And the snatch is arguably more technical than the c&j 🥴🥴

'By our analysis the technique could have been better...' then says technique doesn't matter. Moron confirmed. Best just to ignore him, although useful idiots do have a purpose to fill.

If Mark was right strong men would be the best snatchers.

@@ForzaNewbie not arguably, it 100% is.

@@happzy yeah Björnsson and Hall could snatch 250 at their peaks according to Ripp lol

Its even more ironic - I bet Lasha does 5x5 all the time for supplemental shit like squats...yet Rip pretends it never happens

Erm sorry but I think you'll FAAAAHND that SS is 3xfahve. Fahve by fahve is too much volume and something something CNS milk liberals hip drahv

@@finestjellybeansrawlol9486 I know ur joking but Rip recommends 5x5 past novice stage

@@Cin9999 ah, my bad, didn't realise that. I basically just read SS, read why Rip is a dumbass and ignored him aside from the memes and vids like this and the Calgary Barbell vid on why he's a clown

@@Cin9999 ehh, idk why 5x5s? He probably does 5s often but not necessarily 5x5

It ranks right up there with calling a trap bar inherently dangerous! The guy has become a dogmatic caricature.

Damn I can't wait to see Eddie Hall and Thor snatch 600lbs :D

@@republicjim120 did Rip seriously call trap bar inherently dangerous?

@@jimmyzhu1741 I don't remember his exact wording, but he did indeed call it dangerous due to it being "unstable in the sagittal plane". Apparently it has never occurred to him that a barbell overhead can also be somewhat unstable in the sagittal plane. I think he was basically just making things up in order to dismiss anything other than a barbell for building strength.

@@republicjim120 Damn, maybe we should stick to smith machines so that we can be stable in all planes!

John Schultz, for us that have'nt english as a first language, what does SBD mean?

@@rigohook1160 squat bench deadlift

This seems to be a perfect description I started training with statring strength and it was a good start for generell strength but he has as this video shows no idea about weightlifting also he is not very knowlegdable in powerlifting either he basically knows stuff about the start of training and even there people like michael yessis will say he has basically no idea Hes only very self assured without a lot of wisedom

One of Mark's lifters presses 390 at a bodyweight of 270.

@@inteq9 pretty good I can’t lift that

At the same time, that oly training allowed Mark Henry to do unbelievably insane things with axle clean and presses, which again definitely was powered by his raw strength but clearly showed technique not usually present in strongman

@@urbanarmory We want good technique for that axel I'm still take Misha Kokylaev. Dude was freaking amazing. He is another person that shows the strongest doesn't always win. He had a 417.5 kg deadlift and a 210 snatch, interestingly enough right around the 1/2 that Rip was talking about. I'd be very surprised if there were many weightlifters with a higher deadlift than him and his snatch was not world record breaking.

@@twirdman2 kokylaev is in my mind just an unmatched generalist, if that makes sense, and a lot of that is just down to his extremely solid fundamentals combined with raw strength, which takes you pretty far. both of them though showed you can literally clean a crazy heavy axel- no whip, no spin. I wonder what Rip thinks about that.

@@urbanarmory The dude was amazing. Unfortunately for him he had to compete against an almost superhuman Big Z.

Excellent example! Btw Mark Henry is a BEAST!!! I always loved how hyped he would get before lifts, and then how happy he looked after he hit them. What an absolute unit.

What about 352.5 lbs snatch? It's just half your deadlift, technique doesn't matter!

Nah, you'd likely get it done

Are you talking about a regular clean? Because if you can deadlift 705 and squat more than that, you can clean 300 lbs...quite easily. Even with bad form.

Am sure you can clean 300, man-you are one strong dude, but OLY and PL are different sports just like the 100 and 800 M are different sprints

@@hrmarkley9758 I've tried to clean 300lbs before. I'm sure I pull it high enough, but I can't get under it to save my life. I never train cleans ever, every now and then (and haven't tried in a while) we'll fuck around at the gym and do some. Anything I've ever done between about 230lbs and 275lbs is hit or miss on me getting it. I imagine in short order working with someone knowledgeable it'd be cake, but it's not something I care enough to worry about.

They asked me how well I know theoretical physics. I said "I have a theoretical degree in physics" they said welcome aboard.

Ave, true to Caesar

FAHVES, FAHVES never changes No seriously, don't fucking alter the rep ranges or you're not doing the damn program

Fallout 4 is a fantastic game.

@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf if you say so

And you know this how?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 feel free to add to the list

Helluva List!!!! I’m still going over it....

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 genuinely, even the fairly well known high level athletes who either were SS coaches or competitors eventually break out of his inner circle, and then he treats them like pariahs. He hasn't even been seriously engaged in S&C work for athletes in any recent amount of time. He's really out of the loop, and frankly I think that's mostly what he wants.

I think : is the best on the list.

I think this, too. Even people who say "Well he's good for beginners lol." He's not. Even someone like Johnny Candito absolutely rocks Mark Rippetoe and has done more for the community in the last decade compared to him, and has gotten actual competition medals to show for it. Candito's linear program is 100% more balanced and better structured than Mark's program. George Leeman also makes a lot of valid points about why 5x5 type training really isn't ideal for beginners either. Mark on diet too is probably the most delusional/downright dangerous dietary advice you could ever get, and I know people that actually ended up with fatty livers/etc after long term GOMAD. And for what? Again, side by side, what has his diet advice actually done in a positive manner for the strength training community compared to others? Compare his diet advice to someone like Layne Norton, who again has actually won medals in powerlifting and bodybuilding, and why should Mark Rippetoe be considered at all relevant?

Damn, that's a good analogy.

Your analogy screams athleanx. He's just like them

The starting strength method is pretty good for beginners and I loved it and appreciate it to this day. However the way they behave and act and hold this persona has led me to move away from them.

