Strength Life Legacy
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Spine stabilization in the squat
I've seen guys that apparently are in a position of teaching and authority talk about squatting and pulling and giving some really bad cues in regards to stabilization with them.
"Chest up! Arch!"
This is wrong.
The most protective thing you can do when you squat or deadlift is to stabilize the spine. You cannot do this without core stabilization. So if you think "chest up, arch your back!" is correct, then get in that position/posture, and push on your abdominal wall.
Is it rock fucking hard, or soft? It's soft.
Is that stabilization?
No.
You create that stabilization through the core and spine by pushing down and out through the obliques and abdominals. I can't remember who I told, but the "cue" (if you can't feel how to do this) is almost like when you're constipated and have to push real hard to take a shit. That's not spot on, but if you can't "feel" what that stabilization is through breathing and muscular contraction, then this will at least get you started in the right direction.
Furthermore, when the load gets heavy enough in a squat, you're probably not going to be able to hold an exaggerated "chest out! arch!" position. What happens after that? Your torso will cave because there isn't sufficient stabilization to support it.
So now you've been teaching yourself and practicing a position that isn't applicable to how you need to move heavier loads. And anytime you're practicing a position of technique that isn't applicable to your heavier/higher intensities, something can and will probably go wrong. This is why a lot of people who have an exaggerated arch when squatting get caved over when the load gets heavy. They haven't learned how to properly support that load in a correct position.
Ignore the "arch your back! get your chest out!" stuff, and learn how to stabilize your core and spine properly. This means you generally end up with a neutral spine in both squatting and deadlifting.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Everything does NOT work
In every interweb battle about training or nutrition, there will be dogmatic people who will refuse to budge on their stance regardless of how much anecdotal or scientific proof is presented to them. This is because it's very hard for some people to admit they are wrong, especially after mounting a keyboard attack in defense of their position that left their fingers smoldering.
These discussions rarely end with someone yielding to their "opponent" and they either bow out by not responding anymore or cling to a simple truth that undermines the whole truth of a debate.
But I can respect that. Even if it's ignorance, I can respect someone with passion about their belief. I didn't say I respect ignorance, just the passion. LOL I can respect someone more than is willing to change their opinion or position based on being confronted with new truths or evidence.
But you know what I can't respect? The people who just stand around, or write articles where they essentially aren't ever "wrong", but they aren't ever really right either. Because they establish a stronghold in "everyman's land" where they sort of agree with everyone all at once.
These usually tend to be the same people that spout of such garbage as "everything works." Or the even more nutless approach to it all. "everything works to a degree."
What degree? And what is everything? And if everything works, why aren't we all doing everything and why don't we stop trying identify real working principles of training and nutrition if "everything works."?
"I want to improve my bench."
"Do dumbbell flyes with 5 pound dumbbells."
If you're an "everything works" guy, before you jump back in protest, you have to remember that you are the one thinking and speaking in absolutes.
EVERYTHING works.
I'm still at a loss. What the fuck does that even mean?
"What it means is, everything will work to some degree for a little while."
Oh thanks for continuing to be even more ambiguous and refusing to actually take a hard stance on anything or give a concrete opinion.
No, everything (whatever everything is) does not work. Doing pilates isn't going to make you super fucking strong.
Neither will training one time a week.
Neither will training 40 times a week.
"But you're getting extreme, Paul!"
No I'm not. That's the fancy part about using absolutes like that. When you say EVERYTHING it means........well, EVERYTHING.
And everything does not work, and everything is not a viable solution to training problems.
One of the biggest facets of carving out a productive training plan is to have very specific goals. Without them, how are you going to decide what the best course of action is? You're just going to throw some shit together and go train? You're going to wing it? Do the ol Weider muscle confusion and instinctive training principles? Is that where you're at?
After more than 60 years of strength experimenting there are some things we do know that works, and some things we know that don't work, or works very poorly. There is a reason why certain types of athletes, strength athletes, bodybuilders, etc all eventually gravitate towards certain training paradigms. It's because....(drum roll)....there are generally a narrow subset of ways to be efficient in training.
There are general rules that have to be met, or training won't be productive.
To get bigger or stronger, progressive overload has to be accomplished. There's no way around this concept. If you want to get bigger or stronger this principle must be adhered to.
At some point, you need to do one of the following....
- Lift the same weight for more reps
- Lift more weight for more reps than the lesser intensity
- Lift more weight for more reps
- Do more volume
- Do less volume if you have overreached (deloading)
- Lift a weight that has a high RPE at a lower RPE (rate of perceived exertion)
There's probably more here, but you get the point. Over time, you must demand that your body be capable of doing more work than it was capable of before. The body getting stronger or bigger is essentially a survival mechanism or reaction to the stimulus being applied to it. Fibers get thicker and/or stronger to account for the stress being placed on it.
At some point, if you want to get good at something, you need to do that thing. This specifically applies to competitive strength athletes. The S.A.I.D principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands) has to be adhered to.
This is why a lot of geared methodologies failed for so many. Box squats won't develop your back squat. This is not me shitting on box squats. Box squats can be a useful tool even for raw guys. But it shouldn't be used to develop your competition squat, or your back squat in general. You need to, you know, do regular squats for that.
No amount of rowing or hyperextensions or ab work or whatever is going to develop your deadlift if you aren't deadlifting. You have to practice the movement.
I will give a great example of this from my own perspective.
This past offseason I deadlifted very little. I did a ton of deficit stiff legged deadlifts. This was on purpose. I wanted to really strengthen my posterior chain and I feel like deficit stiff legs do that for me better than regular deadlifts. I also get a tremendous amount of carryover from stiff legs to deadlifts.
However because I did not do many deadlifts, or didn't deadlift for a long time until meet prep time, once I did start pulling regular deadlifts again I did not feel especially strong at them. This wasn't because I wasn't stronger in my posterior chain. I was. I took my stiff legged deadlift from 550 for 4-5 reps to 605 for 3 reps. Indeed, I got much stronger. However the motor cortext wasn't primed for regular deadlifting. I had not been practicing the movement. Thus when I did deadlift again, I felt slower and less efficient than usual.
On the flip side of this, after just two or three deadlifting sessions my deadlift speed skyrocketed and I ended up pulling a fairly easy 700 at my meet. This was indeed my plan all along. Get stronger using a "like" movement to the deadlift, build the posterior chain (make it stronger), then spend a cycle working on the deadlift to take advantage of that.
I knew the first few weeks of deadlifting would in fact feel shitty because of all these reasons. So I was prepared for that. I'm completely aware of the importance performing the movement to get good at it. For me however, deadlifts tend to ramp up very fast, then bog down or even regress at times. So I only need to deadlift for a few weeks before it tends to peak out in performance.
What I'm getting at here is, you have to understand your own body in regards to how it applies to the S.A.I.D. principle, but it must be adhered to at some point in order for you to improve at that thing. Had I not pulled from the floor at all leading up to the meet, I doubt I have pulled worth a shit at all. Even though my hamstrings, back, traps, and erectors were all clearly stronger, the movement itself had to be trained.
So with all of that bullshit out of the way, back to "everything works".
People say this to be polite, or to agree with basically everyone all at once. Even if it means contradicting themselves.
Certain principles work. And work well for what they are intended to help the lifter accomplish.
Certain principles don't work well, or won't work at all depending on the goals of the lifter.
And certain things just don't work. What I mean is, you don't comprise a routine made up of machines if you intend to do a Crossfit competition.
Saying "everything works to a degree" is like saying "all cars work" or "all cars work to a degree". Well all cars don't work, but driving a 1979 Pinto isn't ideal if you're trying to win a professional rally race or even maintain life on the road for an extended period.
If you want to reach your training goals in the quickest and most efficient manner as possible then you need to search out what course of action looks best for that. Applying the "everything works" mentality is a great way to not understand why you are doing all the things you are doing. And knowing those things are paramount in regards to getting past plateaus and routine design.
