Is this program too unbalanced

[enwar3]

I've asked this question on bb.com but not gotten a satisfactory answer...

So I'm on SS with some additions/removals of my own due to certain limitations. For this program, I looked at a breakdown of how many sets each body part gets in any certain time period:

Sets/2 week period (exc.warm-up/inc.warm-up)
Legs: 21/45
Chest: 27/36
Shoulders: 9/18
Back: 18/27
Tris: 27/45
Bis: 18/27

To me this workout looks MAJORLY disproportionate. To me it doesn't seem as if bis and tris should get nearly twice as much work as shoulders and back! Of course, bis and tris are often included in presses and rows, but still! I have ONE exercise for my shoulders.

I've been on this program for about 7 months. Have gained about 16 lbs and made good gains in strength too. As time has gone on I've made a few small changes to the program to suit my needs and limitations. Should I make changes to address what seems to me as an imbalance? Less squats, more shoulders/back?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I think you're starting to micromanage a bit too much. Bi's and tri's are going to be hit in accessory movements much more frequently since they're involved in most upper body compound movements. Shoulders on the other hand are a bit harder to hit. However, when you do shoulders, they often take a greater load in proportion to that of the movements where the bi's and tri's are accessory muscles. Honestly, I think Mark Rippetoe has more experience in lifting than you or me. I'm sure there is logic behind it that I am completely missing. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[crt1530]

You aren't competent enough to make any changes.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: crt1530
You aren't competent enough to make any changes.

:thumbsup:

The reason why people really don't like guys altering Rippetoe's novice program is because the target audience of this program doesn't know anywhere near enough about training to make appropriate adjustments. You'll see newbs who are 135 lbs complaining about their "bicept peaks", and they want to train their upper-inner chest because it's a weak point. This is laughable simply because their entire body is one big weak link! In reality, they aren't really weak, they are simply untrained.

The flip side is that anyone who actually needs any type of specialized instruction is already well-trained and conditioned, and they have identified true weak points...well, they shouldn't be using this program's template! They have specific needs that require addressing. The novice's only "specific need" is to get bigger and stronger overall. The target audience is not someone who actually has weak points, the target audience is someone who hasn't been training long enough to know what a true weak point is.
...

The reasons against deviation from this program are very logical - an untrained guy is untrained, he is one big weak point. He won't know what his true weak point is until he has spent many months (and possibly even a few years) training and learning how his body responds to overall training. Is his upper chest REALLY a weakpoint? Yeah, his upper chest is a weakpoint because his entire chest is weak! He needs to spend time training his chest with the basic pectoral developing exercises before he decides to specialize in incline DB flies and cable crosses and reverse pec dec inverted flyswatters.

Does he honestly have a "poor biceps peak"? Definitely! He honestly has a very poor biceps peak, and that is easy to understand because he is a buck thirty, soaking wet, with 14" arms. Yup, his biceps peak definitely sucks!

Honestly, how can one know anything about training if they themselves are untrained. They have no experience, no point of comparison, no idea of what truly works because they simply haven't experienced training themselves. You can read a science book and learn that a shark is in a specific genus/species. That is knowledge and is easily applied, because it is based on factual science. Training is NOT factual science, it is an artform with a VAGUE and unproofed background in science.

How would an automotive engineer take the advice of a 13-year old who had never driven? The 13-year old is convinced he knows the best way to design a transmission so that it shifts smoothly because he reads Motor Trend each month, yet the 13-year old has driven nothing more challenging than his grandfather's golf cart. As a general rule, a woman will be resistant to taking the advice of a man when it comes time to dealing with the emotional events that occur during "that time of the month", for reasons that should be quite obvious. Are we seeing the connection here?

While the "don't mess with the program!" attitude is dogmatic, and "everyone responds differently because we're all individuals, blahblahblah", the idea of sticking with the program for its intended audience is, in fact, logical and in 99% of the cases it is doing the perspective trainee a favor. Just about every single person who wanted to change the program but didn't has been very very happy they stuck with it. The ones that seem to complain are the ones that have tried to change it to the point that it bears little resemblance to the original program.

Now, since 90% of the people that come to bb.com are novices, Rippetoe's program gets recommended a lot because it's good, it drives home proper understanding and fundamentals, gets them started on the right foot, they learn what is important in programming, and it provides a plan as to how to execute and how to adjust the weights on a session to session basis. Truly, this is really the key to all successful programs even though this information is totally absent or for most people on BBing sites and in magazines.

Ripp's way certainly isn't the only way but it's a damn good method that is as good as any. It is simple, it works, it provides an ideal foundation, and it SHOULD be easy to follow.

Even after seven months, you don't necessarily have a strong fundamental basis for strength. If you are stalling and squatting more than 2x your BW, deadlifting 2x your BW, etc then maybe it's time to read the section on moving towards an intermediate program. If you aren't there yet, keep plugging away.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: enwar3
I've asked this question on bb.com but not gotten a satisfactory answer...

So I'm on SS with some additions/removals of my own due to certain limitations. For this program, I looked at a breakdown of how many sets each body part gets in any certain time period:

Sets/2 week period (exc.warm-up/inc.warm-up)
Legs: 21/45
Chest: 27/36
Shoulders: 9/18
Back: 18/27
Tris: 27/45
Bis: 18/27

To me this workout looks MAJORLY disproportionate. To me it doesn't seem as if bis and tris should get nearly twice as much work as shoulders and back! Of course, bis and tris are often included in presses and rows, but still! I have ONE exercise for my shoulders.

