And the most effective program isn't necessarily the one that works in the real world - let's not forget that. Programs like S&S and PTTP allow one to do other things while still delivering results, including "transferability."
-S-
-S-
- Status
I've put in a lot of barbell time for the first time this year, and I would say it has made me "sturdier."
I still do a fair amount of kettlebell work, but I'd say that these last few months when I do, I feel a little bit "creakier." Like things don't flow quite as well at first. My force production through the wider range of movement patterns feels a bit stilted; for example, heavy kettlebell swings, or get-ups, or snatches. But then I get warmed up and going, and it's fine. I do think deadlifting allows one to swing a heavier kettlebell. ("I don't always swing the Beast, but when I do, it's a pretty damn good set of swings..."
)
I was able to press the 24kg this morning, and I've done very little kettlebell pressing since I pressed the 24kg at SFG II on 2/20/17. So there I feel like the barbell pressing transferred over, or at least maintained my kettlebell press. I'd say the same goes for any type of squats; barbell squats make heavy double kettlebell front squats easier, or at least maintain them. But I do kettlebell goblet squats regularly so that maintains the movement pattern too. Also the barbell squats brought back the strength I needed to pistol squat, so that was some transference.
I haven't found anything that the bench press transfers to with kettlebell, but it may help with some bodyweight stuff.
I'm pretty sure I'm addicted to all of the strength tools now so I can't see giving any of them up anytime soon.
I still do a fair amount of kettlebell work, but I'd say that these last few months when I do, I feel a little bit "creakier." Like things don't flow quite as well at first. My force production through the wider range of movement patterns feels a bit stilted; for example, heavy kettlebell swings, or get-ups, or snatches. But then I get warmed up and going, and it's fine. I do think deadlifting allows one to swing a heavier kettlebell. ("I don't always swing the Beast, but when I do, it's a pretty damn good set of swings..."
) I was able to press the 24kg this morning, and I've done very little kettlebell pressing since I pressed the 24kg at SFG II on 2/20/17. So there I feel like the barbell pressing transferred over, or at least maintained my kettlebell press. I'd say the same goes for any type of squats; barbell squats make heavy double kettlebell front squats easier, or at least maintain them. But I do kettlebell goblet squats regularly so that maintains the movement pattern too. Also the barbell squats brought back the strength I needed to pistol squat, so that was some transference.
I haven't found anything that the bench press transfers to with kettlebell, but it may help with some bodyweight stuff.
I'm pretty sure I'm addicted to all of the strength tools now so I can't see giving any of them up anytime soon.
MikeTheBear
Level 6 Valued Member
I was going to comment on this myself. Brian lives in Colorado as do I and I had a chance to meet him. He is a mountain. No other way to described him. He is 6'8" 423 lbs. He deadlifts over 1,000 lbs. I'm not sure what lift he was doing in the video. The other lifters looked like they were doing the "Grace" WOD which is 30 C&Js with 135 lbs. Brian was doing what may be called a muscle snatch, but he was really just getting the bar overhead anyhow. Yes, he didn't need technique. But that weight was 13.5% of his deadlift. Guess what, I can also throw 13.5% of my max deadlift over my head like that. So, if you wanted to improve your time on the Grace WOD which is better: 1. Work to get your deadlift to 1,000; or 2. Do strength training, conditioning, and work on improving your C&J max?
Obviously strength is important, I am not denying that. There have been studies showing that strength training improves endurance performance. But there is a reason why the best strength athletes are not the best endurance athletes.
I recall Zatiorsky had a formula for determining whether you should work strength or endurance. It was based on how many reps you wanted to get with a certain weight. You plugged that in along with your max for that lift.
From my own experience with kettlebell sport, of course strength helps, but there are diminishing returns. At some point you need to push up your reps with the kettlebell you plan to use in competition by accumulating reps with that particular bell.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
Barbell is a great tool. It is unparalleled for gaining size and top-end strength. I also credit back squats to allowing me back in the day to simply do a pistol - there was no need to learn anything. I don't recall being stiff all the time, but then on my day off I would shadow box for 30 minutes and was riding mountain bike almost daily.
Unfortunately barbell is the least convenient of all resistance tools with exception of standalone single movement cable machines. I routinely toss a couple of KBs and a sandbag in the back of my car and train at a local park, or just toss them in the back yard and train when the weather's nice.
I do recall back when doing more barbell, it still did not translate across lifts in a linear manner.
