What You Need to Know About Periodization

     If you've been training with weights for more than 5 minutes chances are that you've heard of periodization. Periodization means different things to different people. But here's what most gurus don't want you to know about periodization:

YOU DON'T NEED PERIODIZATION!!!!!

     Take the Westside Method for example, you have a max effort (ME) day where you work up to a max once per week. You also have a dynamic effort (DE) day, where you don't go heavy, but instead focus on bar speed. You have to change exercises every week...or was that every 3 weeks...I forget. And when you change exercises, do you change ME and DE exercises or just ME? Also I remember reading about repetitious effort (RE) work, but for the life of me, I can't remember when you're suppose to do that.

     Don't even get me started on Sheyko.

     Now I'm not making fun of either of these systems. Plenty of guys bigger and stronger than me have used both. But here's the deal, the guys that train at Westside, were already big and strong before going to Westside. That's why they were invited to train there. Advanced and elite level lifters might need a program like Westside to take them to the absolute peak of human capabilities, but at least 90% of gym goes don't need a program this complicated, and probably never will.

     On the other hand, I've seen some average people make great progress with mind numbingly simple programs. I once went to a gym with a guy who benched every workout...and he worked out 5-6 days per week. He lifted heavy most days which meant hitting 450-485. If he needed a light day, he would stop at 405-420. All of these lifts were raw, no bench shirt. This guy was tall, with long arms; definately not built to bench. Oh yeah and he was in his 60's.

     I've seen this a thousand times...ok maybe just dozens of times, but that still a lot considering most people in most gyms never make any progress. But when I have seen poeple make progress, its guys following simple programs that internet gurus say won't work, or will lead to overtraining. Yet these people are getting the best results in the gym. And the guys who are always trying fancy routines struggle year after year.

     I know because I've been there. I've tried workouts that were way above my head and tried various "periodized" routines, and it cost me years that could have been spent making progress.

     Learn from my mistakes. Know you're limits. If you reading this, chances are that you are a beginner or at best and intermediate. Don't get fancy. Stick to simple methods of progression. Just because a system is used by an elite level lifter, doesn't mean that it will give you the best results. Advanced and elite level guys have exhausted the gains they can get from simple programs and may have to resort to more exotice methods for further results. But these methods are probably less than ideal for beginners and intermediates.

     Here is an old school method of progression: take your 5 rep max and do 3-5 sets. When you can do 3-5 sets of 5, add weight. Don't go to max on any set. You don't have to go to failure to get results. In fact going to failure is probably a detriment for steroid free lifters.

     Periodization is a waste of time for at least 90% of trainere. I've seen drug free lifters lift huge weights and develop great bodies from simple progressions like I outlined above. Fancy and even simple forms of periodization are for advanced trainees. Those of us in the beginner & intermediate ranks, which is the overwhelming majority of lifter, don't need them. I wish I would have known this 10 years ago.

     Until next time, gents.

Petty Machiavellianism for the Modern World

     Psychologists are full of crap. Not completely full of crap, but largely full of crap. I think that the problem originates with the fact that most psychologists are leftists. And to be a leftist you must necessarily ignore the existence  of reality. This group then seeks to influence the lives of others. Also, leftism is a utopian ideology. That is, it is concerned not with what is, but what should be.

      These foundational problems lead the field of psychology to get behind some really stupid ideas. One stupid idea posited by the field is that passive aggressiveness is bad. They even have a diagnosis for people who frequently engage in passive aggressive behavior...as if it is a disease. The entry on Wikipedia states that passive aggressive behavior "is damaging". Really? It "is damaging"? As if that is a fundamental characteristic of passive aggressiveness. So if it is not damaging, is it not passive aggressive?

     Really, passive aggressiveness isn't good or bad. Its just a strategy, a way of handling things. I don't know where psychologists get the idea that things are always best handled in a direct manner. Frequently in life, dealing with things in an indirect manner is preferable to more direct means. In fact, when in doubt, use indirect methods. It is true when dealing with loved ones, for whom you have the best of intentions. It is even more true when dealing with your enemies.

     For the last 15 or so years, my wife has worked with a particularly horrible woman. When everyone else has to take on extra work, she is always able to get out of it. When the employees were given the more flexible shift options, this woman tried (and almost succeeded) in having the option taken away from everyone, because she didn't want to participate. She constantly makes life harder for others. For some reason, despite several changes in management, no one was willing to do anything about this problematic employee.

     But this woman has a weakness. She is obsessive compulsive and she hates change. Everything on her desk has a place and she can't stand to have people touch her stuff. Instead of waiting 15 years, hoping that management would some day do something about this woman, my wife & her coworkers could have taken matters into their own hands. Using passive aggressive methods they could have driven this woman into quitting.

