File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear CSCS,

Stop being such a little butthurt faggot in regards to Mark Rippetoe, it isn't our fault the he wrote SS and PP before you could.

Say what you will about his egotism, make what you want of his association with crossfit, but the fact is that it's his name on the cover of the two books next to me that gave me the information I needed to get into lifting. It might seem like he's serving kool-aid a lot of the time, but I really don't think that was his intention, it's just that his stuff exposed a lot of people to their first useful training information. Many of us here would be absolutely nowhere if not for his contribution to the training world, and feel a great deal of gratitude.

You make some very valuable contributions to /fit/, and no one smart wants to see you leave, but just quit hatin'. How about instead of bitching about Rippetoe you make a list of some books to read that would be useful for expanding our training knowledge.

Bump the shit out of this motherfucker, I want him to read it. THIS IS NOW A PR THREAD. I deadlifted 485 at 178, and got there in a year with the Starting Strength program, and the Texas Method.

Pic Related: Someone who will probably make a lot more money, and gain a lot more respect and recognition from his strength training knowledge than CSCS.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Your're 178 years old?
>> Anonymous
BEHOOVE
>> Anonymous
>>457412
I lol'd
>> Anonymous
When did cscs say he didn't like Rippetoe? I've been out of action on /fit/ for a while
>> Anonymous
i don't know if he likes him or not, but he's just saying to listen to more than one person on the subject of lifting and/or conditioning as there are many other well qualified individuals other than Rippetoe. Diversify your knowledge rather than following one person will make you more well rounded in the knowledge department so eventually you can make up your own training schemes based on your own personal goals
>> Anonymous
Also just to add onto that, the world of conditioning and strength is ever evolving and if you get into a groove of following one person or even 5 then you will be left out. There are so many new things coming up and down, old things resurfacing and put to the test. The best thing you can do is just read as much as you can everyday, implement it to yourself, test it, and if the results aren't there then scrap it and try it again.

Eventually you will have to do this a lot in order to keep gaining, but you shouldn't have to do this unless you have been training for a considerable amount of time (over 3-5 years)
>> Anonymous
bill starr ftw
>> Anonymous
who/what is a CSCS?
>> Anonymous
>>458821

Namefag cscs is our dark lord

a CSCS is a Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist, its a certification by the National Strength & Conditioning Association
>> Anonymous
im pretty mutiple people use CSCS as their name
>> Anonymous
>>458834
do you mean the dark lord as a positive or negative thing?
>> Anonymous
>>458837
short version of thread: CSCS said he would volunteer to be /fit/ mod in order to preserve /fit/ to be a sanctuary for bros and future bros. He made analogies to new-mis/fit/s as retarted cats and him being the overseer/dark lord and herding retarded cats around. Got pretty gay so i stopped watching the thread and hit the gym to do some squats
>> Anonymous
>>458841
i followed that thread

that whole cat thing was a non-cscs creation, random mental masturbation of the faggots that participated

he started that thread...but then was no part of the long cluster fuck it became.
>> Anonymous
dunno if he's even still around. been weeks since i've seen him

prolly gone the way of WFYS and TR, and those 2 doctor tripfags. gone for ever except for those who remember
>> Anonymous
cscs probably got smart and finally left. This place is a hell-hole of wrong information and low quality trolling. If he did leave, he'll be missed
>> Anonymous
>>459251

I thought I saw him posting yesterday... could be wrong tho...
>> Sponge !!5qxfxHYSQxJ
I'm cscs. I'm bored of it now though, it was hilarious how much drama I caused with so little effort. Consider every cscs after this to be a fake, I wont post under that guise again.
>> Negro Sparkle Faggot
>>459276
Fuck you sponge. You're a faggot.
>> Sponge !!5qxfxHYSQxJ
>>459296

I can't believe you didn't figure it out, especially as I posted on multiple occasions that Sponge was my arch nemesis. I even fucking posted as Sponge accidentally replying to a cscs post but promptly deleted.
>> Anonymous
>>459300
He's lying.
>> Anonymous
Wow Sponge. I didn't know you could get CSCS by never doing a deadlift or squat in your life.

Maybe thats some sort of 2008 revision or something. GJ Sponge. Is it just multiple choice and T/F now?
>> Sponge !!5qxfxHYSQxJ
>>459304

uh i didn't type like that on cscs, nice try though kid.
>> Negro Sparkle Faggot
>>459308
I don't believe you, if it turns out to be true w/e.