Your comment revealed things to me... I am that high school friend...

Just get Brian Shaw to attempt any of Lasha's last 10 winning lifts... snatch or c&j. If it's just pure strength, then surely a guy who can dl 1000lb should be able to do it. Hell, that weight should be light enough he should be able to do it in an afternoon's worth of attempts. Rippetoe is talking out of his ass on this...

If Mark didn't think technique matters he wouldn't have hours worth of content teaching the olympic lifts. The technique is called rhetoric, where you exaggerate to make your point. Obviously you need to get your technique as good as possible. But if two elites were neck and neck, would you analyze their form to figure out why one is better than the other, or their strength training? Pretty much all weightlifting coaches I see would focus on the technique almost exclusively, this is precisely what Mark is critiquing. He would say to get them stronger on the deadlift, while still practicing technique. Regardless of whether he is right or not, I think we could benefit from addressing the theory, not assuming Mark doesn't know anything because he doesn't train any world class olympic weightlifters.

@@piercecave8021 But he doesn't seem to know a lot of things. He criticizes Lasha's technique saying that Lasha's hips were too low. That along with the suggestion to just deadlift more seems to show he things that the snatch is just a faster deadlift with a hip thrust at the end. That isn't what makes a snatch. The problem of looking at technique versus looking at strength is you need to look at strength in a movement that has lots of carryover. The deadlift isn't necessarily the greatest lift for that because again the snatch is not just a deadlift. Suggesting doing deadlifts as the main way to increase your snatch and clean and jerk are just ridiculous. It would be akin to telling a world class strongman that all he needs to do to increase his push press is to train bench press. A bench press can help your push press, but it is essentially a very very different movement. You should only train your bench press to increase your push press if you see that your weakness is a tricep weakness and you have a reason to know do pin overhead presses. The deadlift is even worse just because of the amount of recovery it takes up. You can say you should just add deadlift training and still do your normal olympic training but that isn't always possible.

@@chrisvanderwielen1530 you know, you can also think of it in reverse. Take Lasha and have him do atlas stones or something- all that strongman work also takes a lot of skill and very specific strength to accomplish, even if you're strong in the powerlifts

@@urbanarmory But that wasn't the point. No one said 'anyone with proper strength can lift atlas stones', technique doesn't matter. Did you even attempt to understand what was being contested before rushing to defend your preferred discipline?

His technique really helped me with power clean. And later on i changed it a bit with info from Greg Everett.

Cuz he squatted high bar. If Mart was an enlightened low bar boi, Lasha would be a historical footnote right now smh

He doesnt do heavy sets of fahve

Probably because there’s some Chinese lifter out there front squaring that weight lol

@@alaefarmestatesllc Nauruan, actually :D

Strength doesn't have an "A" in it.

Gracias, Brian!

​@@22448824 Did you want me to have qualified my response with a bigger "if" or said there was no way in hell?

Vardanian lifted in the 90 kg class weighing 85.7 kg. Snatched 190 and 228 clean & jerk. Best front squat 230 best back squat 250 kg. This is confirmed by Norik. This video is on his KZfaq channel.

@@22448824 he literally said IF. Holly shit you must be stupid in order to not understand the basic hypothetical "IF".

holistic is just fine

@@abelveer6172 olistic with thicc French accent even better

realistic as well

You mean "Swolistic"?

@@robertmcintire8914 Swolistic would be even better

Maybe he is, but he never did weightlifting?! So?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 Yeah maybe Mark should coach Eddie....

@@strepie93 I donno if that could work, Eddie's deadlift stance is way too wide for Ripatoe to endure :D the stance HAS to be 7 inches -period- :D

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 so interestingly enough, Eddie Hall has strength, but as far as weightlifting is concerned, he would be lacking... technique??? :D oh noooo, but it's all about strength :D

@@daniel_a.m. Yeah you're right. according to the Rip, Eddie should already be able to snatch 250kg.

I appreciate this. Very well worded.

I want to like this but it already has 69 likes so gotta pass bro. I hope you understand.

This was implicit in Telander's question

@@zacktelander you just meant that he hasn’t coached any extremely impressive weight lifters right? That in and of itself makes his criticism pretty cringeworthy I would think. Yeah you could have provided a counter example and all but the internet is wide open for us to discover those for ourselves ey?

It's sad really that he has to for whatever reason considering he's one of the most influential people on today's fitness industry.

Clout, views and relevance.

Almost certainly

He’s not trolling, he’s just two things. First he’s extremely egotistical. He’s built himself up to this prophet in his own mind that knows all. Something is fact because he said it. You get this mentality when your entire focus is teaching people far below you....secondly, he’s a moron.

Fuck Rick Rolling, this Rip Toeing

this.

Yep. Weightlifting is full of strong guys with superlative squat numbers who are still just average at the snatch and C&J.

@@nealb1a tbf Mart C&Js 253, which is absolutely nothing to sneeze at

Came here to say the same thing. It completely disproves Mark's argument that the only difference is strength, otherwise Mart would be winning every competition because he is objectively stronger than his competitors

@@slothbin if Zack ever talks to Mark, I hope he mentions this as well as all the other things

Zarck

Mack or Zark?

I know I'm late to the party, but there is a recent video of Eddie Hall snatching a bit over 100 kg (I can't remember the exact number, but it was less than 150 kg) and saying that he wouldn't try snatching more than that because he felt as if his shoulders were about to pop.

Brave of you to assume rip could get someone to pull 600

When all you know is the hammer, everything looks like nails.

@@IrishMarc1 Oh you give him the right athlete and sure. Like you give him a young Brian Shaw and he'd have him deadlifting 600 pounds in no time.

@@IrishMarc1 And yet he has, and continues to do so […] not quite as witty as you’d like to be though, hey bruv?!

