What happened between Rippletits and Feigenbaum?

The point of the Bridge is to introduce you to intermediate programming concepts, so obviously it is going to be more complex. SS is very simple and doesn't really prepare you for intermediate programming at all.

Also, does 1k jumps really count as microloading when 2,5lbs (1,13kg) jumps is what is officially recommended for the pressing movements in SS?

Post your body.

I figure anything that needs microplates is microloading. At any rate, 2.5kg per week is faster than 1kg a session.

It's a huge fucking joke really. You can tell from a mile away they're in for the shekels and nothing more, they're using the Planet Fitness business model of catering to noobs and kicking them out as soon as they're strong enough to realize you're scamming them. "Here son, you just finished SS, buy this program and do it for 8 and only 8 weeks and you'll see some gains" well no fucking shit someone coming off SS will make gains, as if TM wouldn't yield gains to someone in that position. LMAO at asking a noob to self-regulate his training using RPE for the first time.
PS Feigenfaggot's is a lolfed roidaroo who couldn't squat 7pl8 with wraps and needles hanging from his ass. All he does is steal from Mike T and Rip. What a pretentious asshat.

he also doesn't thing you should keep deloading once you stall on SS

but mostly they split up because SS started their own coaching business and they were left on the side

>he also doesn't thing you should keep deloading once you stall on SS
I hadn't heard that one. So just stop doing SS ASAP and pay us to teach you how to finish getting noob gains.
I bet he's against GOMAD too. His Dr PhD MD in geriatrics gives him an unique insight into why everyone else is basically just stupid and he knows best.

Attached: hidden jew.gif (335x230, 2.81M)

>back pain is in your mind goy, it's a nocebo
>buy bridge goy, start using rpe goy
>stop doing 5/3/1 and texas method goy!
Fuck this kike.

He advices GOMAD.
God fucking damnit you're the example of the typical faggot that criticises people and or stuff without knowing anything about the matter.

>I hadn't heard that one. So just stop doing SS ASAP and pay us to teach you how to finish getting noob gains.
no you uninformed faggot, that's not at all the issue

Mark thinks you should hammer SS as far as possible while getting fat as fuck and making only babby marginal gains, Jordan and Austin think you should move on to higher volume programming sooner rather than later so you can make actual progress instead of spinning your wheels

incidentally, Andy Baker is totally in the same camp, and he's Rippetoe's go to guy for intermediate programming

no such thing as a good jew, but Feigenbaum is legit. I've never heard him lead people astray when it comes to strength training programming.

>Mark thinks you should hammer SS as far as possible while getting fat as fuck and making only babby marginal gains, Jordan and Austin think you should move on to higher volume programming sooner rather than later so you can make actual progress instead of spinning your wheels
I don't think there's a right/wrong on this because it depends on the person and situation. When I did SS there were a few times where I stalled on major lifts but it was really just due to incorrect form and needing to reforcus on getting that right, rather than simply exhausting noob gains. But I'm sure there are other times where people legitimately have exhausted noob gains even though there's no problem with form and they really do just need to switch programs. The issue is that SS doesn't do that good of a job specifying the point to switch. I guess because it assumes you'll be using a Starting Strength Certified Coach(TM)

Aside from that, and also that The Bridge is free and can be repeated several times by most trainees...

I think it is also significant that they have a major disagreement about how much volume and intensity you should expose an intermediate trainee to, especially at the beginning of their intermediate training.

For those unfamiliar:

(((Feigenbaum))) RX's to just jump right in with a ton of volume and lots of variations right out the gate, with exposure to intensity being titrated up slowly, starting soon-ish.

Captain HIPP DRAHVE thinks you should start off with concentrated increase in volume alternated with equal amounts of higher intensity, with additional volume and variations titrated up very slowly and much later.

As to which one is correct, I'm not really sure that one is more correct than the other. Because of the RBE and SAID principle, which both of these men talk about in their literature, it might actually make sense to do about a 16 week block of TM followed by a 16 week block of The Bridge repeated twice, or the opposite of that.

The one thing I will absolutely disagree with both about is RPE. Rippetoe thinks it is useful for so few trainees that it is virtually useless. (((Feigenbaum))) would have a lot of trainees using it that he knows good and goddamn well have no fucking business at all doing so. It's useful for a lot more trainees than Rippetoe thinks but many, MANY fewer than (((Feigenbaum))) thinks.

