> They're meaningfully different in how they approach failure.
All 3 of these programs do deloads to handle failure. StrongLifts also starts dropping sets/reps, but that's after deloading repeatedly at which point Starting Strength just says to go do a different program. So no meaningful difference until you have outgrown the program.
> Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year.
That's not running the program. You can't deload and work back up to the same weight repeatedly. You can call that Starting Strength but it's not. You get some number of deloads (3? can't recall) and then move to a different program. Pretty sure Starting Strength coaches will also tell you you're not eating/sleeping/training right if you keep getting stuck at a novice weight.
> It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable....
Sure, but for someone untrained, this really doesn't matter much. Hence nitpicking.
> They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term.
They teach you to grow muscle and to learn to push yourself in the gym. Not sure what else a beginner program is supposed to teach.
> Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs.
All 3 of these programs do deloads to handle failure. StrongLifts also starts dropping sets/reps, but that's after deloading repeatedly at which point Starting Strength just says to go do a different program. So no meaningful difference until you have outgrown the program.
> Starting Strength fails in teaches the idea of deloading by dropping weight then taking a run at it without changing any of the training methodology which is arguably a reason for the "spinning the wheels" approach you see from several lifters who claim to run the program for months on end upwards and beyond a year.
That's not running the program. You can't deload and work back up to the same weight repeatedly. You can call that Starting Strength but it's not. You get some number of deloads (3? can't recall) and then move to a different program. Pretty sure Starting Strength coaches will also tell you you're not eating/sleeping/training right if you keep getting stuck at a novice weight.
> It's also seen as a less ideal program for its poor split on upper/lower volume and really benefits from accessory lifts thrown in when the lifter is capable....
Sure, but for someone untrained, this really doesn't matter much. Hence nitpicking.
> They're decent programs in that they get a untrained individual to put up enough weight to get themselves out of a horribly weak position but they don't teach anything meaningful for long term.
They teach you to grow muscle and to learn to push yourself in the gym. Not sure what else a beginner program is supposed to teach.
> Other programs achieve the necessary linear progression that is capable during your noob gains without having stupid programming quirks that lifters need to unlearn when they move onto intermediate programs.
What programs do better?