Understand why you are doing what you are doing in training, and the purposes behind all of those things. Taking the stance of "everything works" is a terrible mentality to bring to your own table if you want to find the most efficient method to accomplish a task.
"Everything works."
And nothing works if it isn't applicable to the goal trying to be reached.
Friday, November 28, 2014
1,001 bullets dodged
“You become what you think about all day long.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
― Mahatma Gandhi
When I was kid, probably no more than five or six years old, I used to take this blue windbreaker that belonged to my dad, and button the top button only on it, so I could wear it like Superman's cape.
Yeah, I know that Superman had a red cape, but that's not the point. Sometimes I would pretend to be Batman as well, so there's that.
Anyway, I used to wear this thing and run down the long wooden porch on the front of our house and jump off of it, pretending to fly. I'd then run all over the yard, arms stretched out in front of me, and make believe I was on my way to stop some bad guys, put out building fires, and do whatever Superman or Batman does.
Those were some great times, for a myriad of reasons.
But mainly because for most of us, the world hadn't had a chance to sink its negative ideological hooks into us. We were just kids. We believed we could be anything we wanted to be. That we could accomplish anything we put our mind to, and any other cliche that you find on internet memes now about believing in yourself.
That's why we did shit like jump off the top of houses, and jumped makeshift ramps on our bicycles. Because we didn't live with as much fear, trepidation, and doubt that we foster now through all of the failures we've had as adults. That and because our body isn't quite as pliable as it was in those years. If I jumped off a house now I think every bone and organ in my body would explode. Still, I digress.
As we grow and mingle into social circles other people's beliefs, morals, thoughts, and ideas about the world, and how they see us, can and often do reshape how we see ourselves. When I was fourteen and I left Mississippi for the first time, I had no idea that I had a southern accent. I know, seems idiot and illogical to not know, but when you've never been outside of "what you know" getting exposed to "what you don't know" can be surprising.
So I was shocked to find out that a boy that grew up in Louisiana and Mississippi did indeed have a thick southern drawl.
Because of this revelation, I now knew that I sounded like some backwoods hillbilly. Did it bother me? Not in the slightest. It's what I knew, and who I was. And I was totally fine with it.
But through these experiences, and through negative connotations we often do end up transforming from that kid who jumps off the porch pretending to be Superman, and believes they can fly (cue R. Kelly song) to having our eyes opened to the fact that we are fat, ugly, skinny, poor, untalented, unathletic, dumb, and unaccepted.
And over time, these things weigh on us, and tear away that Superman that once existed. His cape is put away, and in his place now resides something that is even less of a shell of who he was. The world has "opened our eyes" to all of the short comings that were masked by our own blissful ignorance. Whether they really exist or not is highly irrelevant. They exist in our mind now because we believe that part of the world really sees us as flawed, and incapable.
And eventually, for many of us, that's how we being to see ourselves.
When I found lifting and grew into a bigger and stronger version of who I was, I was able to get some of that "Superman" back. Batman too.
It was exhilarating to find something in my life that could literally change what I thought about myself. I could create a new me. Something better than what currently existed. And best of all, it was totally within my control to do so.
Something that would insulate me from the insults and disparaging comments that robbed me of the belief that anything I wanted in my life was possible. Maybe we can't accomplish ANYTHING we set our minds too. I think that's a foolhardy belief in a lot of ways. I mean, I don't see a midget breaking into the NBA anytime soon, and no matter how much said little person believes in himself, he won't be breaking Michael Jordan's records.
So in essence, no, we really can't accomplish ANYTHING we set our minds to. But that's not what getting broken and torn down robs from us. It robs us of the passion that exists prior to that, that gives us hope about who we are, and who we can become. What we truly can accomplish. When we allow others to tear that away from us, what we lose is the part our ourselves that can surpass our own perceived limitations.
I have either accomplished or surpassed so many goals I never thought would come to fruition in my own training. But the fact is, they could have happened even sooner, had I not let my own negative thoughts dictate my abilities.
People are often ruled because of perceived limitations. Then once they find the ability to believe in surpassing them, it becomes easy. Whether that be through their own accomplishments, or the accomplishments of others, something eventually clicks that the impossible, is indeed possible.
I knew a gym owner that had dumbbells up to 150 pounds. He told me that all sorts of people used the 140's, but the 150's were rarely, if ever, touched.
Through luck he ended up getting a deal on some heavier dumbbells. All the way up to 180 pounds if I recall correctly.
You know what happened after that?
People started using the 150's. And 160's. And even 170's.
You can guess what dumbbells didn't get touched very much. Not that a lot of people would do anything with 180 pound dumbbells anyway, except maybe some dogshit rows, but that's neither here nor there. The point remains. People were limited, or limited themselves by looking at the heaviest pair of dumbbells in the gym, and didn't believe they could use them. Not until they saw that 150 pounders weren't the crest of the mountain. It was when that shortsightedness was removed that mentally, they could move past the 140's.
For a long time, people believed that it was impossible for the 4 minute mile to be broken by a human. People tried and tried and tried. And it became "fact" that well, it just wasn't possible.
Then in 1954, Roger Bannister ran it in 3 minutes and 59 seconds.
Two months later, John Michael Landy ran a mile in less than four minutes as well.
Is it possible that Landy goes on to accomplish this anyway? Maybe. Or maybe he needed to see it could be done in order to give him the belief that he too, could do this.
Since then, lots of people have gone on to run sub four-minute miles. It's doable. Achievable. By everyone? Of course not. This is where the slogan/motto of "you can do anything you put your mind to" falls very short. We all have genetic limitations whether anyone wants to openly admit that or not. But how can we be sure of what they are, if we limit ourselves from the get go?
In essence, we kill our own personal Superman before he has a chance to even find out if he can fly.
The method we use to kill him happens through our own failures, that leave a nasty imprint about who we think we are, or he gets killed because we invest too heavily in what others think we are incapable of.
The journey to finding a central and positive source of self belief will be filled with dodging negative bullets. Fired by yourself, and by others. It may take dodging 1,001 bullets before you arrive at a place where you can find the ability to believe that you're bigger, stronger, faster, wiser, smarter, and worthy of more than you think you are, or what people told you you are.
Wiping away that source of doubt and disbelief is hard. Especially if you let that belief truly become part of who you think you are. If that's the identity you cling to it can be hard to eradicate that belief from your existence.
Maybe you can't become an IFBB pro, or an NFL player, or run a sub 4-minute mile. But you will never accomplish that if the roadblock is within your own mind. At some point, that has to be removed, and Superman's cape has to be put back on.
Unless you're a midget trying to play in the NBA. Then....try something else.
Follow LRB on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LiftRunBang
Get "A Meathhead's thoughts..." - http://store.lift-run-bang.com/a-meatheads-thoughts-about-life-crap-relationships-and-stuff/
Get Basebuilding on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Paul-Carter-ebook/dp/B00H18K0LI
Get "A Meathhead's thoughts..." - http://store.lift-run-bang.com/a-meatheads-thoughts-about-life-crap-relationships-and-stuff/
Get Basebuilding on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Paul-Carter-ebook/dp/B00H18K0LI
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Offseason powerlifting - Part 2 - My own shit
I wrote a few weeks ago about setting up cycles/phases for your offseason in order to be better prepared come competition cycle time. In this article I am going to detail what I will be doing over the next several months in order to do that for my next competition.
Recomp -
Apparently everyone hates this word now, but I don't care. Hate away. Because I like it. I like it. Yes, I wrote that twice.
I have written for a while that my goal has been to be a leaner 242er, however it's obvious to me now that the 275 class is where I am going to compete for however long I continue to do so. Obviously the goal now is to eventually become a leaner 275'er. For me, that means being a VERY LEAN 255-260, then eating up going into the meet and landing right at 275 or so.
Now in some circles being a 275er means being 290+ and cutting weight. And yes I used to belong to that circle, and I do think it's an option. But for me, I'm far happier eating up going into a meet rather than making the last week or so of meet prep miserable with a weight cut.
After talking with his most excellent sire, Brian Carroll, about this (since he literally wrote a book on weight cutting) here are benefits and drawbacks to both options.
