strength training 3x a week will with no other exercise will leave the average person with extremely poor cardiovascular fitness. if you lack the strength to carry out household tasks you would be better off with basic bodyweight exercises. the average western person is sedentary and does not exercise enough, so it makes little sense to recommend 3 hours a week of training that consists of mainly of recovering between sets.
there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense: it is sub optimal for increasing mass, is hard and not that enjoyable compared to less intense weightlifting routines, increases the length of workouts, interferes with training for other sports, is incompatible with serious participation in sports (outside of powerlifting), requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...
even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.
> strength training 3x a week will with no other exercise will leave the average person with extremely poor cardiovascular fitness.
This is actually not true. I wont argue it's going to give you the same level of cardiovascular conditioning as running daily, but it absolutely gives you a baseline of cardiovascular conditioning. Since we are talking about basic fitness, I would still hold to my recommendation that strength is the most important thing for the first few months, especially for a sedentary population that is likely to hurt themselves doing high impact running. I would agree that after those first few months cardiovascular fitness should be considered, and in fact most strength programs include conditioning as well. Starting strength does not because it's not meant to be run for more than a few months before going into intermediate programs that do in fact contain conditioning.
> there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense
On the contrary, given a year and body building goals I would absolutely be recommending strength based training for a great amount of that time. I suggest you read Practical Programming which goes into detail about why this is, but the short version is myofibrilar hypertrophy vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a very real difference, and the former is far more important for mass during the novice phase, and for allowing the latter to be quickly added during intermediate phases.
> requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...
This is a pretty poor understanding of the starting strength program and its nutritional recommendations. Have you read the book or just internet forums like /r/fitness where idiots talk about it?
> even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.
If you think starting strength is a sports training routine then you do not understand the basic principals of the program or the philosophy. Please respond to my initial justification, which is that strength is the basis of all fitness and provides gains in every area, as well as the fact that I explicitly recommend a short period of time for strength training.
starting strength involves perhaps 30 minutes of active exercise in a week with most time in the gym sent recovering between sets. that is simply not enough to develop any sort of cardiovascular fitness unless you have an abnormally strong response to training.
your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource. The linked article links to evidence that resistance training can aid health (in elderly subjects). This does not support the idea of high intensity barbell training as a magic injury prevention tool.
Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength. Lots of guys have strong physiques yet use mostly "inferior" bodyweight exercises and machines. Take a look around you in the gym next time you're there and you might be a little surprised :).
Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus. This is a pretty good reason why such a training program should not be your default recommendation!
Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness. Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights. Even if this rather bizarre statement was true, it does not explain why powerlifting training of this sort is ideal for everyone. I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity -- one of the most compelling reasons why the average person should not do Starting Strength and why it is most definitely a powerlifting specific training regime.
You may have had a great experience with Starting Strength. But other people will often have a very different response to training and health goals. Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.
I'm doing something similar to Starting Strength and I really enjoy it, but it's not the be-all end-all. If bodyweight exercises are your thing, more power to you.
I have to disagree with you on the machines though. From what I've read, they tend to train large muscle groups but fail to build up stabilizer muscles, which can cause some nasty problems if you keep at it for a long time. A good friend of mine worked out exclusively on machines for a while and wound up having to work (as a developer) in wrist braces because the muscles in his arms were all out of whack. He thought he'd gotten carpal tunnel syndrome or something similar, but his physiotherapist did a quick exam and asked him if he worked out on machines X or Y. He answered in the affirmative, and she told him to stop immediately and start stretching and do some bodyweight stuff.
Bodyweight or barbell exercises won't lead you down that path, but machines can and do cause problems. Be careful!
> starting strength involves perhaps 30 minutes of active exercise in a week with most time in the gym sent recovering between sets.
I think you're arguing against a straw man...I've repeatedly stated that cardio is important and something that should be considered after a baseline of strength is established.
I've repeatedly stated that if mass is your goal don't do a strength program once you've established a baseline of strength.
> your links in support of the injury prevention and mass building benefits refer to startingstrength.com and Practical Programming. That book is health cult literature, not a reliable scientific resource.
Practical Programming was written by a PhD, and the article I sent is written by an MD. So...unscientific? Please do send sources for your assertions though.
> Weight gain is a problem. Most people have no health reason to gain mass rapidly (or at all), yet many trainees struggle to progress without eating a large calorific surplus.
I'm sorry this is completely ridiculous. I'm not suggesting people become powerlifters. I'm suggesting people build up a base of strength before doing other physical activity. In order to do so you do not need to put on weight.
