From the most recent articles about coffee, sex supplements, or not needing to know your 1RM… all the way back to Deconstructing Paul Chek and even further… Charles Poliquin’s Question of Strength series. Some have more value than others, and there’s not enough time to read them all. Being around for only a year or so, the older articles are just ones I’ve stumbled upon rather than actively sought out or knew about.
I just thought it’d be cool to ask if any of you have any articles that stick out in your mind, or any that you go back to regularly. Maybe it gave a message or lesson that stuck with you that you still apply today, maybe it’s a simple program that you run now and again, maybe it’s some tips on form. Doesn’t matter. Throw them at us.
There is a very old article and I think it was authored by @TC_Luoma ( an axe in the chest or hatchet in the back) that I enjoyed. I would like to read it again.
It was (an axe through Joe Weider’s chest) by TC. 2004 or 2005. But it won’t pull up for me,
Amazing @Andrewgen_Receptors. I just got done reading “Merry Christmas, Bob” and I already love this thread.
We all have Bobs in our life. It’s kinda weird how it works that they are the ones inspiring us into what we don’t want to be rather than us inspiring them. It shows that real change can only ever come from within.
There was one article that went over lots of movements and what to do if you feel them in “wrong” place. Like DB flyes - “if you’re feeling them in your shoulders, try ___.” It wasn’t all information that one needed to know, but it was cool to try the different cues and see what helped.
I always felt like it was by CT, but I don’t know for sure, and I’ve never been able to find it again.
The first four set the foundation for my training philosophy:
Keep it simple
Don’t have weak links
Rotate exercises as needed
The next taught me that expecting everyone to enjoy and respond well to the same thing is unreasonable. I don’t neurotype myself or athletes, but I appreciate the underlying idea:
That’s what I assumed, I just don’t think I’ve ever seen sets/reps written like that to mean that. If I recall a couple of times in the Starting Strength book it might say something like 225 x 5 x 3 (3 sets of 5), hence my confusion.