Eating up - Benefits
Fewer things to worry about, which means less stress.
Not depleting glycogen, ATP, water, etc at any point.
Knowing there won't be a possible reduction in performance due to the cut.
Eating up - Drawbacks
Possibly eating past your weight class (almost happened to me)
Weight cutting - Benefits
Higher wilks
Being bigger than your weight class (well duh!)
Some guy (not many, but some) find they feel stronger after a quality recomp (gaining the weight back)
If the weight cut is small, then virtually no hampered performance
Weight cutting - Drawbacks
Not making weight and suffering for no reason
Hampering performance
Higher risk of injury due to severe dehydration (on larger cuts)
I have heard/read every reason for doing a weight cut and not doing one. I will say this, it's just up to you. It really is. If you have personal goals to hit certain numbers at a certain weight class then doing a cut, and a proper recomp, CAN be a good option. My own personal opinion at this point is that anything over about 7% bodyweight tends to hamper performance for most people. So if you want to be in the 220 class for example, don't get above 235.
Even better, concentrate on being a very LEAN 235. The more muscle you carry, the stronger you're going to be obviously. There's no reason to eat above a weight class where all you are doing is packing on the fat. Fat is non-functional tissue, and regardless of what you read about leverages, doesn't lift anything.
This brings us back full circle. Recomping for the offseason.
For the next several weeks I will be working to trim as much fat off as I can, and then working back up from there. This process is mostly diet related, as training is training and not really dependant on fat loss goals. You don't train to "lose fat". You train to build muscle mass, or get stronger. You don't change around training to burn more fat. Can you do that? Yes. Is it optimal? No. This is why I rarely understand when people ask me if they need to change their training around to accompany fat loss.
Well yes, and no. Sort of. It sounds like I contradicted myself, but let me explain.
When you are dieting you still need to train hard and give your body a reason to hold on to the muscle you built while in a calorie surplus. And lifting is still the stimulus for that. You aren't going to build NEW mass while in a calorie deficit, but training hard gives the body a reason to hold on to the lean tissue underneath your chub.
My own personal opinion is that you need to train like you ARE training for hypertrophy when dieting, rather than strength, because (as I have discussed many times) more reps mean more growth. Fewer reps tend to translate to greater strength, but less growth in regards to efficiency (been over this too...3 sets of 10 > 7 sets of 3). Since growth isn't like to occur in a deficit, it's better to maintain muscle by using a method that is more efficient at growing muscle.
So even when dieting, train like you are trying to grow. Keep the reps and volume high. When you are ready to add calories back in, you need not change anything in training and can watch yourself grow and get swole/jacked/yoked, etc.
Also, don't ask about my diet. I am working with Trevor Kashey now on it and he's done some amazing shit with people so if you'd like to hit him up, do so.
Training - Specialization
Despite the fact that I know I won't be in a growth phase, I will still prioritize some areas in my training. This specialization will continue on throughout the entire offseason, just like last year.
The areas that I will be focusing on at various times this offseason will be as so.
1. Arms - I want to get that 500 bench under my belt. And I've never seen a big bencher with small arms. If he did, then he's the exception. On the average, the biggest benchers also tend to have the biggest arms. If you want a bigger bench then getting a couple of tickets to the gun show will help.
2. Glutes - I won't be doing any of that ridiculous shit you see women doing in those glute videos. While they may work to firm and tone a round womanly ass, I need to focus on getting glutes that are obscenely large and strong. Once again, you've probably never seen someone sporting a large ass that couldn't squat worth a damn.
3. Traps - Yes I know, I did that last year as well, but no one EVER has traps that are too big.
As I sit here and write this, I have the flu. Once I am well again here is what training will look like for the next 6 weeks, minimum.
Day 1 - Press/Arms
Bench - base building model I
Incline Db Curls supersetted with hammer curls - 4 sets of 8 reps
Rope Pushdowns - 5 sets of 20
Machine Curls - stack + rest/pause sets
Dip Machine - 350 method
Day 2 - Legs
Leg Curls (lying) - 4 x 8
Pause Squats high bar - base building model I
Split Squats (weighted) - 5 sets of 8
Day 3 - Back/Traps
Meadows Shrugs (dumbbells) - 4 sets of 12
Hammer Low Row - 2 sets of 6, 2 sets of 12
Rear Delt Machine - 4 sets of 20
Day 4 - Press/Arms
Incline - base building model I
Db Preacher Curls - 3 rounds of rest/pause
Overhead Tricep Extensions - 5 sets of 20
Reverse Curls - 4 sets of 10
PJR Pullovers - 1x20
Day 5 - Legs
Leg Curls (seated) - 4 sets of 8
Hack Squats - 4 sets of 8 @ same weight all 4 sets
Lunges - 200-500
Day 6 - Back/Traps
Meadows Shrugs (cambered bar) - 4 x 8 (heavier)
V-Bar Chins - 5 sets of 5 weighted
Upright Rows - 3 strip sets (probably using a cable)
Final word -
Offseason mass training is something Brian Carroll and I will be discussing at the upcoming seminar in January at MadTown Fitness in Madison, Wisconsin.
Don't miss out on this opportunity to learn from 40+ years of training, fucking up, learning, and achieving.
Get "A Meathhead's thoughts..." - http://store.lift-run-bang.com/a-meatheads-thoughts-about-life-crap-relationships-and-stuff/
Get Basebuilding on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Paul-Carter-ebook/dp/B00H18K0LI
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Offseason powerlifting
As Gillian noted in her article, for any serious athlete there really is no "offseason". Offseason is basically defined as a time when you are training to get better for competition preparation. So essentially, offseason is still preparation for preparing.
If that makes sense.
For the competitive powerlifter, the offseason is a time when you should be doing certain things set yourself up for better performance, and not doing certain things to short change that process.
In my opinion, here are some of the things to do, and not to do in the offseason to set yourself up for better performance.
Do -
Work on building more muscle mass -
Regardless of what anyone tells you, at the end of the day, it's the muscles that move the weight. A larger muscle has more capacity for strength than a smaller one, all things being equal. Yes, lifting more weight is also about neural efficiency, which is why certain smaller guys are stronger than some bigger guys, but both will ultimately need to grow larger once a strength ceiling is hit.
This means spending time actually training outside of the strength rep range of 1-3 reps, and focusing more on sets of 5, 8, 10+ reps.
This used to be an argument, and some can say it still is. That overload and progression are really the central factors in growing more mass, but if we're talking about being efficient in your training, there is a caveat.
Not that a study was needed to prove this, but it was done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538
I've linked this study before, and it has pissed me off to no end that some people have used it to validate that lower reps are superior, or at least equal, to higher reps for building hypertrophy. Not only that, there was a significant strength gain in the group that did the 7x3 protocol.
Take notice of the notes....
In conclusion, this study showed that both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength.
What was missed by all of these people was a huge factor in the study.
It took the powerlifting group 70 minutes to complete those sessions. Not only that, they were TOAST after. While the "bodybuilding" group (3x10) finished in about 17 minutes, and wanted to do more.
From an efficiency standpoint, it should be OBVIOUS that doing 3 sets of 10 is far superior than using low reps with much more volume. Not only that, who goes into the gym and just does 3 sets of 10? Most of the time people who are serious are in the gym for an hour, to an hour and a half.
From an offseason hypertrophy standpoint, more reps = more gains in muscle mass in a more efficient manner.
I hope this ends the ridiculous discussion on that.
Shore up muscular weaknesses and technique problems -
This last offseason, I knew that my quads were a problem. And by problem I mean, they were too small, and too weak. I had multiple injuries in meets in either my quad or adductor. Part of this was technique, but a big part was, my quads just weren't strong enough and I had a severe muscular imbalance between them and my adductors.
I devised a plan of front squats, high bar squats, and hack squats to fix this. I knew my quads were a weakness when I decided to do my first day of hack squats and 315 was heavy as shit, and I strained my VMO doing it.