At peak I was hitting 255 for reps on seated behind the neck press, but with dumbbell press only getting 80-90lbs/hand and struggling to hit the same reps.
Likewise when I was hitting 250 easily for reps on the benchpress, was able to hit the same rep count only with 90-100lb dumbbells. And I noticed this was not just me.
Some of the added potential load is a result of less stabilization needed once the mechanics are ingrained.
Unfortunately barbell is the least convenient of all resistance tools with exception of standalone single movement cable machines. I routinely toss a couple of KBs and a sandbag in the back of my car and train at a local park, or just toss them in the back yard and train when the weather's nice.
I do recall back when doing more barbell, it still did not translate across lifts in a linear manner.
At peak I was hitting 255 for reps on seated behind the neck press, but with dumbbell press only getting 80-90lbs/hand and struggling to hit the same reps.
Likewise when I was hitting 250 easily for reps on the benchpress, was able to hit the same rep count only with 90-100lb dumbbells. And I noticed this was not just me.
Some of the added potential load is a result of less stabilization needed once the mechanics are ingrained.
Manuel Fortin
Level 6 Valued Member
If we look at all this fundamentally, simplifying a bit, strength will depend on:
1 - how many fibers you have in each of the muscle that are involved in the movement you test and how many contractile units they have
2 - how well you can get these fibers to contract together and what percentage of these fibers contract in each rep
3 - how well you synchronize with each other the different muscles needed to perform the movement.
There are also many other factors, such as for example having enough connective tissue integrity, energy availability if repping, and central nervous system variables (your brain can play tricks on you), but I will let those aside.
For more complex movements, 3 is very important (see TGU, muscle up, ...). However, if 1 and 2 are up the scale, then you can get away with a lot, as Shaw showed. The body always wants to go the easy way. Number 1 requires to build a lot of additional tissue. This is very expensive for the body and will probably occur the slowest if you learn a new movement. That is why barbell training is effective to build strength. It forces the body not to rely on 3, as the skills (technique!) can only get you so far, but to do 1 and 2. Now, here is how we can reconcile everyone:
1 - Barbell training helps kettlebell (TGU, ...): You up 1 and 2 and then 3 is not that important if you are relatively light. If you then want to get better à TGU, then you need to up 3 and do more TGUs. For example, a competitive powerlifter can surely learn to do a TGU with the 24 or even the 32 in a day. However, no matter how strong they are, they would not do a TGU with 150 pounds on the first day.
2 - Barbell training not helping kettlebell: If you talk about repping, then doing sets of 5 deadlift, squats and bench can only go so far to help you do 5 mins of snatch. There is also a 3 component, so that if you don't press a kettlebell of a certain weight for a while, depending on what progress you made with the barbell, you may have trouble to pressing it again as all of 1, 2 and 3 can be lost if not used. However, say you get to a 32kg KB press and then do only barbells for 10 years and achieve a 500 pounds bench and 300 pounds press, I can say with certainty that this 32 kg KB will go up.
3 - Kettlebell helping barbell. Some people do 10 years of kettlebell and achieve rapidly significant lifts with barbells. They probably milked all the 3 they could with their kettlebells and their body had to go with 1 and 2 to progress. If you can achieve the Sinister standard, I am sure you can post nice numbers in the barbell lifts. Same with the gymnasts who pull 400 double bodyweight the first time they try.
4 - Kettlebell not helping with barbell. This gets back to an observation I had in another thread in which someone was swinging 24kg for a month and then saw no progress in their deadlift (closing on 300 pounds). The load was not large enough to help with 1 and 2 (and also timing for 2 was a bit different than for the deadlift).
In summary, strength is a skill, but what we mean by skill can be 2 or 3 above, and this is causing a lot of confusion. Also, number 1 above is important. This addresses in part the body weight influence that was referred to in the thread. There are also some movements that require use of muscles that are not often used. If you never develop them ( 1 and 2), you will need to develop them using the specific movement or close alternative.
1 - how many fibers you have in each of the muscle that are involved in the movement you test and how many contractile units they have
2 - how well you can get these fibers to contract together and what percentage of these fibers contract in each rep
3 - how well you synchronize with each other the different muscles needed to perform the movement.
There are also many other factors, such as for example having enough connective tissue integrity, energy availability if repping, and central nervous system variables (your brain can play tricks on you), but I will let those aside.
