Starting Strength vs. Stronglifts

BklynFitGuy

I just read an interesting article touting Starting Strength. I am 5'10", 196 and have been using MFP with a daily calorie intake of 1850. Just restarted the Stronglifts program but when I was doing it previously I noticed I wasn't recovering enough between workouts. Seems SS recommends 3 sets with a longer time between sets. Also, this article mentions 3000-6000 calories depending on height. Is SS a better routine than Stronglifts? Does anyone know if the SS book includes calorie and nutrition info?

http://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/workout-routines/4-week-guide-starting-strength

hamlet1222

Good question, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I do a slightly modified version of SL, and find I need to add extra rest days to make is sustainable, but seeing steady gains.

nordlead2005

3000-6000 calories is for bulking, not cutting, so don't listen to that advise if you are trying to lose weight. I'm 5'11" 189lb and eating 1820 +exercise calories and doing SL5x5. Once I hit ~10%BF I fully intend to eat closer to 3100-3200 calories (TDEE is ~2700).

SL5x5 says to rest 2-5 minutes, or I think they also say long enough that heart rate and breathing return to normal. But also says not to wait so long that you don't have to warm up again. Seems to me like the rest periods are similar.

Now, which is better? I don't know. Both seem to have a similar approach. Do the same routine for as long as possible, both very simple working typically in the 5 rep range. The big difference seems to be power cleans vs rows, and I don't have the equipment to do power cleans (bumper plates so I can drop the bar), so I would stick to SL5x5 even if someone said (and had proof) that SS is ever so slightly better.

armylife

I don't think of It as SL vs SS. They are both good beginning strength programs with a linear progression. Variations on a theme really. As far as calories, Mark Rippetoe is one of the guys that is firmly in the camp of you must eat more to get stronger. He popularized the GOMAD diet (gallon of milk a day) as a means of increasing caloric intake. For most beginners this is not necessary if your goal is to gain strength. As you become more advanced you will need to add muscle to continue gaining strength. That will require a caloric excess.

Five sets across at five reps can be tough, but the general rule should be rest as long as you need to fully recover for the next set.

Why are you only eating 1850 cals a day? I ask because only am 3-5 pounds heavier than you and eat at a deficit that still lets me eat 2,500 calories a day. What is your long term goal?

BklynFitGuy

armylife wrote: »

Why are you only eating 1850 cals a day? I ask because only am 3-5 pounds heavier than you and eat at a deficit that still lets me eat 2,500 calories a day. What is your long term goal?

Goal is to lose fat, build muscle. I started off at 212 and when I plugged my data into MFP that was the # it gave me. What did you use to come up with your calorie goal? Maybe I need to review.

armylife

If your only activity is the time in the gym that might be right, I have a pretty active job. But, I only selected active as my activity level. At your size (our size) I don't think you should be eating a hundred and fifty calories under the "average diet" to lose at a sustainable rate. The 2,000 calorie diet is generally based off a 170 pound 5'7" male, the statistical average. The FDA uses 2,350 as its base line. I feel like I would be hungry all the time of I ate that little. How much a week are you losing currently?

nordlead2005

I'm 5'11 and work a desk job. 1820+exercise typically averages out to ~2000 calories/day and I'm losing right around 1.5lb/week. So, 1860 isn't a bad amount of calories depending on day to day activity.

If I ate 2500 calories (flat) I would lose ~0.5lb/week, and that is too slow for me. I have the fat on hand to lose at a much faster rate for now without worrying about muscle loss. I would eat ~2500 calories if I only had a few lb to lose and a low BF%.

Sam_I_Am77

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what has been said. It's hard to compare them against each other when they're similar in-nature and have the same goals for the user essentially. You just have to figure out which variation is more appealing to you and roll with it.

Rest periods will vary for you. From a physiological stand-point, when you starting getting into heavier loads you will use more ATP for energy which requires about 3 to 4 min's to recover (approximately), so taking that amount of time isn't out of the question. However, and definitely depending on your conditioning; you may recover faster and be able to take less time in-between sets, but there may be days when you need more time it really just depends. The only time I'd really focus on maintaining rest times is in a strength-endurance scenario where conditioning is supposed to be challenged, but you'll be using lighter loads as well.

Sam_I_Am77

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what has been said. It's hard to compare them against each other when they're similar in-nature and have the same goals for the user essentially. You just have to figure out which variation is more appealing to you and roll with it.

Rest periods will vary for you. From a physiological stand-point, when you starting getting into heavier loads you will use more ATP for energy which requires about 3 to 4 min's to recover (approximately), so taking that amount of time isn't out of the question. However, and definitely depending on your conditioning; you may recover faster and be able to take less time in-between sets, but there may be days when you need more time it really just depends. The only time I'd really focus on maintaining rest times is in a strength-endurance scenario where conditioning is supposed to be challenged, but you'll be using lighter loads as well.

Regarding nutrition, I'm not a huge fan of MFP's system as I found myself constantly drained but I know everybody is different. I've always preferred a TDEE approach because you don't have to worry about eating-back calories which leaves room for error with how the HRM is tracking anyway. Also, if you have like $70 to invest in a plan; Renaissance Periodization has these "auto-templates" which make your nutrition incredibly simple, like stupid simple and you really don't have to worry about tracking calories and definitely not tracking calories you supposedly "burned."

_benjammin

I'm 5'10" too, desk job, compound lifts 3x week and that's about it, less than 5K steps a day. When I was ~164 lbs I lost about a pound a week on 2K calories. Currently 156lbs, maintaining on 2,700. You can definitely afford to eat more.
Re: SL vs SS
If you like/want to do power cleans, do SS.
Neither SS or SL offer much on nutrition, especially if trying to cut.
SL recommends doing 3x5 after stalling and deloading 3X. Why not get the most out of 5x5 while you can?

kwtilbury

Keep in mind that Mark Rippetoe is a pure strength guy. If you have a balance of strength and aesthetic goals, I wouldn't follow his nutrition advice.

_benjammin

kwtilbury wrote: »

Keep in mind that Mark Rippetoe is a pure strength guy. If you have a balance of strength and aesthetic goals, I wouldn't follow his nutrition advice.

FTFY

BklynFitGuy

Thanks for all the info. I think I'll stick with the 5x5 and maybe up my calories to 2k and see how it goes.

Sam_I_Am77

MikeDee_ny wrote: »

Thanks for all the info. I think I'll stick with the 5x5 and maybe up my calories to 2k and see how it goes.

If you want to follow MFP's way then that might be okay, but for TDEE I would say 2500 - 2600 is about where you want to be based on your height and weight.

christch

Hi guys I'm 5'10 150 lb and a woman (40ish) and my maintainence is around 2000.I have only just started SL and not lifting overly heavy. Your TDEE must be higher than mine. Have you looked at your TDEE using an online calculator like IIFYM?

BklynFitGuy

christch wrote: »

Hi guys I'm 5'10 150 lb and a woman (40ish) and my maintainence is around 2000.I have only just started SL and not lifting overly heavy. Your TDEE must be higher than mine. Have you looked at your TDEE using an online calculator like IIFYM?

Just used the IIFYM calculator and came up with 2259 for TDEE.