I wasn't discouraged by this. If anything, I knew I was on the right track from this testing.
A year after working on this I hit a PR with at least 30 pounds to spare on my third attempt. Spending time fixing my muscular weakness and technique was required to do this. And that's why I chose the movements I did, rather than just squatting more.
If you have a flaw in your technique in regards to your own personal leverages, then you could be pushing, pulling, or squatting a significant amount of weight less than you are muscularly capable of. So while the muscles may do the work, if the joints aren't in the proper angle to the bar, then their maximal strength ability will be held back by poor leveraging.
This requires for you to either work with a coach, or have enough knowledge that you understand what needs fixing. For my squat, I needed to push out harder with my knees that I had been previously doing, in order to distribute the load more evenly across my lower body.
It's important to evaluate where you are weak muscularly so that you can pick movements that will bring up the lifts.
Generally speaking, on a per muscle group basis, this is what I recommend in order to do that -
Quads - Front squats, hack squats
Chest - Db bench press, db flyes
Shoulders - Overhead pressing of various kinds (PBN, military, db)
Triceps - Dips (if you can do them), close grip bench
Posterior chain - Romanian deadlifts, deficit stiff legged deadlifts, good mornings (light)
Back - Barbell rows, chins
Have some proper planned out phases/cycles -
When I was with Dmitry Klokov in Canada, he told me that when he was training for the Olympics that they had a whole year of training planned out to prepare for competition.
Let that sink in for a bit.
A whole year of training mapped out so there was nothing left to doubt.
Yet I see so many guys now winging it from day to day, week to week, month to month. No plan. Just screaming "GO HOME OR GO HOME!"
Can you imagine an Olympic coach at that level just walking in each day without a plan?
"Ehhh, let's just do some snatches and cleans. Load the bar! GO HEAVY OR GO HOME!"
In my mind, this seems silly and rather sophomoric.
At Dmitry's level, they are chasing that 1% of improvement. The smallest of fractions in order to get an advantage. It's very likely that you don't need to be that precise. Novice and intermediate trainers can get away with a more erroneous process and still improve more often than not.
So I'm not saying you have to be THAT precise about your training, but no one ever got worse from having a solid and well thought out plan. And if anything it behooves you to have some kind of plan in place.
Here is a hypothetical year for a powerlifter that will only compete one time.
Months 1-3 = Hypertrophy work
Months 4-6 = Volume work on the competition lifts
Months 7-8 = Competition/Peaking
Month 9 = Deload/Injury attention/Pre-hab/Mobility/Conditioning
Months 10-12 = Technique work
Don't -
Shoot for 1 rep maxes in the offseason -
I see this all the time through some sort of social media. I have no idea why guys are trying to hit PR's on a consistent basis in the offseason in regards to a 1 rep max. What purpose does it serve other than more youtube likes? It increases the risk of injury, doesn't build strength, doesn't build muscle. The only purpose it can serve is as a gauge as to where you are at in terms of demonstrating strength. Seeing as how you shouldn't be basing cycles around a true 1 rep max, I'm not sure why the need for it.
Now let me say right now, I'm a hypocrite in this regard because I have done it at times. But it's few and far between. I mean very few and far between. Generally I look for rep max PR's all year long. And as I noted, I've never set new rep PR without finding a new 1 rep PR later.
So I'm not saying you can NEVER test, but there's no reason why you can't test a triple, set of 5, or set of 8. There isn't a single person out there that got stronger on a set of 5-8 who got weaker on a one rep max. If there is, they are an anomaly and should be discarded.
You can also test speed or RPE (rate of perceived exertion) for particular intensities to gauge where you are at.
One of the components of base building was the inclusion of "fatigue singles". This meant to take a stab at your programmed EDM (everyday max) after you had finished all of your volume work. If you can move your EDM with a lower RPE than you had been previously, then obviously you got stronger. Especially if you did it in a fatigued state.
So if you feel the need to test a 1 rep max, I advise doing so in the above manner. From there, if you feel the EDM was easy enough, you can adjust it upwards. To me, this seems like a smart way to program and to understand progress without actually performing true 1 rep maxes.
Get fat(ter) -
The offseason should be a time to increase lean muscle tissue. Not a time to increase overall body mass if you are ALREADY fat.
There used to be a mantra in powerlifting of "get your weight up!"
It was mostly espoused by a bunch of guys that were already well over 300 pounds and well north of 20% bodyfat.
I'm not sure if I buy into the "better leverages". It can, at a point, help with a lift like squats where you can sit on your belly at the bottom (sounds awful doesn't it?). A fatter torso will disperse the load of the bench press across more of a surface area. But if you look at the ROM comparison in the before vs after bulk, I really don't think it's great enough to say leverages improved that much.
On the flip side, gaining excess fat can hinder the deadlift.
There is a reason why you see a lot of fat guys with big benches and squats with poor pulls (relative to their squat and bench). A big gut tends to get in the way of deadlifting, and can put you in a position to where the pull is longer than it'd have to be if you weren't so fat. So if simply adding bodyweight were the key then you'd see the deadlift improve just as dramatically as the bench and squat. But often it does not.
I think it's important to gain weight in the offseason, but it should be quality weight, over quantity. This does mean some fat will come with new muscle gain more than likely, but it should be minimized. Second, if you're already fat, you probably should work on improving your body composition by taking some of that off until you're in a healthy bodyfat range. There are just too many lean and jacked lifters now lifting big weights to show that getting sloppy isn't a requirement to be strong.
Beat yourself to shit -
If you feel good, you lift good.
If you start meet prep and you feel beat to shit, you did something wrong. The offseason should be a time where you shore up weaknesses and improve your ability to perform on the platform. Part of performing better is feeling better. If your joints ache or old injuries are still around, then you did a poor job of addressing these things in that time.
The motto of "stimulate, don't annihilate" apply here. Your training should be hard enough to meet the goals you set, but not so demanding that overuse or overtraining set in.
A great way to offset this is to make sure you use a variety of movements so that the joints aren't moved through the exact same plane over and over for too long, and so that the fatigue vs adaption curve doesn't get out of whack. Read below....
http://www.strengthsensei.com/fatigue-management-and-the-adaptive-process/
Conclusion -
The offseason is a great time to set yourself up for a better performance the next time you hit the platform.
Make sure you use that time wisely so that a bigger, stronger, and healthier lifter is developed during this period.
Follow LRB on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LiftRunBang?ref=bookmarks
Get "A Meathhead's thoughts..." - http://store.lift-run-bang.com/a-meatheads-thoughts-about-life-crap-relationships-and-stuff/
Get Basebuilding on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Paul-Carter-ebook/dp/B00H18K0LI
If that makes sense.
For the competitive powerlifter, the offseason is a time when you should be doing certain things set yourself up for better performance, and not doing certain things to short change that process.
In my opinion, here are some of the things to do, and not to do in the offseason to set yourself up for better performance.
Do -
Work on building more muscle mass -
Regardless of what anyone tells you, at the end of the day, it's the muscles that move the weight. A larger muscle has more capacity for strength than a smaller one, all things being equal. Yes, lifting more weight is also about neural efficiency, which is why certain smaller guys are stronger than some bigger guys, but both will ultimately need to grow larger once a strength ceiling is hit.
This means spending time actually training outside of the strength rep range of 1-3 reps, and focusing more on sets of 5, 8, 10+ reps.
This used to be an argument, and some can say it still is. That overload and progression are really the central factors in growing more mass, but if we're talking about being efficient in your training, there is a caveat.
Not that a study was needed to prove this, but it was done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538
I've linked this study before, and it has pissed me off to no end that some people have used it to validate that lower reps are superior, or at least equal, to higher reps for building hypertrophy. Not only that, there was a significant strength gain in the group that did the 7x3 protocol.
Take notice of the notes....
In conclusion, this study showed that both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength.
What was missed by all of these people was a huge factor in the study.
It took the powerlifting group 70 minutes to complete those sessions. Not only that, they were TOAST after. While the "bodybuilding" group (3x10) finished in about 17 minutes, and wanted to do more.