For more complex movements, 3 is very important (see TGU, muscle up, ...). However, if 1 and 2 are up the scale, then you can get away with a lot, as Shaw showed. The body always wants to go the easy way. Number 1 requires to build a lot of additional tissue. This is very expensive for the body and will probably occur the slowest if you learn a new movement. That is why barbell training is effective to build strength. It forces the body not to rely on 3, as the skills (technique!) can only get you so far, but to do 1 and 2. Now, here is how we can reconcile everyone:
1 - Barbell training helps kettlebell (TGU, ...): You up 1 and 2 and then 3 is not that important if you are relatively light. If you then want to get better à TGU, then you need to up 3 and do more TGUs. For example, a competitive powerlifter can surely learn to do a TGU with the 24 or even the 32 in a day. However, no matter how strong they are, they would not do a TGU with 150 pounds on the first day.
2 - Barbell training not helping kettlebell: If you talk about repping, then doing sets of 5 deadlift, squats and bench can only go so far to help you do 5 mins of snatch. There is also a 3 component, so that if you don't press a kettlebell of a certain weight for a while, depending on what progress you made with the barbell, you may have trouble to pressing it again as all of 1, 2 and 3 can be lost if not used. However, say you get to a 32kg KB press and then do only barbells for 10 years and achieve a 500 pounds bench and 300 pounds press, I can say with certainty that this 32 kg KB will go up.
3 - Kettlebell helping barbell. Some people do 10 years of kettlebell and achieve rapidly significant lifts with barbells. They probably milked all the 3 they could with their kettlebells and their body had to go with 1 and 2 to progress. If you can achieve the Sinister standard, I am sure you can post nice numbers in the barbell lifts. Same with the gymnasts who pull 400 double bodyweight the first time they try.
4 - Kettlebell not helping with barbell. This gets back to an observation I had in another thread in which someone was swinging 24kg for a month and then saw no progress in their deadlift (closing on 300 pounds). The load was not large enough to help with 1 and 2 (and also timing for 2 was a bit different than for the deadlift).
In summary, strength is a skill, but what we mean by skill can be 2 or 3 above, and this is causing a lot of confusion. Also, number 1 above is important. This addresses in part the body weight influence that was referred to in the thread. There are also some movements that require use of muscles that are not often used. If you never develop them ( 1 and 2), you will need to develop them using the specific movement or close alternative.
jca17
Level 5 Valued Member
I'm pretty sure this is almost exactly @Bill Been's point, so I'm not sure if this is arguing for or against.
Mike Boyle has noticed the same ratio. He expects athletes to hit about 80% of their barbell lift on the corresponding two-dumbell lift, likely due to the extra stabilization on each dumbell, whereas you can tension through the barbell to secure it.
305pelusa
Level 6 Valued Member
Brian Shaw is a 420+ lb Pro Strongmen, backed up by steroids and excellent genetics. Clearly he's going to demolish some rando Xfitter in Clean and Presses. I don't see how you can get any useful conclusions out of that video; to me it's just a funny thing to watch and not at all representative of any points about how much Barbell work prepares you. As a Strongmen, Brian doesn't train exclusively with BBs anywho so even more of a moot point.
Interestingly, make Brian do some Xfit BW strength work. Have him do Muscle ups, Handstand Push ups or walking on his hands. And he's suddenly not strong at all, easily beaten by most recreational Xfitters.
NOT because BB work doesn't transfer. But because at 420 lbs + he's at a huge automatic disadvantage and it would be unfair of me to judge BB strength training based on that also.
I think for this discussion to make sense, we should really leave out athletes on gear like Donnie Thompson, Brian, etc. The rules for the geared athlete are totally different than the natural, recreational trainees (us).
Interestingly, make Brian do some Xfit BW strength work. Have him do Muscle ups, Handstand Push ups or walking on his hands. And he's suddenly not strong at all, easily beaten by most recreational Xfitters.
NOT because BB work doesn't transfer. But because at 420 lbs + he's at a huge automatic disadvantage and it would be unfair of me to judge BB strength training based on that also.
I think for this discussion to make sense, we should really leave out athletes on gear like Donnie Thompson, Brian, etc. The rules for the geared athlete are totally different than the natural, recreational trainees (us).
the hansenator
Level 6 Valued Member
I was just reading this article on T-Nation The Biggest Training Lie | T Nation
It seems that, at least to some degree, a big strong muscle is a big strong muscle. When there's little carryover to another exercise, is that simply because of a lack of efficiency in that movement? The idea of strength being a skill has been well-discussed so I wonder if a "strong" person could make rapid progress if he/she practiced that unfamiliar move for a couple of weeks.
