Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric3237
That definitely wasn't babbling 
I've had the same experience with screwing around with "the magic method" for years spinning my wheels. Most of us have. I'm too embarassed to actually go into mine. Frankly, HIT is much better for a beginner than what I did! I think beginners can make good gains on it and at least it didn't break you...you were able to go on to a more efficient begginer's routine with, I presume, not to many injuries, imbalances, faulty movement patterns, etc. Such was not the case with me! Maybe that's why I stress all this stuff so much. |
dont be embarrassed! I doubt your experience is any worse than mine!!! i am still such a weak sister but at least now the poundages are moving up in a fairly steady manner. i think by summer's end i'll be pushing some iron i can feel at least semi-proud of!
the only real problem i've had to work on as far as movement patterns go is with squatting. After years of reading muscle mags and listening to people (including Mentzer) say "never below parallel", or disregarding them completely and doing leg presses instead, I've had to relearn the movement from scratch which is proving to be rather difficult, but not impossible. Right now my bench and my squat poundage are the same, and fairly pathetic at that, but they're getting better
Quote:
|
Yeah, the internet is a blessing and a curse, I think. It's no different then everything else. Here's the very simple thing that most people miss. You have to be willing to take pieces from just about anywhere. Use what works and throw away the rest. From what I observed, most people discover a new fancy looking routine and they start burning bridges, forgetting everything they've learned about themselves, saying "this is what I've been looking for".
|
true, too many get caught up in "routines" without knowing the how's and the why's of what they're doing, myself included. Mentzer was the first guy that I became aware of that talked about fundamentals and got into the theory side of things. I now feel he was way off base on several key points (failure as an axiom, volume as a "negative with a capital N", progressively decreasing frequency, etc) but at the time it was really attractive to me to know WHY i was doing something instead of just blindly following a routine. A routine is just a way of organizing work but how can one do that efficiently if one does not understand why they're doing the work they're doing???
Quote:
|
But I read what you said and I see this excitement. I think there is a lot of excitement when people think they have discoverd "the rosetta stone" as you so righly put it. Then they discover they have to learn, adapt and think for themselves and it's a let down...it's nice to be lead. Then they realize that THEY are in control, not someone else, and it's empowering in a way that the "perfect routine" never was.
|
i agree!! nothing has been exciting as learning that there are NO "perfect routines"!!!! it's almost like Bruce Lee's philosophy of "using no way as way, having no style as style"!
great talking with ya!