Lebum literally has the worst form ever

Exactly.

Band training lol. As a coach training your athletes with band can be a thing in the general part of your training cycle or even as therapeutic excersize. But as you get toward the end of your specific cycle to start competition cycle there is no room for training with bands as no sport has specified movement where the concentric part of the move is gradually getting harder or the eccentric part gradually getting lighter. Maybe you can use it for isometric moves but that is it.

I legit reckon full depth banded squats could have some utility in a weightlifters program

That’s not what he said. Putting Rip and Lou in the same argument is the most Internet coach thing I’ve seen in a minute

"Get em in a squat suit!"

I would not question their strength, though their mobility would be a concern.

I doubt, it would be impossible. A quick youtube jump showed me brian shaw "snatching" a 120 kilo dumbell with one hand. At some point you get so freaking strong that technique starts to be less of a factor. That dude nearly weights 200kg. Now substract nearly half the bodymass and cycle of PEDs and you simply cant brute force a lift that heavy.

​@@Schnorzel1337 where is that vid? i've seen him "snatch" a DB with 2 hands to his shoulder before then circus pressing it. i've also seen a retired Klokov actually snatch 1-handed 100KG barbell. brian ain't snatching 225KG with yeeeeeears of practice.

@@Schnorzel1337 that was not with one hand and her struggled with it. Its a circus dumbell that is a very different exercise lol

@@dustinirwin1 You are absolutely right. 2 Hands. I didnt know 200kg is that close to WR. My bad. The overall idea is true tho, while technique beats strength, pure strength can get you on the road.

That’s still a single population of weightlifters. Plenty of elite weightlifters can squat 500-600+ pounds so they have to focus more on technique because they have plenty of strength. Others aren’t incredibly strong, but they are explosive or are very technical. Efficiency is the ideal marker; balancing technique building and strength building over a long term developmental period.

@@ConorJordan35 But there is a physical limit to the amount of strength every human can produce, and the only way to progress further once you have reached that limit is to improve your technique and efficiency. If Lasha could be stronger than he has ever been before, then he would do everything in his power to achieve that. But there is a reason plateaus exist. Because there are physical limits to everyone and everything, you can't just keep getting stronger - it just doesn't work that way. People don't keep breaking strength records because they reach their potential and can't go further. No-one is ever going to deadlift 700kg, it's absurd to assume Lasha doesn't train for maximum strength alongside perfected technique.

@@Blobbyo25 I don’t know about the last part. Maybe not 700, but 50-100 years ago 500 would sounded absolutely outrageous. Once multiple guys break this hump of 500 being the ultimate deadlift mark, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it make a jump in the future. I could be totally wrong, but I just think there’s always a human somewhere who could completely surprise us. Eddie broke the deadlift wr by 35 kilo, Hafthor broke his by 1, but could have done more for sure. Once 505 is broken, who’s to say 510, 515, 520, or more can’t fall?

@@asketillus8679 I'm certain that Hafthor could have lifted more than 501, which is why he will never have my full respect as a sportman. 501 went up wayyyy too easy it looked like he could have done a double lol. 520 is definitely possible, I can't wait for people to get there, Eddie and Thor are just absolute specimens

How and why??

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 you need some salt

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 maybe some magnesium too !? ohh take some calcium !? u know what!? take an electrolyte!?

its actually hilarious bc one of starting strength strongest lifters Chase has videos trying weightlifting and being weak af

@@Cin9999 obviously you think That on day one you’re out lifting those chicoms in the Chinese olympics?

@@JoeyCentral what?

@@Cin9999 like I’m saying you can’t just enter weight lifting and be breaking records. Takes decades of practice and study.

@@JoeyCentral Yes that is exactly my point - but by Rippetoes logic powerlifters would just smash records instantly. Chase has a 405lbs overhead press yet he cant jerk 315lbs.

Why?!

Rip would blow a hole right through Lasha’s head with his 45?! Just as stupid a comment as your’s??

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 post physique weenie

That's not kilos, right?

@@ConnoisseurOfExistence Unless he's pulling 1050, i'm guessing pounds.

@@shaqitup In kg these would be world class numbers...

@@ConnoisseurOfExistence Yeah that DL would be like the 3rd heaviest deadlift in competition I think. Specifically I'm pretty sure that is what Makarov just pulled. So unless he is Makarov's alt account I'm gonna guess those are pounds.

@@twirdman2 Makarov, that can also snatch 185 kg :D

Simple being the operative word, doh?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 good job I guess?

Toshiki has bad shoulders. It's his overhead stability the limiting factor, not his legs/power. IIRC he has cleaned north of 220kg, it's just a futile endeavor for him as a weightlifter to go for cleans as heavy as Tian's as his jerk lags behind so much. I think a good example of what you're presenting is Nathan Damron vs Tian Tato.

The issue is strength. What is strength ? It's a folk definition , somewhat arbitrary and not precisely defined, like Power is . Power is defined mathematical , strength is not. Power is what you need to weightlift. Does this so called strength training increase power ? Only to some degree . Some can move more mass at a slower rate but this does not mean you have move a certain mass at a very fast rate but that is what you need for weightlifting.

Mark said "according to our teachings", Yet he was humble enough to admit that no matter what he thinks, the man lifted the weight. Wish youtubers could have that much sense

@@PeretzYaron if you say some ignorant shit and then go "what do I know" you still said some stupid shit. If Mark was as knowledgeable as he acts he'd actually coach someone worth talking about. Dudes running the same programming he did 30 years ago

@@contentcop Yes, I'm sure Mark can't sleep at night because "TheBholeDestroyer" doesn't think he's a good coach, man I would be RESTLESS!