> Everyone who lifts for mass does a lot more higher rep volume than Starting Strength.
Dude I have said over and over again that people should not be running starting strength past a few months. Rippetoe says the same. It's not a long term program meant to meet any and every goal. If your goal is mass and you are at step 0, start with strength and move to volume later. If you have a reason that is suboptimal I'd happily hear it, but you are arguing against things I'm not saying. To be 10000% clear: I'm not arguing people who are interested in mass should be doing low rep workouts forever.
> Strength is absolutely not that basis of all fitness.
Building a strength adaptation is the only way to simultaneously build an adaptation in every other type of fitness. Once again, I'm not suggesting it's the only thing to do, I'm suggesting it's the tip of the pyramid and thus the best place to start. Obviously if your goals are marathon running getting a 500# squat is not going to help you.
> Many extremely fit endurance athletes never lift any weights.
Well this is where it gets interesting. Fitness without a goal is not really a useful word. By powerlifting standards they are not fit, like a powerlifter is not fit by endurance standards. So I don't really think this is useful. In terms of day to day fitness for the general population, based on the sources above, I still assert that strength is the most useful form of fitness.
> I note that you didn't dispute that it will interfere with other physical activity
Once again, my recommendation is for people who aren't currently fit. There is no activity to interfere with because there is no current activity at all.
> Ask yourself also how much real evidence you have for your incredibly strong and dogmatic opinions on training.
I'm sorry, there are definitely people no the internet who are dogmatic about this stuff and knee jerk to starting strength and lifting. You're right. But I'm not one of them. Recommending that people with no experience in fitness start out in strength makes a lot of sense, and you've spent the entire time arguing against a straw man that I'm trying to get everyone to train as a powerlifter, which is nonsense. 3 months of training is a drop in the bucket. Try reading the sources you've dismissed so quickly. Alternatively send me some that disagree with my statements and I will happily critique the actual content of them rather than ignore them (or hey, maybe I'll have my mind changed, you never know!)
heavy lifting is inherently risky. there is little evidence that "correct" form will protect you from potential injury. there is also no real reason to do a strength focused routine if your reason for going to the gym is to improve your health and/or body. don't listen to the starting strength cultists!
This is true for all exercise, but actually if you look at insurance numbers weightlifting has by far the fewest injuries of any sport out there, so I don't think this is correct. Anecdotally I don't know a single person who runs consistently without having chronic issues with their knees or feet, whereas I know many lifters who go years without significant injuries beyond minor tweaks.
> there is little evidence that "correct" form will protect you from potential injury
This is not true at all, or else there wouldn't be a concept of correct form.
I think you are confusing strength training and powerlifting, which are two different things with pretty different recommendations for intensity etc. I agree with you that powerlifting is inherently risky, but all competitive sport is. That's basically the point.
"We find that when no penalty is assessed for a wrong answer, all test-takers answer every question. But, when there is a small penalty for wrong answers and the task is explicitly framed as an SAT, women answer significantly fewer questions than men."
how will this make any difference? if you're a non urm who doesn't already know that top colleges provide very generous financial aid, it's highly unlikely that you will have developed the right all round profile to get a place at stanford.
what new technological advances in back end web development have occurred in the last five years? why should senior developers spend their spare time learning new ways of doing exactly the same thing?
By "established" I meant: defined and researched (the 50% accuracy I mentioned above comes from the literature). But they aren't "established" as popular/widely used. Partly because they require well defined competencies, but also because they aren't easy to conduct in comparison to typical interview (which has the accuracy around 20% AFAIR).
competency based interviews are standard for junior positions with large companies in the UK. however, this approach often turns interviews into a bullshitting competition.
> this approach often turns interviews into a bullshitting competition.
That is also my experience. As a result I generally avoid applying to big companies where I expect a lot of non-technical interviews. If that's how everyone is hired, I don't want to end up in a MENSA club instead of a place where people have strong technical abilities.
there is also no evidence for the preventative benefits of heavy lifting. for the average person who starts lifting to feel and look better, starting strength makes no sense: it is sub optimal for increasing mass, is hard and not that enjoyable compared to less intense weightlifting routines, increases the length of workouts, interferes with training for other sports, is incompatible with serious participation in sports (outside of powerlifting), requires rapid and unhealthy weight gain for progression for many trainees...
even if you don't agree with all my points, at least ask yourself if it makes sense to recommend a highly specific sports training routine to everyone looking for basic fitness advice.