I love it. I really do. It's good stuff. I really love it because it's an argument between a lot of legit strong people, and not a bunch of 3 plate squatting redditors or open forum assbags. Though I'm sure that's going on in those places as well.
Rather than get into this debate about speed work and such. (because there are plenty enough people in it already) I am going to write the following about it all, and about every training "system" or methodology in general.
Eventually, a training method has to bear fruit in terms of its claims. It has to "work". The problem is, what does "work" mean?
Let me state that "work" to me means that when something is applied over and over again, the end result is success. Either every time, or the great majority of the time. For example, while lots of dietary gurus and nutritional experts argue that "a calorie isn't a calorie" and all that fucking nonsense, Weigh Watchers has been helping people lose for decades through simple calorie counting.
I can hear all of the nutritional gurus groaning about this, and I don't give a flying fuck. Just yesterday I overhead a conversation between two guys where one of them complimented the other on all the weight he had lost.
"110 pounds I've lost." the one guy said. "All just following weight watchers."
It's a pretty simple system. And it "works".
If you eat less, you'll lose weight. This has been proven over and over and over and over and over.......and over and over.........and over and over. I don't care about your god damn scientific paper and studies. It works. You take some food away from a fat body, and that fat body shrinks. Yes, there are times when a person has something wrong with them physiologically that may not respond to that, however for the great majority of people, simply counting calories works. I mean, for the love of God, even Dorian Yates stated that he counted calories, and all he had to do was dial his calorie intake down to 4400 or so from 5600 and he'd start getting into contest shape. Yes, it's that simple.
Training isn't a lot different. Not a whole lot of things have really changed involving the barbell in the last 60 years. You can dig up lots of old manuals from a long time ago that have programs that look just like "scientific" programming of today. To quote the "lunk" in the Planet Fitness commercial, it really comes back to picking things up and putting them down.
There's not a whole lot to learn in terms of getting strong. There really isn't. You eventually have to do more reps, do more work, or put more weight on the bar. In the grand scheme of all that is the training holy grail, those things can't be ignored. They matter.
If you can squat 315x5 and go to 315x10 you got stronger.
If you go from 315x5 to 335x5 you got stronger.
If you go from squatting 315 for 2 sets of 5, to being able to squat 315x5x5 you got stronger.
All of these things work. "Work". Work meaning, your goal was to get stronger, so you did.
Some may say that's too primitive or basic, but that's all lifting really is. Yes, we have fun finding new ways to find that means to an end, however if you were stuck on an island with only a barbell, a squat rack, a surplus of food and were told you'd be rescued once you had gained 50 pounds of lean muscle (granted that you are not already very advanced) you could get it done, could you not? Sure you could. You would figure it out.
Do you know what you'd eventually figure out? You'd figure out what WORKS.
More than likely, you'd figure out what "works" are the principles listed above. The two main ingredients involved in all of those methods or principles are very simple as well.
Time, and effort.
I preach a lot about there not being short cuts or special routines. Yes, a gram of tren and test a week will certainly speed up that "time" part, however the effort part still has to exist. The same principles apply. This is what "works" over and over again.
So as I noted before, eventually a training protocol has to bear fruit to what it claims. It has to show that it has been applied to meet certain results, and that the results were optimal. Namely, the people following the methodology got bigger, stronger, faster, whatever. This is how training "works". Essentially the proof is in the pudding. Anecdotal evidence will often trump scientific data if the "science" runs counter to what the real life results say.
When I was doing lots of 100 rep sets of curls, I read debates on how 100 rep sets wouldn't work for size and that it was "broscience" and all sorts of horseshit. Well, my arms grew and my elbows stopped hurting. For the most part, every person that started doing them religiously found the same thing happened to them. Though I'm sure some forum nerd would cite that some "scientific" text/notebook/study/greek tablet says that it doesn't work. I don't care. What I care about is finding out what will yield me results. Lab geeks be damned.
So back to this discussion, and this will be my only word about it.
Well apparently Louie Simmons said “In my opinion people who don’t wear gear have no opinion. Lifters who break records with gear and then train without are always stronger.”
Listen, if you're going to come at people hard like that, then don't expect everyone to respond in kind. To my knowledge, there isn't a single raw record held by anyone who trains strictly in the WSB manner. The rebuttal to that would be that either "they use modified WSB" (so it's not WSB at all), or that WSB doesn't care about raw. Well duh. Apparently Louie doesn't even think that a Stan Efferding or a Kirk Karwoski is even worthy of having an opinion. Nevermind that there is zero evidence that he has anyone training under him that could out total either guys best raw numbers in their respective weight classes.
Here's the deal then. If WSB WORKED for raw lifters then eventually raw lifters would gravitate towards it because as noted, the proof shows up in the pudding. Yet all of the elite raw lifters I know, train pretty similarly. They manage their cycles, peak, and vary their intensity and volume. Again, all shit that has been done for decades and has been PROVEN to "work".
If you're going to run off at the mouth about geared lifters being stronger, or a methodology being better, then you'd better have some god damn proof of that. You'd better show that a certain method "works" better. Again, "works" means that the result is the same the great majority of the time, and that your guys best other guys using your methods.
I personally think the WSB method is the preferred method for most geared lifters because it "works" in that regard. It produces big geared numbers. However it does not "work" for raw training. Let me also emphasize that just because you "know this one guy..." doesn't mean shit. Go back and read what I wrote about what "works" means.
I don't care about "this one guy..." or about a study or a lab geek that squats three wheels that disagrees with me. I care about what strong people say "works", and "works" over and over again. This is really what the majority of you who want to get strong raw should care about as well.
I will leave the mental masturbation to the forum trolls and loudmouths who post under pseudonyms. It's what they do best.