@@PeretzYaron I don't think it. It's factually true. Sorry your weight lifting Jesus is trash. It's even in the name. Starting strength. Because once you learn what's going on. You stop using his ideology. Once again....where are his lifters? Ooooo no where 🤣🤡🤣🤡

@@PeretzYaron fuck weight lifting. Has Mark coached a decent powerlifter in 20 years?

You're absolutely right, these videos are entirely ego based, and you can tell by the comments, usually the message goes above one's head, this time it went right up their ass

It's just objectively wrong in every way. Technique varies and even at oly level when people are pushing PR's there are large differences. There are also Oly lifters who deadlift more then Lasha and are no where near his total which is more proof that strength isn't everything. The only take away from this is Rip thinks Lasha is the strongest person in the world.

The strawman argument that coaches are focusing on technique is just that, strawman argument. Weightlifting coaches are focusing on getting weightlifters stronger in the lifts. End of story. Technique is just one of the variables and really nobody in the wl community thinks you can lift heavy stuff just with technique you learned with a broom. That being said, burning time and load of energy on deadlifts isn't the answer to everything. There's this thing, translation of strength to competition lifts, which is the actual art of weightlifting. Rip is missing that.

Yeah he didn’t show the context of the clip by showing or at least explaining what rip said before hand. The fact that he gets so emotional is just evidence of the frame of mind he’s in; see something he disagrees with and react emotionally. Simple process, no room for humility or inspiration. So many people dedicate their lives to something and can’t imagine being told by someone who doesn’t even really do the thing that they’re doing it all wrong. So they have a million and one technical reasons why and nothing will ever change their mind. This won’t be the first and it won’t be the last.

But this is simply objectively untrue. Nathan Damron is every bit as strong as Sohrab Moradi and Tian Tao in the backsqauat, yet totals less than Lu Xiaojun. Mart Seim squats 400 kg easier than Lasha squats 335, yet he totals 44 kg less. And the list goes on. Lu Xiaojun has phenomenal technique and squats (or at least used to) 305 kg, 15 more than Artem Okulov, yet Artem Okulov totals more. CJ Cummings front squats just as much as Shi Zhiyong, yet totals over 15 kg less. The list goes on and on and on. Even if we take you're charitable interpretation of Mark's argument st face value, he's still laughably incorrect. (Not to mention that I don't think your interpretation is correct, as indicated by the fact that he makes statements like your snatch is half your deadlift. Does his dumbass really think that Eddie Hall can snatch 250 kg???????)

And your credentials are?! Very dismissive of your betters ain’t cha?! Milk chugga my arse?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 I am sensing a troll :D

@@daniel_a.m. You must be self aware?!

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 don't need credentials to see he's a one dimensional hack, just an ounce of common sense

@@backwardsyoga Just an ounce, hey?! You must be real lucky?!

But there is no linear relationship... Because technique matters SO MUCH. Eddie Hall deadlifted 500kg and I don't think he would be able to snatch that much more than 100kg... Being able to snatch even close to half your max deadlift requires absurd levels of skill and technique. I think what's going on inside Mark's head is that the top-level athletes have mastered technique and don't spend enough time focusing on strength, which is a baseless fallacy in itself - Lasha is absurdly strong. No doubt the man could pull 300kg if he chose to train for it. But training to pull 500kg would require sacrifices to other aspects of his physicality - sacrifices which would end up hurting his total instead of benefitting it.

The charts are pretty good guidelines where you should be. It's not set in stone but it tells if you are efficient enough. There's no point of chasing deadlift numbers if your ratios are way off.

New drug testing protocols necessitate the use of inferior PED and the cycling of them in different ways. Other sports have had records stand taht long. The shotput record that was just beaten was set in 1990 so only slightly shorter time. The women shotput world record was set in 87 so even longer ago. The hammer throw world record was set in 1986. The discus in 1986. You'll notice all of those are the other strength sports in the Olympics with heavy technique required. They are all held by former soviet liffters, either directly USSSR or East Germany,. Now you know; it's the drugs.

Don't forget all the record shattering powerlifters and strongmen!

But that’s not really what he does, is it? People interested in competitive weightlifting and/or powerlifting are a small fraction of people who lift weights. A tiny fraction actually. The vast majority or people who lift weights do it to get stronger for another sport or for the health benefits. I think that’s more his target audience. I was a competitive power lifter (too old now) so I’m not putting it down but that’s not what Rip is selling.

@@edx21x You're exactly right, that's NOT what he does. He has no relevant experience or education in it. Which is precisely why he should stop offering his useless, unfounded opinions on those things.

@@characterstrength why on Earth would you care? If you don’t like his program, don’t do it. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. People get so worked up over what thus guy says for no reason what so ever.

@@edx21x The problem is, Rip has a large following, which comes with a certain level of responsibility. By offering completely out of touch advice on weightlifting/powerlifting, he may genuinely derail the progress of thousands of people, potentially even injuring many of them. That's a problem. And I reserve the right to criticise him for it.

