a weight belt, straps feel like a crutch to get around having weak arms. But even if your arms are strong enough, you can only lift as much as your shoulders will pick up. You can only lift as much as your quads will push against the ground. You can only lift as much as your blood has oxygen in it. You can only lift as much as your back will straighten with that much weight in front of you.

Deadlifts are hard. They're supposed to be. It's the ultimate power lift, the one that combines almost every single other exercise and almost every single muscle group. You can't skip leg day and still deadlift. You can't neglect a single muscle group and still deadlift.

But yeah, fuck squats. I hate them so much. I generally did leg presses instead of squats. Not exactly the same exercise, but it's close enough for how much I hate squats.

It sure is. Works out to around 615lb, for those playing along in the USA.

Bench and overhead press were the two exercises in SS that were very straightforward though.

Now I happily do kettlebells.

it's the difference between being an easy mark and being someone bad people completely avoid.

But I got all of that from Pavel Tsatsouline on a Tim Ferris podcast titled The Science of Strength. Been practicing that and so far I have had some good results. Grease the groove as Pavel says.. http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/01/15/pavel-tsatsouline/

Kettlebells are also ok, but pretty suboptimal. They are harder to incrementally load, the technique is more complicated, less of an emphasis on strength etc.

Turkish get ups have absolutely no place being recommended for novices/untrained population, sorry to disagree there.

Tsatsouline is one of the better fitness gurus around, but he still gives a ton of really questionable advice. I definitely favor Rippetoe, who isn't perfect but overall his logic has way fewer holes.

I know its tempting to defend beliefs and I like Rippetoe as well. I have done starting strength. My point is just be open enough to listen to Pavels ideas. For Pavel its not about building muscle and adding weight, for Rippetoe it is. And there is a big difference. Pavel is talking purely about strength. Not adding to the engine, just making it run optimally.

[0] From Pavel on podcast listed in above comment.

I don't particularly like Rip's methodology, but I don't agree. Deadlifting is pretty much the simplest movement there is - it is nothing more than picking something (which was specifically designed to be picked up) up from the floor and standing with it. It is the same basic movement pattern than the one-armed swing you advised (hip hinge) but with no ballistic component. I can't say which is safer, but anybody can pick up the correct movement in a few hours of training and it is definitely not more complicated than a kettlebell swing.

Also, starting people with deadlifts is fine, as long as you keep the weight low. Not to mention that if you had to choose, deadlifts would do a lot more for you than turkish get ups (which I've honestly never even heard of until now, and I've been a serious weightlifter for years).

(I often do them as a general warmup before the `main' lifts.)

Press, clean and jerk, and snatch are certainly complex, but deadlift not so much. Turkish getups are a great way for a beginner to drop a kettlebell on their head.

From my experience being a gym rat, a majority of beginners have decent deadlift form with minimal training.

Grip training should be done when the person is already at a moderate level of fitness, and their grip is holding them back(for example, the thing that stops them from deadlifting more is their grip, or from doing more pullups).

> People may have different fitness goals, but for someone who is untrained by far the best thing they can do is a strength program for 3-5 months before training more specifically for their goals

I mostly agree with this, though if endurance is your long term goal you'll need to train very differently after the 3-5 months base period. SS is high-intensity activity with eye-popping heart rates, for a few hours a week. Endurance is long hours of low-intensity activity, marathons and the like. I train for mountaineering/alpinism and the weightlifting component is very different: 7-10 reps per set at low weight and minimizing mass accumulation while maximizing recruitment of existing muscle. You can very well have too much mass while climbing.

I'm trying to do both. I lift 3 days a week and run 3. I'm well aware that the lifting is suboptimal if I want to be a good runner and the running inhibits my gains from lifting, but I'm very happy about the general physique I'm building this way. (If I just could stop eating so much!)

[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22946099

Training to be strong improves every component of fitness: ... and coordination

Do you mean eye-hand type of coordination? Anyway it sounds a bit odd to me: training coordination (as in a basketball shot, a frisbee throw, a bunnyhop with a bike) to me always seemed to be pretty much seperate from training strength/muscle volume? Sure strength would allow you to throw a ball/disc further or make you jump higher, but not necessarily with better accuracy?

The other benefit, especially of a barbell program like Starting Strength, is stronger stabilizer muscles (both core and others), which provide a better "platform" for whatever skill you're exercising.

I'm not sure if it applies to all skills, but intuitively it makes sense to me that you can use more muscle for finesse without sacrificing power if you're stronger.

I would definitely say this when speaking in general terms. Strength training normally focuses on full-body exercises, but endurance training (think cross-country running or cycling--not sprinting) does not. I was just reading an article talking about the importance of strength training for runners which emphasized that most injuries come from muscle imbalances.

Personally, I do both. My goal is to lift three times a week and then do endurance the other days. If I had to choose I would stick with lifting for health reasons.

It also depends what your goals are. Once you get to a certain point, you can't do endurance exercise and expect to hypertrophy.

> Sure strength would allow you to throw a ball/disc further or make you jump higher, but not necessarily with better accuracy?

Imagine hitting an incoming baseball pitch. Do you think it's easier to make the bat go exactly where you want it to be when the bat feels heavier or lighter?

I train 4x/week, 1.5-2 hours each. Being a weight class athlete keeps my diet in check, and I lean down to six-pack abs for the summer months when I compete.

Pushing eye-popping weights for maximal singles will get you injured (yes, even with perfect form), but I've found that's what it takes to get me off the couch.

I think Crossfit is the new mid-life buying-a-Porsche.