Whether or not you should micro load depends
on the tolerance of the plates you are using and the relative % increase in load.

For example: If you have machined plates that are +/- 2%, your compound tolerance for a bar loaded to "135" is 133.2-137.8. At that point, 2.5 lb jumps make sense. It's pretty unlikely that you would actually end up with less weight or accidently do more than double the intended jump in weight.

It also would make sense at that point if you did a set and, for whatever reason, decided you just want to add 2.5 lbs for your next set. This is going to happen with ohp, and for the wamens, bench press. Literally no one should do this with squats or dead lifts, ever.

Okay, I did this with a set of dead lifts the other day, out of curiosity. It was as pointless as I predicted.

I don't know about that. I've been watching Feigenbaum's videos for the last few weeks and he seems pretty bitter towards SS. Aside from the personal stuff, he's said he basically disagrees with SS about everything now (presumably slight exaggeration), and he says he doesn't recommend a novice LP at all anymore, in favor of his own in-progress novice program (which he said he would "probably" release for free), which would look more like The Bridge.

The Bridge (and their paid templates) include an E1RM table which gives a percentage of 1RM for a given RPE at a given number of reps. You're supposed to work off the percentages as a guidleine. For example, if you have to do 5 reps at RPE 8, then that is somewhere around 81% or your 1RM on average. Then you can use RPE and your own personal experience to adjust the actual weight around the guideline percentages. And if you really thought RPE wasn't working, you could just convert the RPEs to percentages and ignore RPE altogether.

>when you're the stereotypical SS shill that makes SS look like absolute shit even if it's an alright novice lp but since faggots like you can't stop five seconds to read any literature that is scientific and instead only dogmatically parrot rippletits it gets an even worse reputation than it deserves

>stumble into what I hope will be rippletits shitposting
>actual intelligent discussion of SS and the possible progression beyond SS
You know, I'm impressed Jow Forums

Attached: Shocking.gif (400x290, 377K)

I don't think SS handles stalling or deloading very well. Just dropping the weight and doing nothing else about it and assuming you'll make it next time never worked for me. However adding volume to my stalled lift typically made me blow through my stalling weight, especially for upper body lifts since SS has pretty pitiful upper body volume.

Feigenbaum suggested a modification to SS exactly for that purpose.

barbellmedicine.com/novice-bench-and-press-plug-in/

Post webm of your 1RMs

Based Jordan getting only 3 hours of sleep for several years while becoming a doctor. All while becoming an elite powerlifting with a top tier physique.

That's the power of Natty and positive thinking.

Apparently they're currently working on an alternative novice linear progression program. I'm curious to see it and what's different between it and SS.

They are working on a novice program but its not linear progression. Feigbum has said "training is no linear"

I see. That makes it even more interesting, then. I recall them saying they'd like to teach people RPE earlier. I'm guessing that will be part of this.

Should I do dips and pull ups (like in origianl SS) with this plug ins?

No wonder he promotes low bar 'squats' when his high bar looks like this

youtube.com/watch?v=LIamQp44Mjo

Since the question seems like it's been answered already, my thoughts and beliefs are more towards the Rippetoe line of thinking. From my own experience, RPE in my honest opinion is absolute bullshit. If you can perceive and put a figure on your exertion then congratulations, but I can't. Mathematical approaches to cycling volume and intensity continues to work for me. Sometimes I can perceive a weight to be a 9, when in reality, if I give my testicles a good shake and man up, i can extert far more weight than I expect. I've lost count how many times when warming up for a new RM that I thought that I was going to miss it, and not only smashed it, but ended up pulling it for a double/triple. Im sorry, but I think Feigenbaum is wrong. RPE might have some place in really advanced lifters, with decades of experience, but not for you the general population.

The Bridge is also highly unnecessary. I did Madcows then moved onto TM, and it does feel like they branched off for the money. That's not to say Feigenbaum is totally full of shit, his 12 ways to skin the Texas Method article is informative. But he's trying to reinvent methods that are already tried and tested, and work.

The thing with barbell medicine is they lean heavily towards minmaxxed, theoretically optimal training programs. SS leans toward programs that are hard to fuck up.