From an efficiency standpoint, it should be OBVIOUS that doing 3 sets of 10 is far superior than using low reps with much more volume. Not only that, who goes into the gym and just does 3 sets of 10? Most of the time people who are serious are in the gym for an hour, to an hour and a half.
From an offseason hypertrophy standpoint, more reps = more gains in muscle mass in a more efficient manner.
I hope this ends the ridiculous discussion on that.
Shore up muscular weaknesses and technique problems -
This last offseason, I knew that my quads were a problem. And by problem I mean, they were too small, and too weak. I had multiple injuries in meets in either my quad or adductor. Part of this was technique, but a big part was, my quads just weren't strong enough and I had a severe muscular imbalance between them and my adductors.
I devised a plan of front squats, high bar squats, and hack squats to fix this. I knew my quads were a weakness when I decided to do my first day of hack squats and 315 was heavy as shit, and I strained my VMO doing it.
I wasn't discouraged by this. If anything, I knew I was on the right track from this testing.
A year after working on this I hit a PR with at least 30 pounds to spare on my third attempt. Spending time fixing my muscular weakness and technique was required to do this. And that's why I chose the movements I did, rather than just squatting more.
If you have a flaw in your technique in regards to your own personal leverages, then you could be pushing, pulling, or squatting a significant amount of weight less than you are muscularly capable of. So while the muscles may do the work, if the joints aren't in the proper angle to the bar, then their maximal strength ability will be held back by poor leveraging.
This requires for you to either work with a coach, or have enough knowledge that you understand what needs fixing. For my squat, I needed to push out harder with my knees that I had been previously doing, in order to distribute the load more evenly across my lower body.
It's important to evaluate where you are weak muscularly so that you can pick movements that will bring up the lifts.
Generally speaking, on a per muscle group basis, this is what I recommend in order to do that -
Quads - Front squats, hack squats
Chest - Db bench press, db flyes
Shoulders - Overhead pressing of various kinds (PBN, military, db)
Triceps - Dips (if you can do them), close grip bench
Posterior chain - Romanian deadlifts, deficit stiff legged deadlifts, good mornings (light)
Back - Barbell rows, chins
Have some proper planned out phases/cycles -
When I was with Dmitry Klokov in Canada, he told me that when he was training for the Olympics that they had a whole year of training planned out to prepare for competition.
Let that sink in for a bit.
A whole year of training mapped out so there was nothing left to doubt.
Yet I see so many guys now winging it from day to day, week to week, month to month. No plan. Just screaming "GO HOME OR GO HOME!"
Can you imagine an Olympic coach at that level just walking in each day without a plan?
"Ehhh, let's just do some snatches and cleans. Load the bar! GO HEAVY OR GO HOME!"
In my mind, this seems silly and rather sophomoric.
At Dmitry's level, they are chasing that 1% of improvement. The smallest of fractions in order to get an advantage. It's very likely that you don't need to be that precise. Novice and intermediate trainers can get away with a more erroneous process and still improve more often than not.
So I'm not saying you have to be THAT precise about your training, but no one ever got worse from having a solid and well thought out plan. And if anything it behooves you to have some kind of plan in place.
Here is a hypothetical year for a powerlifter that will only compete one time.
Months 1-3 = Hypertrophy work
Months 4-6 = Volume work on the competition lifts
Months 7-8 = Competition/Peaking
Month 9 = Deload/Injury attention/Pre-hab/Mobility/Conditioning
Months 10-12 = Technique work
Don't -
Shoot for 1 rep maxes in the offseason -
I see this all the time through some sort of social media. I have no idea why guys are trying to hit PR's on a consistent basis in the offseason in regards to a 1 rep max. What purpose does it serve other than more youtube likes? It increases the risk of injury, doesn't build strength, doesn't build muscle. The only purpose it can serve is as a gauge as to where you are at in terms of demonstrating strength. Seeing as how you shouldn't be basing cycles around a true 1 rep max, I'm not sure why the need for it.
Now let me say right now, I'm a hypocrite in this regard because I have done it at times. But it's few and far between. I mean very few and far between. Generally I look for rep max PR's all year long. And as I noted, I've never set new rep PR without finding a new 1 rep PR later.
So I'm not saying you can NEVER test, but there's no reason why you can't test a triple, set of 5, or set of 8. There isn't a single person out there that got stronger on a set of 5-8 who got weaker on a one rep max. If there is, they are an anomaly and should be discarded.
You can also test speed or RPE (rate of perceived exertion) for particular intensities to gauge where you are at.
One of the components of base building was the inclusion of "fatigue singles". This meant to take a stab at your programmed EDM (everyday max) after you had finished all of your volume work. If you can move your EDM with a lower RPE than you had been previously, then obviously you got stronger. Especially if you did it in a fatigued state.
So if you feel the need to test a 1 rep max, I advise doing so in the above manner. From there, if you feel the EDM was easy enough, you can adjust it upwards. To me, this seems like a smart way to program and to understand progress without actually performing true 1 rep maxes.
Get fat(ter) -
The offseason should be a time to increase lean muscle tissue. Not a time to increase overall body mass if you are ALREADY fat.
There used to be a mantra in powerlifting of "get your weight up!"
It was mostly espoused by a bunch of guys that were already well over 300 pounds and well north of 20% bodyfat.
I'm not sure if I buy into the "better leverages". It can, at a point, help with a lift like squats where you can sit on your belly at the bottom (sounds awful doesn't it?). A fatter torso will disperse the load of the bench press across more of a surface area. But if you look at the ROM comparison in the before vs after bulk, I really don't think it's great enough to say leverages improved that much.
On the flip side, gaining excess fat can hinder the deadlift.
There is a reason why you see a lot of fat guys with big benches and squats with poor pulls (relative to their squat and bench). A big gut tends to get in the way of deadlifting, and can put you in a position to where the pull is longer than it'd have to be if you weren't so fat. So if simply adding bodyweight were the key then you'd see the deadlift improve just as dramatically as the bench and squat. But often it does not.
I think it's important to gain weight in the offseason, but it should be quality weight, over quantity. This does mean some fat will come with new muscle gain more than likely, but it should be minimized. Second, if you're already fat, you probably should work on improving your body composition by taking some of that off until you're in a healthy bodyfat range. There are just too many lean and jacked lifters now lifting big weights to show that getting sloppy isn't a requirement to be strong.
Beat yourself to shit -
If you feel good, you lift good.
If you start meet prep and you feel beat to shit, you did something wrong. The offseason should be a time where you shore up weaknesses and improve your ability to perform on the platform. Part of performing better is feeling better. If your joints ache or old injuries are still around, then you did a poor job of addressing these things in that time.
The motto of "stimulate, don't annihilate" apply here. Your training should be hard enough to meet the goals you set, but not so demanding that overuse or overtraining set in.
A great way to offset this is to make sure you use a variety of movements so that the joints aren't moved through the exact same plane over and over for too long, and so that the fatigue vs adaption curve doesn't get out of whack. Read below....
http://www.strengthsensei.com/fatigue-management-and-the-adaptive-process/
Conclusion -
The offseason is a great time to set yourself up for a better performance the next time you hit the platform.
Make sure you use that time wisely so that a bigger, stronger, and healthier lifter is developed during this period.
Follow LRB on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LiftRunBang?ref=bookmarks
Get "A Meathhead's thoughts..." - http://store.lift-run-bang.com/a-meatheads-thoughts-about-life-crap-relationships-and-stuff/
Get Basebuilding on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Paul-Carter-ebook/dp/B00H18K0LI
Friday, November 14, 2014
Thoughts about life, crap, training, and stuff - Cheaters
Unfortunately I read an article this morning about why ALL men cheat. Wait, there was a caveat. All men cheat on loyal women.
All.
That's a absolute, in case you didn't know.
That means, that 100% of dong sporting humans will fuck around on his very loyal woman.
I'm not sure where to start with such a shit article, but I guess here.....