It seems that, at least to some degree, a big strong muscle is a big strong muscle. When there's little carryover to another exercise, is that simply because of a lack of efficiency in that movement? The idea of strength being a skill has been well-discussed so I wonder if a "strong" person could make rapid progress if he/she practiced that unfamiliar move for a couple of weeks.
jca17
Level 5 Valued Member
Billy's point wasnt specific to barbell. It was that strength carries over. Isnt that a StrongFirst principle? Work on a few lifts and know that your well of strength will allow you to quickly adapt to foreign activities with just a bit of technique and motor learning? I'm not even sure who's arguing what points on this thread anymore : P arent we all kind of on the same page?
There are lies, d#%^ed lies, and statistics. The statistics are that some lifts, practiced some ways, will carry over for some people to some things.
We have found that the way we teach things at StrongFirst has greater carryover, in general, than the other ways in which many of us practiced before we came to StrongFirst. I believe this is because we teach practices that are based on principles and those principles are at the root of the good carry over.
-S-
We have found that the way we teach things at StrongFirst has greater carryover, in general, than the other ways in which many of us practiced before we came to StrongFirst. I believe this is because we teach practices that are based on principles and those principles are at the root of the good carry over.
-S-
JeffC
Level 7 Valued Member
In my opinion weight is weight. Iron, steel, flesh, sand, or rock just pick stuff up, and put stuff down. Handle, no handle, symmetrical, assymetrical, all specific variety. Cheap, expensive, improvised, DIY, store bought. A hinge is a hinge. A Press is a Press. You could PR everyday, you could do a different Press everyday of the year. They all help one another when you program to suit your life, sport, and/or goals. KB Get Up helps everything. Bench Press helps KB MP. Barbell Rows help Stone Picks. Goblet Squat helps everything. KB Swings help Deadlift. Deadlift helps KB Swings. Too many transferabilities to list.
The total load offered by Barbells is the great progresser, but all implements have a role to play in overall strength and fitness.
The total load offered by Barbells is the great progresser, but all implements have a role to play in overall strength and fitness.
Last edited:
Harald Motz
Level 8 Valued Member
As it was said before, when one wants to pull or squat heavy then load the bar accordingly. At some point it would be irreplaceable, the more specific it gets.
Imagine one starts kettlebell only, sticks with it only over the years (learns and practices SF principels maybe but hopefully) . This one develops flawless technique with the basic lifts single and double bell.
48kg is plenty enough for a strong guy, to build up to a have decent numbers with a bit of instruction and some practice on the big three barbell lifts. Kettlebells can make strong not only kettlebell strong but with carry over to the bar and onto bodyweight.
My mediocre kettlebell skills have carry over to my mediocre barbell skills further to my mediocre bodyweight skills. The kettlebell(s) is just the tool I used by far most over the last years.
A simple option I like is to have volume by the
bell(s) and some 'spiced' intensity by the bar for not to many total reps from time to time.
Imagine one starts kettlebell only, sticks with it only over the years (learns and practices SF principels maybe but hopefully) . This one develops flawless technique with the basic lifts single and double bell.
48kg is plenty enough for a strong guy, to build up to a have decent numbers with a bit of instruction and some practice on the big three barbell lifts. Kettlebells can make strong not only kettlebell strong but with carry over to the bar and onto bodyweight.
My mediocre kettlebell skills have carry over to my mediocre barbell skills further to my mediocre bodyweight skills. The kettlebell(s) is just the tool I used by far most over the last years.
A simple option I like is to have volume by the
bell(s) and some 'spiced' intensity by the bar for not to many total reps from time to time.
305pelusa
Level 6 Valued Member
@jca17: I think for the most part we're all on the same page. If you go back to Bill's first post that I quoted, I disagree that strength is just some general quality developed through heavy work and that the BB is "the best tool to develop this strength".
I don't think the BB is the best tool to develop some form of general strength because it's totally dependent on HOW you even measure it.
As far as I'm aware, that was Bill's attempt to explain the experience of Antii and OP.
Having read some of Pavel, I don't think it's as much about the tool as it is about the principles and the programming. And hence, people's carry over experience should VARY based on the individual. Hence, why gymnasts find the opposite of OP's experience.
In short, getting strong at a few things to carry over to others DEFINITELY works. But that one tool creates that carry over better than others? I'm not as convicted by that and I think it's very individual (which was my last sentence on my first post)
Hopefully that clarifies my viewpoint
I don't think the BB is the best tool to develop some form of general strength because it's totally dependent on HOW you even measure it.