You're a faggot.
>> Sponge !!5qxfxHYSQxJ
>>459312

care
>> Anonymous
cscs never said he 'hated' Rip. it was the senseless Koolaid-isms of the Rip crowd, which were no different than the Crossfitters that everyone actually does hate

cscs opened my eyes with this article

http://www.sportivnypress.com/English/frames.html
>> Anonymous
>>459906
err... oops

Practical Programming for Strength Training
Rippetoe, M, Kilgore, L.
The Aasgaard Company, Publishers, Wichita Falls, Texas. 2006

Since a picture of me was included in this text, it is necessary first to address what was written in regards to my activities. Although I am flattered to have my name mentioned by anyone in any book about developing strength or weightlifting, it is in the context of “However” that I find objectionable.

It was mentioned that I have translated a number (15 to be exact) Russian books devoted to weightlifting or strength training. This is true. The information “competition” of this book begins with the “however” statements. For instance:

1. “It (communist bloc sports science) is reported in a form that does not lend itself to independent verification.” This statement is false.

Unlike this text, which does not provide a list of references, offers numerous conclusions without citing reputable sources to support the conclusions, and annotations are extremely rare, most Soviet texts are extensively annotated (including an extensive list of literature, including American). The fact of the matter is that the Soviet sports science literature was not meant for sale in the western sense of commercialism. For the most part, their texts, articles, and journals were intended for their academic and coaching communities.
>> Anonymous
>>459957
Some texts such as the Weightlifting Yearbooks, for instance, do not print the author’s references to save space and cut costs because, unlike the west where it is rather easy to get published, it was, relatively speaking, difficult to get published in the Soviet Union. However, the target audience in the former Soviet sport science community had access to the author’s references if they wished to check the sources.

The relative inaccessibility of Soviet sport science literature was the Soviet bloc (especially East German) paranoia with regards to research as state secrets. Many “white” publications (individual research papers and summaries) authored by people like Matveyev, Verkhoshansky, and others were published by the universities where they taught and, consequently, were not available to, nor meant for the general public, let alone for western perusal.

2. “There is no way to accurately and reliably evaluate their conclusions or methods, since they summarize their findings without providing any substantiating data.” Again this is another false statement.

The Soviet sport scientists not only provide extensive data but with a uniqueness and specificity which was virtually unknown in the west. For instance, the Soviet sport classification system defines an athlete’s sport “educational” level in concrete terms of Class III, II, I, Master of Sport, and Master of Sport International Class.

Studies conducted with a specified number of Masters of Sport, Class I, and Masters of Sport International Class lend a unique specificity which is an accuracy not only to the data, but the conclusions as well, i.e., an experienced high class athlete will respond to training differently than the lower level athlete; the biomechanics of their techniques are different.
>> Anonymous
>>459958
Compare this to much of western research (virtually all at the university level) where “15 healthy young males” from a college physical education class were used for studies of strength training. Here the skill level is unknown, strength training experience minimal, or unknown.

Prominent sport scientists such as P. Komi and K. Hakinnen from Finland mimicked Soviet practice of specifying the subject’s qualifications in their research. Furthermore, the practice of peer review of data and results was as well established in the Soviet Union as it is in the USA.


3. “The works of Leonid Matveyev, Yuri Verkhoshansky, Alexei Medvedyev and other communist bloc writers have been adopted as truth without independent confirmation of their theories and practices.”
True and false.

Some people may try anything written about strength training or sport training in general, whether the athletes are ready for a specified training regimen, or the programs are even applicable. This is true. Consider the “Russian squat routine.” There is no such “routine” and there never has been.

See www.dynamicfitnessequipment.com “Concerning the Russian Squat Routine,” Andrew Charniga, Jr. and www.sportivnypress.com , “Methods of Developing Leg Strength,” translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

Many Olympic lifters in the USA tried (and apparently still do) the program outlined in the article “Methods of Developing Leg Strength,” including the first in the USA to try it (the author of this review). However, this “secret Soviet” program has been beaten to death by the powerlifting and strength training communities for which it was never intended.
>> Anonymous
>>459959
The “lack of independent verification” is of course silly to say the least. For independent verification just ask the hundreds of athletes who have looked up at the medals podium over the past 50 years and saw all of the Soviet champions who placed ahead of them at Olympic and World Championship events.