1. Not all men cheat. There are loyal men out there too.
2. Articles like this plant messages in women's minds that all mean cheat, and plenty (notice I didn't use an absolute there?) of women enter into relationships without embracing the choice to trust because of tripe such as this. Regardless of whether they had been cheated on or not by a man previously.
3. The article goes on to say that men, excuse me....MALES....cheat because they are insecure and need to feed their ego.
I could spend a day tearing all of this shit apart. However I still need to eat, and do business, and train, and play with my kids. So Imma try to keep this as short as I can (which means at least 2,200 words).
First off, men and women both generally cheat for a lot of the same reasons.
1. They feel unfulfilled, or unappreciated in the primary relationship.
2. They find excitement in it.
3. They are drunk.
4. They get caught up in a moment or get seduced and make a poor choice.
5. They need affirmation that they are still wanted, or desirable.
6. Some people aren't wired to be completely monogamous (more on this at the end)
This doesn't cover every reason of course. But I think it covers most reasons pretty thoroughly. I can't account for why every person in the world decided to cheat, nor can I account for the myriad of situations one can find themselves in where they decide to be unfaithful. So I'm trying to stick with the basics.
As someone who has been cheated on, and cheated, I can tell you in my own experience it revolved around reason #1 in both circumstances. The feeling of being unappreciated in the relationship I was in was the issue. I can also tell you, because I'm being honest, that I've been cheated on because I did not fulfill and appreciate the person I was with at the time the way I should have.
From my own experience in talking with people about this, most don't take a long hard look at themselves when they find out they have been cheated on. I remember a while back that someone posted a meme that read "Don't let your man leave the house horny, or hungry" and some women got offended by it.
Why?
Seems like good advice to me. Wouldn't doing so mean you're simply doing a part of keeping your man fulfilled in the relationship? The counter argument to that is that the man should love her enough and be disciplined enough not to be persuaded by other women. Maybe. Maybe not.
I guess my question to that is, why take a chance when you can instill preventative measures?
From a physiological perspective men are wired visually, and meant to procreate (so are women yes, but the stimulation mechanisms are biologically different).
Now your man has left the house with a raging boner, gets to the bar with his buddies, slams a few, gets hit on by some chick that's really hot (ok she's more like a weak 6, but with the beer goggles she's a strong 8 now), and now he's out in his El Dorado with ol girl from the bar.
Mind you, none of this is an excuse for that kind of behavior if he is an committed relationship. I'm just trying to talk about reality here. It does happen. It's less likely to happen if you treat your man like it's "steak and a BJ day" more days than not.
Women on the other hand, are not really visually wired. Which is why it's such a strange phenomenon that so many males enter the gym to get a better body in hopes of attracting more women. There have been plenty of social experiments that back up the idea that women can be emotionally moved or seduced via how a man interacts with her, rather than what his abs look like, or what kind of trendy haircut he's sporting.
It's also been shown that plenty of women are willing to bang a dude just because he drives a Lambo, but I digress.
Interestingly enough, it seems like as genders we do a lot of the things we do, like lift weights and buy designer bags to impress those of our own gender. And not of the opposite sex. I've never had a single friend that told me he was dating some girl or going on a date with her because of the Louis Vuitton handbag she was sporting when they met. Men don't generally care about that shit. Women do.
In fact, when men have conversations about a woman they met it often goes off like this....
Dude 1 - "I met this girl this weekend. We're going out Tuesday."
Dude 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Dude 1 - "Hell yeah. Hot as fuck."
Dude 2 - "Oh shit!"
That's it. We're glad our buddy has a hot date. He seems to be as well, so we're happy for him.
There also might be a comment about her ass or something, but we as men start very simple in regards to requirements for a first date. Yes it is true, that an intellectual/articulate woman is hot, and it's a big turn on, however that's one of those bonus things. It simply extends the conversation from above....
Dude 1 - "I met this girl this weekend. We're going out Tuesday."
Dude 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Dude 1 - "Hell yeah. Hot as fuck."
Dude 2 - "Oh shit!"
Dude 1 - "She's smart too."
Dude 2 - "Right on."
I'm not saying males and females aren't attracted to someone initially because of appearance, because I do believe that physical attraction plays a big part in someone getting their foot in the door. I believe that has been shown through science. I'm just saying that with women it usually plays less of a part in it than men. He needs to be able to woo her emotionally and intellectually more than physically. Owning that Lambo doesn't appear to hurt either.
I've heard women's conversations about this, and they generally sound quite different.
Chick 1 - "So, I met a guy this weekend at Cathy's get together. We're going out Tuesday."
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Chick 1 - "Yup, he drives a Lambo. Someone's panties are getting peeled off early that night."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Ok, I'm just kidding.
For serious now.........
Chick 1 - "So, I met a guy this weekend at Cathy's get together. We're going out Tuesday."
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Chick 1 - "Yup, he drives a Lambo. Can you say "fuck on the first date?""
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
And this brings us back to the original point of "don't let your man leave the house horny or hungry". As a man I would say don't let your woman leave the house horny or hungry either. The feeding aspect would be the difference (because I think in the other case the "hungry" part is more literal). In this example, it's just a foot massage. But feeding your woman could mean lots of other things too, of course.
Like occasionally have dinner ready when she gets home. Do the laundry, clean the house, get a sitter for the kids (if you have them) once a week so you can still romance her. If the woman needs to take care of her man physically, then understand as a man you need to take care of her emotionally (I don't mean to imply that men never need emotional catering at all, because we do).
It's up to you to figure out what those needs are. It may mean being more affectionate with her. Or, God forbid, even watch a fucking chick flick now and then if that is what she's into.
The point is, if you are going to be in a relationship don't expect it to be just about your own personal needs. There's someone else involved too. And I see far too much entitlement now about how a man treats a woman, yet so little in the way about how people are supposed to treat EACH OTHER. A big part of a loving relationship is understanding the needs of your partner and caring enough to meet them.
Let me rephrase that....a big part of a loving relationship is understanding the needs of each other and doing what it takes to meet them. It's a reciprocation that is done because it's important to you to make sure your partner is happy. They do the same for you.
For example, I've read or heard of women withholding sex because she's pissed off at her man. This is a dangerous thing to do. Sex should never be used as a bartering tool in the relationship. When that happens, it can lose the sincerity and purpose it serves in an intimate relationship. That is of course, physical and emotional satisfaction. It shouldn't be a "reward" system. Like getting gold stars in Sunday school because we remembered your Bible verses for the week.
Well this isn't Sunday school, and the fact is after a while someone will resent the other person for such behavior and now a lack of fulfillment and appreciation will manifest itself in some hideous way.
Often times, that is infidelity. It can be other things too, like doing shit to spite each other, and that's not healthy either. At the core of all of this, is one person's inability/want to do the things the other person needs to feel respected and appreciated in the relationship.
When this is lost, sometimes cheating finds its way into your life.
Either you get cheated on, or do the cheating.
As a cheater, you need to own a very simple fact. It was your choice. Even if you were unfulfilled, you as an adult still made the choice to be unfaithful. Blaming the other person for your own actions is where the weakness is. You made the decision. Be strong enough to own it. Don't blame the other person regardless of what they did to make you feel like your actions were justified. When you unload your infidelity on them don't intensify the pain of that by blaming them.
As the person who was cheated on, after the emotional wreckage and anger subsides, and the fire department extinguishes the blaze you set to your lovers car.....ask yourself an honest question. What part did I play in this situation?
If you feel unfulfilled, and you've talked to your significant other about it and nothing changed, cheating generally only adds to the existing problems. Yes, I've heard of relationships where people cheated or had affairs and that it actually made things better later. Mainly because there were two people willing to question each other and themselves, and be honest as to how such a situation transpired and how to avoid it in the future.
My question would be, are you willing to take that chance? Not everyone can be that introspective when they are that heavily invested in a relationship. Sometimes it just cuts too deep and someone is just not strong enough to find it within themselves to forgive.
If you want to make sure the odds are at their lowest of getting cheated on, then yes women, don't let your man leave the house horny and hungry. And men don't let your women leave the house horny or emotionally hungry either.
