SS is great for aesthetics, especially with assistance work for whatever you want to build up.

>ketchup on rice

File: 1274695965407.jpg (79 KB, 640x480) Image search: [Google]

79 KB, 640x480

>>36482943
you get bigger legs from ss, other than that literally nothing. i'm not sure when people started believing aesthetics and strength are different things but they are fucking wrong

>>36482983
>you get bigger legs from SS, other than that literally nothing

So working push/pull three times a week builds nothing? Stop talking out of your arsehole.

>>36482943
READ
>THE
FUCKING
>STICKY

>>36482943
SS uses 5 sets of 5 reps for the workout. 1-5 reps is the optimal amount of reps for building strength, not so much aesthetics. 6-8 reps builds both strength and aesthetics whereas 9-12 reps is the hypertrophy range.

>>36482943

SS isnt aimed at strength
it's aimed at total newbies to learn the movements
after 2 months SS is redundant

/thread

No one has said yet what the difference is between strength and aesthetics, that's my question.

>>36483044
>SS uses 5 sets of 5 reps for the workout. 1-5 reps is the optimal amount of reps for building strength, not so much aesthetics. 6-8 reps builds both strength and aesthetics whereas 9-12 reps is the hypertrophy range.

LOL! well mem'd Sir

>>36483044
Nope. Rep range hasn't been shown to be significant. Total reps and volume has. So 3x5 which is 15 reps will build strength at high weight. 8x5 at manageable weight will build more hypertrophy because you're doing 40 reps total. 40-60 reps is ideal for hypetrophy.

Its a fucking beginner routine and like every other beginner routine its not going to make you look like a god within a few months. Its aimed to build a foundation. When i look at all the curlbros in my gym, literally no one of them improved either his lifts or his size in the last 12 months. Dont be one of them.

>>36483044
>SS uses 5 sets of 5 reps for the workout
Did you even? you idiot
>6-8 reps builds both strength and aesthetics
6 to 8 does nothing, avoid heavy sets of 9

>>36482943
Low repetition training with a high percentage of your 1RM tends to train myofibrilar hypertrophy and neural recruitment which leads to increased contractile proteins in the muscle cells.
Sacroplasmic hypertrophy, which is trained in a higher rep range with a lower percentage of your 1RM, is the increased muscle size via fluid increase and increased cross-sectional area of muscle.
In addition, muscle power and strength are best trained at low rep ranges while training in a high rep range will lead to increased muscular endurance.

>>36483003
i think he means the only difference between SS and training for aesthetics is that SS results in bigger legs than aesthetics does

>>36483239
Ah yeah my bad. I just misread him.

Fuck me, do any of you proles fancy answering the actual question?

>>36483264
suck your mum cuz

>>36483269
gud1

>>36482943

There are two kinds of gains, making current muscle fibers stronger (i.e. adding strength) and adding new muscle fibers (i.e. adding size). Any program will do both of these, but how the program is structured will cause it to favor one over the other.

Starting Strength (as the very name of the program implies) favors building strength over size.

>>36483312
Thanks, so what is it about different lifts that make them more strength or size oriented?

Bread is a fucking terrible source of carbs and you should feel bad for eating it.

>>36483264
>>36483264

the question is redundant because SS isnt a strength program. i dont even know why you think that. how many people do you know who got "strong" off SS? zero. it is an introduction routine to acquaint the newbie lifter with the lifts. it isnt about strength.

>>36483510
I said
>eg SS
>eg
I wasn't asking about SS in particular you fucktard, so no it is not redundant.

i provide the stimulus
i shape your outlook
you're on my ride

>>36483475
It's the rep range and 1rm percentage you fucking retard. How illiterate are you

>>36483264
It's been answered, maybe you should read the thread.