Matveyev and Verkhoshansky are principally academics with little time spent in the gym; this is true. However, their conclusions are drawn from extensive data gathered by the coaching community for “central processing.” The aim is to discover trends and innovations in training methodology and biomechanics.

Also, Matveyev’s text “Fundamentals of Sport Training” deals with the entire sport educational process. His contribution to sport science is many times more expansive than periodization.

The ultimate purpose of the Soviet sport scientist is to develop programs, systems, and methods for practical application by the coaches and athletes. For instance, the Soviets claimed to have around 400,000 active weightlifters in the 80s. The training data obtained from this pool of athletes was a principal source for men like Medvedyev to study.

By way of contrast, much of the university level research in this country is published in scholarly journals; it is highly technical and does not lend itself in many respects to practical application.
>> Anonymous
With respect to Alexei Medvedyev and the lack of “independent verification” of his theories we should consider this in light of his credentials. The credentials of the authors of this book are presented in the back. The reader is asked to compare their credentials with those of Medvedyev which appear in the “Soviet Gods of weightlifting” section of www.sportivnypress.com. It should be pointed out the list of Medvedyev’s achievements is certainly not complete and really does not do him justice.

One should even take in account some of Medvedyev’s credentials with the barbell. His best results in the 1950s were 167.5 in the press, 147.5 in the snatch, and 190 in the clean and jerk at a bodyweight of 120 kgs. Furthermore, these results came in an era where the split style was predominate and the lifters spent upwards of 40% of their time on the press.

4. “When evaluating communist bloc sports science data, we must also consider which data may have been acquired while the subjects were taking part in ‘better lifting through chemistry’ experiments.”


This is another often repeated lame excuse for mediocrity and an effort to mislead through ignorance.
>> Anonymous
>>459963
Everyone knows only the “communists cheat;” see www.dynamicfitnessequipment.com “A Sense of Perspective: The Soviet Spartakiade” Andrew Charniga, Jr. Even though American chemists were the first to synthesize anabolic steroids, American athletes would never take drugs. In fact, even if a US athlete has a positive doping test, he or she is innocent if they just say so. The “communists” are always guilty. You do not hear people attacking our data as suspect because the subjects are always “clean.”

Considerably more can be said in defense of the “ignorant” Soviet sport scientists, but it is really unnecessary.
>> Anonymous
>>459965
Additional Comments
There are some comments in the book about certification programs. This is interesting especially because the USAW certification program was cited as a “major” certification for strength training (page 7) and as one of the best available. The USAW certification for sale program is a major source of misinformation of weightlifting and especially strength training. It is a prime example of the blind leading the blind.

“Bigger muscles also mean more efficient leverage around important joints. Knees, elbows, hips and shoulders work better when the muscles that operate them are larger… big quads work better than small quads….”

Not True.
>> Anonymous
>>459968
Equating muscle mass and mechanical efficiency is simply not true. Furthermore, when you are speaking of strength training, you are for most part speaking about strength training for dynamic sports where force is generated quickly, in bursts, and muscle mass, especially unnecessary mass, will be more a hindrance than a help.

Consider the following:

“The highest correlation between muscle mass and strength is observed in those cases when strength is maximal and the speed at which it is displayed is of secondary significance. The connection between strength and bodyweight decreases as the speed at which strength is displayed increases; it does not have vital importance for explosive types of exercises….”
Y.V. Verkhoshansky, 1977

“An increase in muscle mass is not an obligatory result of strength training.” {Y.V. Verkhoshansky, 1986

The sample strength programs offered in the book for certification combine powerlifting and weightlifting movements. The biomechanics of the deadlift, for instance, biomechanically has little in common with the weightlifting movements of the snatch and clean and jerk; there is a definite risk of negative transfer of habits to these exercises.
>> Anonymous
From the only conversation I've ever had with cscs, he knew a hell of a lot more than most of the people on this board, mainly because he follows Charles Poliquin and had verifiable knowledge about PICP.

Charles Poliquin is a trainer you guys should look into, as he is commonly considered #1 in the world. He has trained countless olympians, NHL, NFL players; you name it. So yeah, if you guys really want to diversify Poliquin is the person to turn to.
>> Anonymous
>>459982
>From the only conversation I've ever had with cscs, he knew a hell of a lot more than ALL of the people on this board, mainly because he follows Charles Poliquin
fixed
>> Anonymous
lolwut to this science shit?
>> Anonymous
>>459982
i know exactly who charles poliquin is so speak for your own dumb fucking self.