When even SS can be fucked up, as simple as it is, Rip is fairly wise to try to keep things simple. Feigenbaum and Baraki are very smart guys, problem is they don’t realise how not-smart most other people are. As they get more experience coaching they’ll probably come to realise that.

Yes, mah dood. I've read the Bridge and I know about the RPE/% table. I use it myself. That very chapter of the Bridge is the source I would cite for my observation that (((Feigenbaum))) knows a lot of trainees are basically just not going to be able to use RPE. It is very useful for a lot of intermediate trainees with at least a year of training, and most advanced trainees should be able to use it.

Still, a statistically significant minority of lifters shouldn't even worry about RPE at all. They should just be given some scheme of percentage or step-wise or linear increases, and told to shut the fuck up and DTP.

My fren, see above.

>minmaxxed, theoretically optimal training programs.
What's optimal about having to probe your own strength every goddamn day? It's not like to g-spot for gains at 77.66% intensity. There are many strong dudes who decide what they're going to do during their warmups, but i doubt they're doing it with as many reps at as high intensity as Feigenbaum and Tutscherer. Their programs remind me of 5/3/1's 5's and 3's that are so heavy they fuck you up before you get a decent 1+ set.

You have never seen an actual BBM or RTS program have you?

I have. RTS is based on pyramids, whether they call it like that or not. You work your way up to a certain intensity and then drop a given %. BBM doesn't do the dropping thing, but they tell you something like 5@6 5@7 3x5@8 which translates to 3x5, plus a bunch of junk volume.

Junk volume?

>RTS is based on pyramids, whether they call it like that or not. You work your way up to a certain intensity and then drop a given %.
You don't drop the weight unless the RPE climbs so using the word pyramid for it is kind of dumb.

>BBM doesn't do the dropping thing, but they tell you something like 5@6 5@7 3x5@8 which translates to 3x5, plus a bunch of junk volume.

So you took a look at the first week of the bridge and assumed everything they program is going to be just like that? Hell in the bridge's later weeks they do 4s @9 with weight drops and in their other programs they use 1@8s with percentage drops for developmental blocks.

Volume that doesn't simulate growth.

He's calling warming up junk volume.

He's also an idiot.

RTS uses both "load drops" and "rep drops", these are the literal terms employed.
>developmental blocks.
Nigger this is an 8 week LP program, are we calling weeks "blocks" now?
>He's calling warming up junk volume.
Warm ups that interfere with your training instead of facilitating it are probably the worst most immediately harmful kind of junk volume.

>RTS uses both "load drops" and "rep drops", these are the literal terms employed.
Still only used it the RPE increases past what's programed. Most of the time @8 only has a rep drop or load drop if the rpe hit 9.5.

>Nigger this is an 8 week LP program, are we calling weeks "blocks" now?
Developments and Specialization blocks are generally four weeks in RTS/BBM programing. Again you don't acually know what you're talking about. You skimmed over the bridge and RTS' generalized intermediate.

>Warm ups that interfere with your training instead of facilitating it are probably the worst most immediately harmful kind of junk volume.
Same rep warm ups at 70-85% for a single set is only going to interfere if your conditioning is shit.

those look fine, he's never going to squat super upright with his build

>Warm ups that interfere with your training instead of facilitating it are probably the worst most immediately harmful kind of junk volume.
1 @ 8 is not a warmup, it's part of your working sets, it gives you exposure to heavier weights while not being overly fatiguing

It unironically looks like a wormchad video

Attached: Capture.png (289x243, 161K)

He's not talking about 1@8 he's talking about the @6,@7 and some times @8 warm ups that proceed either an @9 with a drop or a sets across @8.

Example

4@6, 4@7, 4@8x3
Or
3@7, 3@8 3@9x3 5% drop

He's saying the sets at 4@ 75%(@6) and 81%(@7) would interfere with training.

Because he's a pussy.

I am pretty sure he was aware of that.

Those sets are a part of the training lol

Yeah they help gauge the weight to use for work sets hence calling them part of the warm up.

No they are part of the volume that is driving adaptation

Okay, I can see that.

They're still not going to interfere with training like that guy was whining about.

Mark, pls go..