This ha sa few flaws. The "Two Factor Model" is absurd. Why chose the squat, DL, press, and bench as your benchmark strength movements? They are completely arbitrary. This is especially true with how Mark teaches them. The low bar squat does not carry over well to Olympic lifting and neither does the powerlifting deadlift. The bench press is almost completely useless unless you have a tricep weakness and have exhausted other options of fixing it. The idea that Olympic lifting is practice and not training is just nonsensical. It makes some sense in sports like sprinting or football but not for Olympic weightlifting as much. I mean seriously why are those the golden lifts? Why the 9 inch deadlift rather than the also completely arbitrary 6 inch deficit deadlift or the 13 inch wagon wheel deadlift? 9 inches wasn't chosen for some brilliant biomechanical reason it was just enough to likely ensure that former Olympians didn't get their skull crushed if the bar fell on them. There is a good argument to be made that you should include in your training a squat type movement, a hinge movement, a vertical and horizontal press movement, a vertical and horizontal pull movement, a lunge type movement, and a rotational movement. There is no reason that those movements have to be the low bar squat, the powerlifting conventional deadlift, the military press, the pull up, and he is actually missing the rest of the movement patterns he might have a horizontal row cannot say for sure. You could just as easily make an argument for the front squat, the Romanian deadlift, the push press, the pull up, Bulgarian split squat, and your choice for the rest. I mean are you really trying to tell me if I switch out the powerlifting deadlift with the Romanian deadlift, and the low bar squat for a front squat I will lose all the gains and never get stronger because I picked the wrong lifts? That shit is absurd. The clean and the snatch are both hinge movements so you are covered. The jerk is your push movement so you are covered. They both involve a full squat so even there you are covered, but basically everyone would recommend adding in more squatting also you should add some more hinging with like clean pulls. Also it is wrong to say that explosiveness cannot be trained. Just experience makes it unlikely to be true. If explosivenss was completely inante than nothing would ever come from doing movements like jumping. We also know it is not scientifically true. While there is no proof that there is conversion from type i slow twitch fibers to type ii fast twitch fibers there is evidence of intratype conversion. Type iia fast twitch fibers can convert to type iib super fast twitch fibers and vice versa. Training slow plodding movements like the deadlift can make you less explosive if you are not careful. Mark is decades behind in the science. Also he is wrong about training. They do train for strength. They don't train for strength with his shitty lifts because again they don't have proper carry over. Strength is joint specific with only minor carry over to other joint angles. If the only lift I trained was the 18 inch deadlift I would drastically increase my 18 inch deadlift, moderately increase my 13 inch deadlift, and would have almost no effect on my standard height deadlift. Same thing with if I trained my quarter squat. I'd have moderate carry over to the half squat, minor carry over to the full squat, and like nothing to the ATG weightlifting squat. Why would you possibly think that the slightly below parallel low back squat would be the right choice when the clean ends in an ATG full front squat and the snatch is an ATG OH squat. Your joint angles are all wrong.

@@twirdman2 Hello A. Saying that things are "absurd", "nonsensical", and "arbitrary" does not make them so. The primary training lifts have not been arbitrarily chosen, and Mark wrote a book explaining that. The criteria of a training lift in SS is that it uses the most possible muscle mass over the longest range of motion with the most weight possible and can be incrementally trained for years and years with significant progress. Based on this criteria, some lifts are better than other lifts. If they were arbitrary, they would've been chosen at random and that's patently false. If you want we could go through each of the primary training lifts to demonstrate why they are purposefully chosen as the best training tools, but, like I said, you should go read the book that Mark wrote. The Olympic lifts do not fit the criteria because you are using weights that are 50-60% (possibly less) of your squat. Thus, they receive the designation of practice and not training. You can go on believing that the clean, snatch, and jerk are all you need to get stronger, but you'll be wrong. "I mean are you really trying to tell me if I switch out the powerlifting deadlift with the Romanian deadlift, and the low bar squat for a front squat I will lose all the gains and never get stronger because I picked the wrong lifts? That shit is absurd." No, I never said that. This is a bad straw man. We are discussing what's optimal vs. sub-optimal. Of course you can make gains with the RDL, but you will make more gains in the long-term with the conventional deadlift. Just as in the same fashion, you will be training sub-optimally if you primarily rely on the front squat. Everyone knows that you can't front squat as much as you can low-bar back squat, so it is silly to choose the front squat over the back squat for training purposes (remember the two-factor model? this is where it comes into play). You literally just stated that the two factor model is absurd and then provided no defense for that statement. It is absurd to say that training and sport-specific movement practice are two different things that should be treated differently? As for your explosiveness statements, they are wishful thinking. Get back to me when you improve your vertical jump by 8 inches. Your argument is based on the assumption that Starting Strength doesn't have explosive movements (the power clean is integral to the novice linear progression programming) or doesn't practice explosivity in their Olympic programming. You've also assumed that Starting Strength doesn't program front squat for weightlifting programming. Front squat is part of the practice. Front squat is the expression of the strength obtained from the superior training tool that is the low-bar back squat. These assumptions are also patently false. If you're going to express strength explosively, you have to practice being explosive. I know that Mark understands that and I hope you agree with him. Your biggest problem is that you don't have the two-factor model and therefore you're not able to think in clear categories. You are not able to manage the difficulty of prioritizing both practice and training because you lack a model that makes clear distinctions between them. Weightlifting requires the prioritization of both. Once again, simply stating that the primary training lifts have no carry over to the Olympic lifts doesn't make it true. Once again, the mental distinction between training and practice is super important here. Training movements can be very dissimilar to sport-specific practice movements because their purpose is systemic strength increase, not movement. The amount of weight you can snatch/clean and jerk is wholly dependent on your genetic level of explosiveness, familiarity with the movement pattern, and ability to produce force with muscle belly contraction. Maximizing your efficiency and explosiveness with the movements is important, but your ability to improve these qualities and their impact on the weight on the bar will plateau quickly. In other words, the primary bottleneck on progress with weightlifting won't be technique; it will be strength. The one factor out of the three that can be positively influenced for the long-term is increased force production through increased muscle belly size. And that is gained through the utilization of optimal training tools such as low-bar squat, conventional deadlift, press, and bench. Respectfully, Zach