As far as I'm aware, that was Bill's attempt to explain the experience of Antii and OP.
Having read some of Pavel, I don't think it's as much about the tool as it is about the principles and the programming. And hence, people's carry over experience should VARY based on the individual. Hence, why gymnasts find the opposite of OP's experience.
In short, getting strong at a few things to carry over to others DEFINITELY works. But that one tool creates that carry over better than others? I'm not as convicted by that and I think it's very individual (which was my last sentence on my first post)
Hopefully that clarifies my viewpoint
Bill Been
Level 5 Valued Member
Some of you say strength has carryover, but that it's limited. Some say strength is specific enough to be context-limited. I say strength is a general adaptation, very broadly applicable, that stronger is a real, tangible thing, and that the barbell is the best way to getcha some.
Let's do a thought experiment. Two identical twin males, both completely untrained, both of the same very low strength base. Each has set a goal of doing a Turkish Get Up with a 48 kilo kettlebell. They are both disciplined, consistent men who do what they say they will do, so compliance with your training program is absolute - all the way down to diet. Unfortunately, they are also demanding men and want the quickest results you know how to get them. You get to train one of the twins and I get the other and our task is to get our trainee to a 48kg Turkish Get Up as quickly as possible.
You lay out your approach and its timeline, then I'll lay out mine. (This might be fun. It might also be utterly annoying.)
Let's do a thought experiment. Two identical twin males, both completely untrained, both of the same very low strength base. Each has set a goal of doing a Turkish Get Up with a 48 kilo kettlebell. They are both disciplined, consistent men who do what they say they will do, so compliance with your training program is absolute - all the way down to diet. Unfortunately, they are also demanding men and want the quickest results you know how to get them. You get to train one of the twins and I get the other and our task is to get our trainee to a 48kg Turkish Get Up as quickly as possible.
You lay out your approach and its timeline, then I'll lay out mine. (This might be fun. It might also be utterly annoying.)
Kettlebelephant
Level 6 Valued Member
I'd put mine on Starting Strength followed by Texas Method (or something similar). Throughout the whole thing have him do mobility work, where I incorporate TGUs so he learns the movement and once he has good TGU technique and meets certain numbers on the BB lifts ramp up the weights on the TGU following a S&S like approach.
I think you'd do something similar
But there's a difference between best and fastest. I agree that BBs are the fastest way to build overall strength that has good carryover to other fields, but it's not necessary the best.
"Best" is highly individual.
That's why I prefer Greyskull LP over SS. SS increases your lifts faster, but lets no room for everything else. GSLP is a bit slower, but you can do other things while using it. Is SS better, because it's faster? A big no in my opinion.
Most of the time though the BB is indeed the best tool and I don't think that you can really argue against it. There's a reason why for many decades now the BB is the number 1 tool for athletes all over the world in most sports.
If for example reaching a 48Kg TGU or doing 10 muscle-ups had better carryover to athletic performance in football, basketball, soccer, track&field, martial arts, skiing, etc. than 1-1.5xBW bench/1.75-2xBW squat/2-2.5xBW DL, then strength coaches would use those instead.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
Answer will depend on whether the twins are big people or not to start, even if unconditioned. If they will need to put on weight to hit the 48, then BB program it is!
I'd suggest a better/tougher criteria based on the conversation, is 6 or 8 months training time to several unspecified tests of strength. You have no idea what you're training for but have been assured your subject will need to be "strong" to complete the tests. Any external loads will be based on % of bodyweight rather than on any specific weight.
I'd suggest a better/tougher criteria based on the conversation, is 6 or 8 months training time to several unspecified tests of strength. You have no idea what you're training for but have been assured your subject will need to be "strong" to complete the tests. Any external loads will be based on % of bodyweight rather than on any specific weight.
mikerobinson
Level 5 Valued Member
Made a 32 kg kettlebell shoulder press for the first time ever, despite not training for it, after spending a period of time on the incline bench press with the barbell.
When I made the 32 kg I hadn't done any KB shoulder work for many months.
I read a quote of Pavel's recently. He wrote:
"…the bench press and the deadlift. It's the most comprehensive workout you could possibly hope for, especially if you use all the high-tension techniques we've been talking about. You'll be able to use every muscle in your body at the same time."