All in all..........
1. Don't enter into a relationship with someone you can't make a choice to trust. Trust isn't built or earned. It's simply a choice. No, you don't have to trust them from day 1, but if you can't EVER make a choice to trust them then you're either in the wrong relationship, or you're still carrying around prior-relationship baggage with you. If it's the latter, the next person you meet won't be trustworthy either. Not because of them, but because of your inability to let go of what other people have done.
2. If you cheat, own it. Don't blame the other person for your decisions. Even if they are completely valid, you still made the choice.
3. If you get cheated on, be introspective enough to ask if you played a part in someone making that choice. Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't.
4. If you're going to stay together, don't nut sack or vagina kick the other person to death everyday over it. Calling her a whore or you calling him a piece of shit day in and day out does nothing but deteriorate and dissolve anything good that may remain. This doesn't mean you can't talk about it. Just talk about it in a way that can strengthen the relationship going forward, if that's what you both want.
5. As the cheater, expect to have to do things that allows the other person make a choice to trust you again. You may have to keep your phone unlocked, or give up your passwords to social media. There is a difference in secrecy and privacy. Once you cheat, you should expect to lose a bit of both for a while. If you're not willing to do that, then walk away. You fucked up. Expect a penance.
6. There are loyal, faithful, and honest men and women out there.
7. Apparently, monogamy and non monogamy may exist on a continuum. No different than being an extrovert or introvert, some people appear to be wired for one more than the other. And there appears to be varying degrees of this. Some people don't do well at monogamy, and they very well might not be wired for that. This will probably be questioned by people and/or make people angry. But personality characteristics range on a very big scale in many facets. Some people just aren't wired to be with one person, and some people are. There is no blood test that you can get to determine this. It's generally seen through a person's actions and behaviors. In our society being faithful is seen as very noble thing, and I do agree that if you tell someone you're in a committed relationship with them, then you should honor your word on that. If you find that you're a person that struggles in monogamous committed relationships then at least understand that about yourself.
Definitely more than 2,200 words.
To get "A Meathead's thoughts about life, crap, relationships, and stuff" - http://www.e-junkie.com/263269/product/501385.php#A+Meathead%27s+Thought+About+Life%2C+Crap%2C+Relationships%2C+and+Stuff
Follow LRB on Instagram - http://instagram.com/liftrunbang
Follow LRB on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LiftRunBang
All.
That's a absolute, in case you didn't know.
That means, that 100% of dong sporting humans will fuck around on his very loyal woman.
I'm not sure where to start with such a shit article, but I guess here.....
1. Not all men cheat. There are loyal men out there too.
2. Articles like this plant messages in women's minds that all mean cheat, and plenty (notice I didn't use an absolute there?) of women enter into relationships without embracing the choice to trust because of tripe such as this. Regardless of whether they had been cheated on or not by a man previously.
3. The article goes on to say that men, excuse me....MALES....cheat because they are insecure and need to feed their ego.
I could spend a day tearing all of this shit apart. However I still need to eat, and do business, and train, and play with my kids. So Imma try to keep this as short as I can (which means at least 2,200 words).
First off, men and women both generally cheat for a lot of the same reasons.
1. They feel unfulfilled, or unappreciated in the primary relationship.
2. They find excitement in it.
3. They are drunk.
4. They get caught up in a moment or get seduced and make a poor choice.
5. They need affirmation that they are still wanted, or desirable.
6. Some people aren't wired to be completely monogamous (more on this at the end)
This doesn't cover every reason of course. But I think it covers most reasons pretty thoroughly. I can't account for why every person in the world decided to cheat, nor can I account for the myriad of situations one can find themselves in where they decide to be unfaithful. So I'm trying to stick with the basics.
As someone who has been cheated on, and cheated, I can tell you in my own experience it revolved around reason #1 in both circumstances. The feeling of being unappreciated in the relationship I was in was the issue. I can also tell you, because I'm being honest, that I've been cheated on because I did not fulfill and appreciate the person I was with at the time the way I should have.
From my own experience in talking with people about this, most don't take a long hard look at themselves when they find out they have been cheated on. I remember a while back that someone posted a meme that read "Don't let your man leave the house horny, or hungry" and some women got offended by it.
Why?
Seems like good advice to me. Wouldn't doing so mean you're simply doing a part of keeping your man fulfilled in the relationship? The counter argument to that is that the man should love her enough and be disciplined enough not to be persuaded by other women. Maybe. Maybe not.
I guess my question to that is, why take a chance when you can instill preventative measures?
From a physiological perspective men are wired visually, and meant to procreate (so are women yes, but the stimulation mechanisms are biologically different).
Now your man has left the house with a raging boner, gets to the bar with his buddies, slams a few, gets hit on by some chick that's really hot (ok she's more like a weak 6, but with the beer goggles she's a strong 8 now), and now he's out in his El Dorado with ol girl from the bar.
Mind you, none of this is an excuse for that kind of behavior if he is an committed relationship. I'm just trying to talk about reality here. It does happen. It's less likely to happen if you treat your man like it's "steak and a BJ day" more days than not.
Women on the other hand, are not really visually wired. Which is why it's such a strange phenomenon that so many males enter the gym to get a better body in hopes of attracting more women. There have been plenty of social experiments that back up the idea that women can be emotionally moved or seduced via how a man interacts with her, rather than what his abs look like, or what kind of trendy haircut he's sporting.
It's also been shown that plenty of women are willing to bang a dude just because he drives a Lambo, but I digress.
Interestingly enough, it seems like as genders we do a lot of the things we do, like lift weights and buy designer bags to impress those of our own gender. And not of the opposite sex. I've never had a single friend that told me he was dating some girl or going on a date with her because of the Louis Vuitton handbag she was sporting when they met. Men don't generally care about that shit. Women do.
In fact, when men have conversations about a woman they met it often goes off like this....
Dude 1 - "I met this girl this weekend. We're going out Tuesday."
Dude 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Dude 1 - "Hell yeah. Hot as fuck."
Dude 2 - "Oh shit!"
That's it. We're glad our buddy has a hot date. He seems to be as well, so we're happy for him.
There also might be a comment about her ass or something, but we as men start very simple in regards to requirements for a first date. Yes it is true, that an intellectual/articulate woman is hot, and it's a big turn on, however that's one of those bonus things. It simply extends the conversation from above....
Dude 1 - "I met this girl this weekend. We're going out Tuesday."
Dude 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Dude 1 - "Hell yeah. Hot as fuck."
Dude 2 - "Oh shit!"
Dude 1 - "She's smart too."
Dude 2 - "Right on."
I'm not saying males and females aren't attracted to someone initially because of appearance, because I do believe that physical attraction plays a big part in someone getting their foot in the door. I believe that has been shown through science. I'm just saying that with women it usually plays less of a part in it than men. He needs to be able to woo her emotionally and intellectually more than physically. Owning that Lambo doesn't appear to hurt either.
I've heard women's conversations about this, and they generally sound quite different.
Chick 1 - "So, I met a guy this weekend at Cathy's get together. We're going out Tuesday."
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Chick 1 - "Yup, he drives a Lambo. Someone's panties are getting peeled off early that night."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Ok, I'm just kidding.
For serious now.........
Chick 1 - "So, I met a guy this weekend at Cathy's get together. We're going out Tuesday."
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Chick 1 - "Yup, he drives a Lambo. Can you say "fuck on the first date?""
Chick 2 - "Oh shit!"
Alright, alright......I had to do it to you one more time. Ok for real this time.....
Chick 1 - "So, I met a guy this weekend at Cathy's get together. We're going out Tuesday."
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Where are you going?"
Chick 1 - "He said he knows a spot out in Hillsdale"
Chick 2 - "Sounds fancy."
Chick 1 - "He was really funny too. He told me this joke...."
Ok the conversation usually gets really boring from there, but you get the gist of it. Men initially tend to focus on the external (how she looks) at first, and women the internal (how he made her feel).
And now we're at the crux of it all.