@@iamzachsmith The criteria of a training lift in SS is that it uses the most possible muscle mass over the longest range of motion with the most weight possible and can be incrementally trained for years and years with significant progress. But one this is somewhat contradictory. For the most part by increasing range of motion you decrease weight and vice versa so there is a balance not a single best lift. SO let's look at the 4 lifts chosen. The bench, low bar slightly below parallel back squat, the 9 inch conventional deadlift, and the OHP. One of your argument about you can lift more in the low bar squat is problematic since it isn't raw weight being lifted but torque on joints that elicit lots of muscle and strength gains. But I'll pretend all that matters is weight on the bar. So let's go through the 4 lifts. Bench press. Whatever good enough don't care enough to argue here and it's one of the better horizontal presses. You could make an argument for a floor press but which one is better will heavily depend on what you are training for. Linemen I'd say bench press strongman training his triceps I'd say floor press. Either way I'll give this a win. Squat. The depth and width are chosen without much scientific explanation. Why just slightly below parallel. I can lift more weight by stopping slightly above parallel and significantly more if I go far above parallel like a high box squat. Now you say that those will lose range of motion but then why not do a full ass to grass squat and get the most range of motion. The below parallel is essentially arbitrary. He chose that because it is what powerlifters have done since before he was born. It wasn't created out of any knowledge of optimal training. It was created because it was easy to judge. Modern research shows that for certain athletes a quarter squat elicits greater benefits than a full squat. This is shown by research on sprinting and jumping. They broke athletes into 3 groups: quarter squatters, half squatters, and full squatters. The quarter squatters not only had the largest gain in their quarter squat they also had the largest gain in their jump and the largest reduction in their sprint times. Joint angle specificity is a big thing. If all I need to access is that quarter squat range, because nobody does a full squat before a jump, then I'm losing out by training the full squat at a reduced weight. The same thing can be said for the deadlift. One deadlifts are actually shit for hypertrophy. They lack a proper eccentric and don't p[ut a good loaded stretch on the muscle. So training deadlifts to increase muscle belly size is not the way to go, you'd be better off with an RDL which has a heavy eccentric and a large stretch on the hamstrings. I'm going to ignore that though since while you said the best way is increasing muscle belly size there is also the neuromuscular component and for that deadlifts are a good option. Why the 9-inch conventional deadlift? Just like the squat I could increase or decrease the range of motion. I could do 13-inch wagon wheel or even 18-inch silver dollar deadlifts and potentially lift a ton more weight than I could with a 9-inch deadlift or I could go the opposite route and reduce the weight but heavily increase the range of motion by doing a Ukrainian deadlift. There really isn't anything that makes 9 inches special other than the fact that over a century ago we decided weight plates should be 18-inch diameter. It is completely arbitrary and I don't see why that exact height is magically the gold standard for every lifter. There are several lifters who cannot safely get in the position for that lift. Secondly why the conventional deadlift? The sumo deadlift is still a hinge and several athletes can lift more weight using a sumo deadlift than a conventional. It has a very similar hamstring activation as the conventional. It has increase quad and abductor activation. It loses out on erector activation. So again why is conventional the way to go? If you argue range of motion you can easily fix that by doing deficit deadlifts with a sumo stance. Is it mostly because Mark created his programming almost 4 decades ago and hasn't bothered changing with the times? The worst is the OHP. That is just a stupid movement if the goals are what you are saying. It is basically strictly inferior to the push press in every way. The range of motion for the push press is just as high as the military press. The weight you put is sometimes 30% more than your strict press. You are clearly recruiting more muscle fibers. It is a very simple movement to train. It allows you to massively overload the eccentric portion which will have profound effects on both your tricep and shoulder strength and size. So why the OHP? This one he can't even blame on history since by the time he was writing his book the push press had become a very popular movement. The Olympics chose it because they wanted a lift that was truly distinct from the jerk and it can be very hard to make sure that there was only a single knee bend so they allowed no knee bend. In training there is not this consideration. Saying you don't use your shoulders in the beginning of the lift because you use your legs is totally wrong. A well-executed push press will tax your shoulders very well. I didn't say no carryover I said poor carry over. Strenght is joint angle specific and the lifts he is suggesting will not train you through the entire range of motion and positions required. If I only trained the 13 or 18 inch deadlift my 9-inch deadlift would increase slightly but not significantly. In that same vein, why would a slightly below parallel squat with low bar position train me for the position I take in an ass to grass front squat like I see in a super heavy clean or the overhead ass to grass squat I see in a snatch? Also, people talk about how their explosiveness gains will plateau quickly but are ignoring the opposite problem. Training slower movements can convert type iib fibers to type iia fibers. Training only slow movements or predominately slow movements like the squat and deadlift can literally make you less explosive. Also yes general strength movements can be dissimilar but since strength is joint angle specific you need to make sure they will have proper carry over. If all I train is my quarter squat I am not going to significantly increase my ATG squat. I am not training in the right range of motion or joint angle. That is obviously an extreme example but it makes sense.