All I train with nowadays is the DL, BP, and swing, with walking, and some light running, plus light goblet squatting for mobility. It's got everything, and all the the carry over, I need -- especially compared to the general, sedentary population.
Any variability comes from varying the sets, reps, weight, or volume of the exercises, which I change up from time to time, based on Plan Strong principles.
When I made the 32 kg I hadn't done any KB shoulder work for many months.
I read a quote of Pavel's recently. He wrote:
"…the bench press and the deadlift. It's the most comprehensive workout you could possibly hope for, especially if you use all the high-tension techniques we've been talking about. You'll be able to use every muscle in your body at the same time."
All I train with nowadays is the DL, BP, and swing, with walking, and some light running, plus light goblet squatting for mobility. It's got everything, and all the the carry over, I need -- especially compared to the general, sedentary population.
Any variability comes from varying the sets, reps, weight, or volume of the exercises, which I change up from time to time, based on Plan Strong principles.
305pelusa
Level 6 Valued Member
@Bill Been : Look I'm not a coach, and I don't work with KBs and BBs. Ask me anything about Calisthenics and I'll be able to concretely give you a good approach.
That said, for that goal, my rough general plan would be to have them work on TGUs since Day 1. I don't know anything about frequency or volume when it comes to the Get up, but I know if that's the goal, we'll train it.
I would probably add bent arm vertical pressing (KBs ideally but HeSPU and BB is fine as well). I would add Squats, Lunges and Ab work. I'd prefer Front Squat over Back Squat for this specific goal. Ab work is strength based, in hollow position.
I don't know how long it'll take but as long as you keep cycling the weights and variations correctly, I think this is a sound and ,IMO, fastest approach.
Things I wouldn't do are put him on generic programs like S&S (and certainly not TM)that were designed purely for strength sports like Football and just to get people acquainted with the BB. I don't see a reason to waste time learning lifts like the Power Clean when time can be spent on the Get up. Incidentally,this is a reason why S&S has lost a lot of popularity in recent years. People realize it's extremely generic and is probably only ideal for those who actually don't have a goal and just want something to get started with.
I also wouldn't put him on some generic muscle building program. Whatever mass he needs to get to Get up with 48 kilos, he'll gain by training heavy Get ups.
I think your scenario is a good one because it shows a different train of thought. I'm goal-based and see strength as a skill and will practice the relevant exercises. Because the Get Up is a very practical and great exercise to learn how to do Heavy, I don't feel at all like this is any bad "early specialization". The Get Up is famous for building lots of carry-over to other things GPP so I like it as the main first choice since Day One.
I think this is representative of the SF approach (Steve can correct me if wrong) but that resonates with me.
That said, for that goal, my rough general plan would be to have them work on TGUs since Day 1. I don't know anything about frequency or volume when it comes to the Get up, but I know if that's the goal, we'll train it.
I would probably add bent arm vertical pressing (KBs ideally but HeSPU and BB is fine as well). I would add Squats, Lunges and Ab work. I'd prefer Front Squat over Back Squat for this specific goal. Ab work is strength based, in hollow position.
I don't know how long it'll take but as long as you keep cycling the weights and variations correctly, I think this is a sound and ,IMO, fastest approach.
Things I wouldn't do are put him on generic programs like S&S (and certainly not TM)that were designed purely for strength sports like Football and just to get people acquainted with the BB. I don't see a reason to waste time learning lifts like the Power Clean when time can be spent on the Get up. Incidentally,this is a reason why S&S has lost a lot of popularity in recent years. People realize it's extremely generic and is probably only ideal for those who actually don't have a goal and just want something to get started with.
I also wouldn't put him on some generic muscle building program. Whatever mass he needs to get to Get up with 48 kilos, he'll gain by training heavy Get ups.
I think your scenario is a good one because it shows a different train of thought. I'm goal-based and see strength as a skill and will practice the relevant exercises. Because the Get Up is a very practical and great exercise to learn how to do Heavy, I don't feel at all like this is any bad "early specialization". The Get Up is famous for building lots of carry-over to other things GPP so I like it as the main first choice since Day One.
I think this is representative of the SF approach (Steve can correct me if wrong) but that resonates with me.
305pelusa
Level 6 Valued Member
And by S&S above I meant SS whoops. S&S is a pretty good option for that goal. I'd prefer to add Squats and Ab work in particular and might decrease the Swings but you get the idea. I think if S&S-like approaches aren't some of the fastest to reach heavy Get Ups, I suppose I don't know what is then haha.
- Status