The fact is, a man will get used to looking at his beautiful woman. As the saying goes, show me a beautiful woman and I will show you a man tired of her shit.
There's sort of a deeper message lost in that very red-necky saying.
And it's this. After all of the novelty and newness of someone wears off....what are you left with? What are they "feeding" you? Emotionally, intellectually, and physically. For a relationship to continue thriving it has to be fed on all these parts or it will wilt and die. To add, as people grow they change, and need different types of things to be fed. It's up to both people to be open enough and receptive enough to listen to those needs, and more importantly, have application in regards to them.
This is why communication isn't enough. The application part is probably more important. Lots of couples fail because while they hear the needs of the other person, there is no application of those needs. Communication is only worth it if the other person applies those needs that are being communicated.
If you tell me that after work you need your feet rubbed, but I fail to apply a foot rubbing, then communication isn't the problem. It's the lack of application of what I know you need. What generally happens next is that the communicator stops letting the other person know what they need, because they feel doing so is a waste of time.
Chick 2 - "Oh yeah?"
Chick 1 - "His name is Roger. He's a manager at Davidson's."
Chick 2 - "Where are you going?"
Chick 1 - "He said he knows a spot out in Hillsdale"
Chick 2 - "Sounds fancy."
Chick 1 - "He was really funny too. He told me this joke...."
Ok the conversation usually gets really boring from there, but you get the gist of it. Men initially tend to focus on the external (how she looks) at first, and women the internal (how he made her feel).
And now we're at the crux of it all.
The fact is, a man will get used to looking at his beautiful woman. As the saying goes, show me a beautiful woman and I will show you a man tired of her shit.
There's sort of a deeper message lost in that very red-necky saying.
And it's this. After all of the novelty and newness of someone wears off....what are you left with? What are they "feeding" you? Emotionally, intellectually, and physically. For a relationship to continue thriving it has to be fed on all these parts or it will wilt and die. To add, as people grow they change, and need different types of things to be fed. It's up to both people to be open enough and receptive enough to listen to those needs, and more importantly, have application in regards to them.
This is why communication isn't enough. The application part is probably more important. Lots of couples fail because while they hear the needs of the other person, there is no application of those needs. Communication is only worth it if the other person applies those needs that are being communicated.
If you tell me that after work you need your feet rubbed, but I fail to apply a foot rubbing, then communication isn't the problem. It's the lack of application of what I know you need. What generally happens next is that the communicator stops letting the other person know what they need, because they feel doing so is a waste of time.
And this brings us back to the original point of "don't let your man leave the house horny or hungry". As a man I would say don't let your woman leave the house horny or hungry either. The feeding aspect would be the difference (because I think in the other case the "hungry" part is more literal). In this example, it's just a foot massage. But feeding your woman could mean lots of other things too, of course.
Like occasionally have dinner ready when she gets home. Do the laundry, clean the house, get a sitter for the kids (if you have them) once a week so you can still romance her. If the woman needs to take care of her man physically, then understand as a man you need to take care of her emotionally (I don't mean to imply that men never need emotional catering at all, because we do).
It's up to you to figure out what those needs are. It may mean being more affectionate with her. Or, God forbid, even watch a fucking chick flick now and then if that is what she's into.
The point is, if you are going to be in a relationship don't expect it to be just about your own personal needs. There's someone else involved too. And I see far too much entitlement now about how a man treats a woman, yet so little in the way about how people are supposed to treat EACH OTHER. A big part of a loving relationship is understanding the needs of your partner and caring enough to meet them.
Let me rephrase that....a big part of a loving relationship is understanding the needs of each other and doing what it takes to meet them. It's a reciprocation that is done because it's important to you to make sure your partner is happy. They do the same for you.
For example, I've read or heard of women withholding sex because she's pissed off at her man. This is a dangerous thing to do. Sex should never be used as a bartering tool in the relationship. When that happens, it can lose the sincerity and purpose it serves in an intimate relationship. That is of course, physical and emotional satisfaction. It shouldn't be a "reward" system. Like getting gold stars in Sunday school because we remembered your Bible verses for the week.
Well this isn't Sunday school, and the fact is after a while someone will resent the other person for such behavior and now a lack of fulfillment and appreciation will manifest itself in some hideous way.
Often times, that is infidelity. It can be other things too, like doing shit to spite each other, and that's not healthy either. At the core of all of this, is one person's inability/want to do the things the other person needs to feel respected and appreciated in the relationship.
When this is lost, sometimes cheating finds its way into your life.
Either you get cheated on, or do the cheating.
As a cheater, you need to own a very simple fact. It was your choice. Even if you were unfulfilled, you as an adult still made the choice to be unfaithful. Blaming the other person for your own actions is where the weakness is. You made the decision. Be strong enough to own it. Don't blame the other person regardless of what they did to make you feel like your actions were justified. When you unload your infidelity on them don't intensify the pain of that by blaming them.
As the person who was cheated on, after the emotional wreckage and anger subsides, and the fire department extinguishes the blaze you set to your lovers car.....ask yourself an honest question. What part did I play in this situation?
If you feel unfulfilled, and you've talked to your significant other about it and nothing changed, cheating generally only adds to the existing problems. Yes, I've heard of relationships where people cheated or had affairs and that it actually made things better later. Mainly because there were two people willing to question each other and themselves, and be honest as to how such a situation transpired and how to avoid it in the future.
My question would be, are you willing to take that chance? Not everyone can be that introspective when they are that heavily invested in a relationship. Sometimes it just cuts too deep and someone is just not strong enough to find it within themselves to forgive.
If you want to make sure the odds are at their lowest of getting cheated on, then yes women, don't let your man leave the house horny and hungry. And men don't let your women leave the house horny or emotionally hungry either.
All in all..........
1. Don't enter into a relationship with someone you can't make a choice to trust. Trust isn't built or earned. It's simply a choice. No, you don't have to trust them from day 1, but if you can't EVER make a choice to trust them then you're either in the wrong relationship, or you're still carrying around prior-relationship baggage with you. If it's the latter, the next person you meet won't be trustworthy either. Not because of them, but because of your inability to let go of what other people have done.
2. If you cheat, own it. Don't blame the other person for your decisions. Even if they are completely valid, you still made the choice.
3. If you get cheated on, be introspective enough to ask if you played a part in someone making that choice. Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't.
4. If you're going to stay together, don't nut sack or vagina kick the other person to death everyday over it. Calling her a whore or you calling him a piece of shit day in and day out does nothing but deteriorate and dissolve anything good that may remain. This doesn't mean you can't talk about it. Just talk about it in a way that can strengthen the relationship going forward, if that's what you both want.
5. As the cheater, expect to have to do things that allows the other person make a choice to trust you again. You may have to keep your phone unlocked, or give up your passwords to social media. There is a difference in secrecy and privacy. Once you cheat, you should expect to lose a bit of both for a while. If you're not willing to do that, then walk away. You fucked up. Expect a penance.
6. There are loyal, faithful, and honest men and women out there.
7. Apparently, monogamy and non monogamy may exist on a continuum. No different than being an extrovert or introvert, some people appear to be wired for one more than the other. And there appears to be varying degrees of this. Some people don't do well at monogamy, and they very well might not be wired for that. This will probably be questioned by people and/or make people angry. But personality characteristics range on a very big scale in many facets. Some people just aren't wired to be with one person, and some people are. There is no blood test that you can get to determine this. It's generally seen through a person's actions and behaviors. In our society being faithful is seen as very noble thing, and I do agree that if you tell someone you're in a committed relationship with them, then you should honor your word on that. If you find that you're a person that struggles in monogamous committed relationships then at least understand that about yourself.
Definitely more than 2,200 words.
To get "A Meathead's thoughts about life, crap, relationships, and stuff" - http://www.e-junkie.com/263269/product/501385.php#A+Meathead%27s+Thought+About+Life%2C+Crap%2C+Relationships%2C+and+Stuff
Follow LRB on Instagram - http://instagram.com/liftrunbang
Follow LRB on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LiftRunBang
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)