@@twirdman2 Dear A, Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy time in life. Squat - Once again, you need to read the books that Mark has written on the subject that you're attempting to debate. The slightly below parallel depth is NOT arbitrary. Not in any way shape or form. SS goes into depth about why slightly below parallel is superior to ATG and above parallel squats. The primary reasons are based on human physiology and how the body most efficiently gets stronger: you lose tension in the hamstrings when you go ATG, thus reducing the amount of stress on that group of muscles. Stopping above parallel will reduce systemic stress that produces adaptation because it will reduce the ROM for the stretch and pull of the muscle groups. "He chose that because it is what powerlifters have done since before he was born. It wasn't created out of any knowledge of optimal training." You're making a total fool of yourself by saying this. It's a patent lie that you fabricated, and you need to retract it. You have to understand what the man is saying before you can make a critique of it. Nowhere does Mark cite powerlifting as a model or source for ANY of his material. In fact, he does not like powerlifting, but you don't know that cause you're going in blind. "Modern research shows that for certain athletes a quarter squat elicits greater benefits than a full squat. This is shown by research on sprinting and jumping." How have we jumped to a totally separate discussion of improving jumping and sprinting???? We are discussing strength and the most efficient way to acquire, not neuromuscular efficiency. I don't care if jumpers improved their jumping by quarter squatting. We aren't talking about jumping. Deadlift - "One deadlifts are actually shit for hypertrophy. They lack a proper eccentric and don't p[ut a good loaded stretch on the muscle." This is an amazing statement. Answer this question: If a human of average strength capacity takes their deadlift from 200 lbs to 500 lbs, will they be larger in terms of posterior chain muscle belly size, or will they be the same size? Your assertions are mind boggling. As to the comparison of RDLs being better, they are objectively not because you cannot lift as much weight with RDLs and therefore you cannot elicit as great of a stress as with the conventional DL. Additionally, your RDL will plateau LONG before your conventional DL will. You're minimizing the crucial importance of increasing intensity in the quality of stress input for efficient acquisition of strength. Sumo is not the way to go for the exact reason you yourself stated, "It loses out on erector activation." The conventional DL is the best training tool because the strength of the spinal erectors are absolutely crucial to well-balanced strength. With conventional, you get all the things you mentioned for sumo AND erector work. Therefore, it is superior. Once again, the position to not do sumo for training is not arbitrary, but instead, based on an analysis of human physiological, physics, and the stress-recovery-adaptation model. I never said 9 inches was a magical height. I'll agree with you here that the height of the bar is somewhat arbitrary, but only insofar as, the bar COULD be 8 inches, 10 inches, 6 inches, 12 inches, etc. 9 inches is not completely arbitrary because 9 inches is pretty close to the floor. In general, the bar needs to be at a height that forces you to bend down and get your hands near the ground to pick it up. I don't have a problem with people doing deficit pulls or rack pulls for accessories. Once again, I would refer back to my original statement of what defined a superior training tool: The criteria of a training lift in SS is that it uses the most possible muscle mass over the longest range of motion with the most weight possible and can be incrementally trained for years and years with significant progress. If you go too low with the bar height, you will not be able to pick up as much weight. If you go too high with the bar height, you will lose out on optimal range of motion for eliciting the best stress input. 9 inches does a pretty good job of striking the balance for the average human anthropometry. OHP - "That is just a stupid movement if the goals are what you are saying." Coming out strong here. You did not in any way provide evidence as to why the overhead press is "stupid." Saying something is stupid doesn't make it so. Instead of saying anything about OHP, you just made assertions about how awesome the push press is. Please, provide evidence as to how the OHP does not meet the objective criteria that I laid out for the most superior training tools. "You are clearly recruiting more muscle fibers." Prove it. The push press does not meet the criteria as the best training tool because you're cutting the ROM for the upper body press over the head by 25% to 50% due to the legs initially pushing the bar off the shoulders. " Saying you don't use your shoulders in the beginning of the lift because you use your legs is totally wrong." Are you actually claiming that the legs do not play a role in reducing the intensity off the shoulder press at the beginning of the push press? Do you understand the concept of momentum? No one is claiming that you're not using ANY shoulder activity at the beginning of the push press, but it is a provable fact that the primary cause of the bar's upward movement at the beginning of the push press is the quick extension of the legs and hips, NOT the extension of the shoulder joint. Just like in a quarter squat, you can do more weight, but it will be at the cost of ROM for stretch and contraction of muscle bellies. And therefore, it will cost you efficiency in getting stronger. Additionally, there is a lot to be said in regards to the problematic nature of the feet losing contact with the ground during the course of the push press. For most people, that is far too dynamic of a movement to be mastered and requires a level of athleticism that the overhead press does not. Your average level of athleticism will have no problem with the superior training tool of the OHP. Push press is, however, ok as an accessory! Miscellaneous - "In that same vein, why would a slightly below parallel squat with low bar position train me for the position I take in an ass to grass front squat like I see in a super heavy clean or the overhead ass to grass squat I see in a snatch?" This question takes us back to the vital nature of understanding the two factor model. Training and practice are distinct categories. The purpose of the slightly below parallel squat with a low bar position is to get the muscle bellies of the posterior chain, which produce force in hip and leg extension, as big as your genetics allow. All things being equal, a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. So if you want to produce the most force possible in hip and leg extension, literally the foundations of human strength, then you need to get the muscles involved in that movement as big as possible in the most efficient way. As we've discussed ad nauseum, the low bar squat slightly below parallel is the superior training tool for this purpose because it comprehensively meets the criteria that are demanded by physics, biology, and physiology. The systemic changes that are gained through the use of the training tool of the low bar squat carry over to the ATG squat in the clean when we PRACTICE the ATG squat for the sport of, say, Olympic weightlifting. Training is the acquisition of strength through the stress-recovery-adaptation process, and practice is the APPLICATION of those systemic strength adaptation to sport-specific movements. You acquire strength via the low bar squat, and you apply that strength to the sport-specific movement of the ATG squat for heavy cleans and snatches. "Training only slow movements or predominately slow movements like the squat and deadlift can literally make you less explosive." This statement also has to be understood through the lens of the two factor model. Training has to do primarily with the adaptation of muscle belly size, because muscle belly size is the primary thing we can change about ourselves that has a positive impact on our force production capabilities. Practice would have to do with applying those force production increases to sport-specific movements in an explosive manner. Real-world example: We train the overhead press to increase our overhead force production capabilities through increased muscle belly size of the shoulder musculature. We APPLY the increased force production capabilities of our shoulders that we obtained from training TO the explosive, sport-specific movement of the jerk. I think your false assumption is that people who are training heavy aren't also practicing applying their strength explosively to sub-maximally loaded movements. Thanks for interacting with me on this subject! Zach

@@John_MySpace His advice is generic, there's youtubers with equal or better advice for novices. The worst part is he keeps at it with the same basic mindset after decades. Also, his squat advice is horrible and there is a ton of accessory work needed to make SS a good program for young athletes (adding more pulling movements and specificity for each sport, for example). His nutrition advice is bad too. In reality, the only good thing about MR and SS is the fact that he introduces the very basic strength training ideas in a simple text, that's it.