First of all, your calculations seem a bit strange to me. For example, the back is worked extensively by most of the exercises in SS, including the squat, deadlift, power clean, press and pull-ups. In fact, of all muscle groups, the back is probably taxed the most. On the other hand, your biceps are really only taxed during pull-ups, so I'm not sure how you got that number so high. Second, your calculation is not taking into account the kind of load/volume being handled by the different groups. Most people, for example, squat and deadlift MUCH more than they do on bench or pull-ups, so with the same number of reps/sets, the back and legs get taxed significantly more than the biceps and triceps. Third, you need to realize that SS is a fully body routine, not a BB style split routine. The body is trained as a single unit because in the real world it's used as a single unit. The goal is to strengthen the body at the core exercises because that is exactly the kind of strength that will transfer very well to life. Looking at individual muscle groups and saying something is disproportionate has very little relevance.

Finally, SS and programs like it were developed by experts who spent years researching and testing this stuff out. They have been tested on athletes for decades and for beginners, have been found to be about as good as anything at producing massive gains in strength and size. The very fact that you are doing SS and are a beginner means that you lack the understanding and experience to be able to tweak this program in a way that would make it better. In fact, it's very likely that any changes you make will make it less effective.

Originally posted by: enwar3
I've been on this program for about 7 months. Have gained about 16 lbs and made good gains in strength too.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

 

[presidentender]

Originally posted by: enwar3
As time has gone on I've made a few small changes to the program to suit my needs and limitations.

What needs? What limitations? I would wager heavily that you have no appreciable special needs or limitations.

Furthermore, seven months of lifting experience, even if filled with eager learning, is not going to help you much in designing a program.

Finally, as has been mentioned, you're not paying attention to the intensity of the work given to each body part, or to the existence of accessory (stabilizer, secondary mover, etc) involvement for muscles other than the prime mover of each lift.

 

[enwar3]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: enwar3
I've been on this program for about 7 months. Have gained about 16 lbs and made good gains in strength too.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Because my legs are getting massive and the rest of me isn't getting anywhere..

Originally posted by: presidentender

Originally posted by: enwar3
As time has gone on I've made a few small changes to the program to suit my needs and limitations.

What needs? What limitations? I would wager heavily that you have no appreciable special needs or limitations.

Furthermore, seven months of lifting experience, even if filled with eager learning, is not going to help you much in designing a program.

Finally, as has been mentioned, you're not paying attention to the intensity of the work given to each body part, or to the existence of accessory (stabilizer, secondary mover, etc) involvement for muscles other than the prime mover of each lift.

No access to a barbell the first few months, no access to bumper plates, and small rotator cuff problems.

I had thought of the fact that arms are incorporated in almost every compound movement, etc. The reason I asked this was because I felt like my lower body was getting stronger and much faster than my upper body. In the end workouts depend on how the individual person is progressing, and I know for a fact my legs get stronger than the rest of me. The longer I work out the more imbalanced this gets. I thought this might be due to the fact that, when I break it down, I do much more with my legs than with anything else (besides chest).

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: enwar3
No access to a barbell the first few months, no access to bumper plates, and small rotator cuff problems.

I had thought of the fact that arms are incorporated in almost every compound movement, etc. The reason I asked this was because I felt like my lower body was getting stronger and much faster than my upper body. In the end workouts depend on how the individual person is progressing, and I know for a fact my legs get stronger than the rest of me. The longer I work out the more imbalanced this gets. I thought this might be due to the fact that, when I break it down, I do much more with my legs than with anything else (besides chest).

So, what does your modified routine actually look like?

 

[enwar3]

Now that I think about it, it's the same as the basic SS routine w/ pull-ups and dips except I switched out powercleans for rows. Yes, powercleans are superior, but no, I haven't put in the time or effort to learn them. I plan on doing so later this quarter.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: enwar3
Now that I think about it, it's the same as the basic SS routine w/ pull-ups and dips except I switched out powercleans for rows. Yes, powercleans are superior, but no, I haven't put in the time or effort to learn them. I plan on doing so later this quarter.

Ok, so I again have to question your math. The typical SS routine, with rows substituting power cleans, looks like this:

Workout A
Squat: 3x5
Bench: 3x5
Deadlift: 1x5
Pull-ups: 3x8

Workout B
Squat: 3x5
Press: 3x5
Rows: 3x5
Dips: 3x8

Since you alternate these A/B workouts, their proportion will be equal over time. By my count, the muscle groups are worked as follows:

Legs (squat, deadlift): 7 sets, 35 reps
Back (squat, deadlift, pull-ups, rows, press): 16 sets, 94 reps
Abs (squat, deadlift, press): 10 sets, 50 reps
Chest (bench, press, dips): 9 sets, 54 reps
Shoulders (bench, press, dips): 9 sets, 54 reps
Biceps (pull-ups, rows): 6 sets, 39 reps
triceps (bench, press, dips): 9 sets, 54 reps

By my count, most things are worked pretty damn evenly. If anything, because of the lack of power cleans, you aren't working your legs enough