@@John_MySpace the vast majority of evidence points to high bar squat being better for performance, mass and carryover to real life scenarios. That is a simple fact. Low bar gives you more strength for the specific pattern of low bar squatting, which is also bad for the knees. No, you don't need to get fat to train optimally. No, athletes require specific training within their routines. Gearing everything towards 'novices' is very poor since everyone and their dogs knows that you begin with basic barbell compounds (plus other stuff). SS was too basic then and it's too basic now. That's why there are several youtube channels with better advice for the general public. You can explain it's basicness by listening at MR talk about weightlifting, he reduces everything to "needs more strength" lmao.

@@John_MySpace It’s interactions like the one you just had that cement me more into the SS camp. I don’t think SS is perfect but when people outright misrepresent SS then I’m left to wonder who’s really dogmatic. I mean come on! Low-bar bad for the knees?

@@TR-ju5re agree lol but to get mad because of that is a bit nazi. I understand the topic bothers Zack but I don't really support that vision that only experts should talk about its topics. People are free to express whatever the hell they want, the key is educate people so they can filter and discriminate information

Could you please link the video for me?

He snatched fahve fifty fahve for fahve sets of fahve

Sounds like a good experiment. Would be interesting to see what the results would.

That is a very sticky situation. What exactly was the context of him saying they trained much harder? So one of the big reasons is increased testing has made the type of PED usage you saw in that era essentially impossible. Obviously they are still doping but it is much more controlled and designed to evade testing. PEDs allow you to train harder. The reason you can't take a natural athlete and tell him to just train 10 hours a day and sleep 10 hours a day and use 4 hours for eating and other things is he cannot possibly recover from that. The muscular damage from 10 hours is insane and his capacity for recovery is just not there. For a heavily enhanced lifter this becomes less of a concern. Certian drugs will prevent some of the muscle damage. Other drugs will allow for greater recover through various means. All of this combines to allow insane levels of training.

Just lower back and hamstrings Yeah buddy

Freedom of speech

@@sourikray1993 Fair fair. I just mean, that Mark is famous for beginner training program. Seems out of his wheelhouse

@@Dad_Lyon absolutely agree, he made low bar squat a thing for the average Joes, but commenting on Lasha's technique...nah that's a little too much

I think you are paraphrasing?! Not very well, mind??

@@IRISHSALTMINER61 I think I'm paraphrasing very well

@Jared Lind I agree. That goes for anything. Not just lifting. Also when playing sports. When you start off. You easily progress. But what would u rather have. Someone there to help teach you the basics? Wouldn't having a good coach that'll teach you good technique from the beginning be beneficial? Than just picking up a bar and start lifting not knowing what to do. You agree? I never said he has a monopoly. You tell me. Would u say if one learns good form. And is able to accelerate his or her squat, deadlift, Bench, and overhead press more quickly is far superior than a person lifting and having a rounded back in deadlifting for 5 months straight while progressing in weight? Lemme tell u from experience. When I started out. Yes I was able to go up in weight real easy. Went from 135 to 185 in a matter of 2 weeks. With bad form. I did high bar and I bent at my knees only. Not knowing hips play a factor too. After learning Mark Ripptoes style of squatting. My squat when from 185 to 245 in a matter of a week. Is it cause I'm a novice it went up? Maybe? But one thing I can is I felt really good squatting his way. And I enjoyed squatting. I still use his style of squatting. And I must add. His style of squatting really helped translate to my deadlift numbers. Thing is. I'm going for strength. And I find Mark Ripptoes style really good for that. Obviously I stopped doing 5x5 training. And people abuse that "5 x 5" quote from Mark. Im sounding like a Mark Ripptoe fan boy. But I disagree with him on a lot of things. If you read my original comment. I disagree with his weightlifting methods. I don't like his style of front squating. He doesn't value mobility, kettlebells, trap bar deadlift. Which I find pretty dry and unrealistic. He also finds hypertrophy training bullshit. While I'm not a fan of bodybuilding or hypertrophy training. I still respect it. While saying all of this. I will say. To learn from everyone. Take the good. And leave the bad.

@Jared Lind don't you think you're looking to deep into it? Good meaning getting numbers up. What's so hard to understand about that. And I don't get what's so hard to understand about starting strength. I agree any coach can help with starting strength. But my point is his style of squatting helped me boost my numbers up. Lot of people. Who've done his programs would agree. Again. I'll use personal experience. Before getting into this whole strength bull. I played basketball. I bought programs to increase my vertical jump. Same rules imply in vertical jump strength and general strength. If you do any program. You'll increase you're vertical. But some programs focused on certain things that were more effective. Like form, technique, exercises. If you read the last thing I said in my second comment. You wouldn't even reply if you understood what I said. Take the good. Leave the bad. If someone say something stupid. Or if it doesn't work for you. Than leave it. But if it works. Than keep it. It's not that complicated. I get misinformation can lead naive people hurting themselves. But thats on them for not being more cautious.

@Jared Lind yea. His view on RPE is stupid. I agree. But you won't like this. But. Dr.Baraki is a starting strength coach. Like he's down videos with him. And you can even see his channel. It says. STARTING STRENGTH. Barbell Medicine have been on STARTING STRENGTH. They literally learned his style. And Mark Israelite has down a interview with Mark. And they both agreed with each other. Soooooooooo???????? Haven't done ur research much???? I don't get why you're keep on going with this. It's not that deep. If something works for someone. It it bad? Ima say this again. Take that good. Leave the bad