     Since she is so particular about her work space, the other employees should have moved her stuff every time she left her desk. I'm not saying they should trash everything. That would have been too overt. But little things like moving a pen to the middle of her desk, slightly askew, would have bothered her. Or moving her horse figurine to the other side of the desk, moving her lunch to a different spot in the fridge, or turn her keyboard face down. These are childish things that wouldn't bother most adults, but they would have driven this woman crazy.  If she ever asked who was doing it, the whole office could then gaslight her by saying "No one went near your desk." After about a week of this type of behavior, this woman would have started looking for another job.

     Of course this does rise to the level of Cesare Borgia. But we live in crazy times and going around annexing neighboring cities isn't held in as high esteem as it once was. The fact is that this is the type of thing most people face in their daily lives. It may seem petty, but it is perfectly reasonable to handle a situation when management is unwilling. The methods above would have been effective in this instance and would have been deniable by the participants. That makes them doubly good. Another person in my wife's office who was willing to play petty office politics was able to screw my wife out of a major promotion and about a $20,000.00 per year pay raise. This person didn't gain anything by do so. Like the say, you either play or you get played. Who cares if someone thinks that being passive aggressive is bad. I'm sure Machiavelli would have approved.

Its All Your Fault!

      I have yet to achieve the life that I want. But there was a time when my life was much worse. I had job problems, family problems, marriage problems...basically, every area of my life was plagued with problems.

     Then one day, while driving home, I was replaying in my head various bad things that had happened to me. Replaying who screwed me, who wasn't there for me when I needed them. Then came a moment of clarity..."Its my own damn fault." Those were the exact words that went through my mind. In fact I was so deep in my own thoughts that I think I might have actually said them out loud.

     Yeah, I had a couple of bad bosses and more than a few bad jobs. But that was my fault. I knew they sucked. I knew they were going to screw me, but I stuck around instead of getting into a better job. People who claimed to care about me were nowhere to be found when I needed them. But had I been observant I would have seen that they never intended to be there for me.

     It was my fault. All of it.

     That was when my life started to get better.

     You can't change circumstances, you can only change yourself. Its deeply freeing to know that its all up to you. Sounds weird, but its true.

     Your success is up to you. Situations will change. Sometimes they will be more favorable, usually they will be less than favorable. But any situation that has stymied you, has been overcome by someone else. Which means that if you fail, it was your fault. But if you can identify the source of your failure, you can fix it, ensuring success in the future.

      Can't get a date? That's not the fault of feminism. That's your fault. Hit the gym & work on your social skills. Become a man that a woman would be proud to date. Your wife or kids mad at you? Maybe you should improve your communication skills. Drive a crappy car? Maybe you should put down the video game controller and start looking for a second job.

        If you want to rise above the horde, who mindlessly meander through life, you must constantly upbraid yourself.  Accept responsibility for everything. And constantly try to improve your shortcomings. The only thing you can control in this world is yourself.

What is Masculinity?

     I have thought about this a lot, and I think I may have actually figured it out.

     I could just tell you, but internet "gurus" say that search engines hate short posts.

     So first let's talk about what masculinity is not.

     PUA gurus and their man whore followers say, or I sense a strong implication, that a high notch count is manly. And certainly in centuries past the manliest men would accumulate large harems to satisfy their every sexual whim. These women apparently thought it better to share one manly man than to have one substandard man to their self. But being able to bed drunk women with questionable morals (the general PUA tactic), does not equal masculinity.

This guy is not necessarily masculine...in fact he's probably not.

     Some men who have acquired significant wealth would have you believe that the financial success is the measure of manhood. And of course a man should financially care for himself and his family. There is nothing manly about a grown able bodied man who won't support himself or his family. But to assume that financial success, in the absence of any other masculine virtue, is all it takes to be a man is ludicrous.

Although I'm definitely jealous, this isn't masculinity either.

     I have known criminals that tout their criminal activities as signs of their manliness. They say silly things like, "Ain't no one gonna tell me what to do, cause I'm a Man!" As if rebellion against the powers that be for no reason and often with no benefit equals manliness.

     And the last group I'll touch on are the pseudo alphas. These guys are every where. And it has gotten worse with the rise of the Manosphere. These guys think that all it takes to be alpha is a scowl, a bad attitude and a disregard for others. These guys, because of their lack of self awareness, think they have attained manliness when they've only heightened their douchebagginess.

     So what is manliness? What does it take to be a man? What is the essence of being a man?

     Strength. Strength of body. Strength of mind.

     Strength is the foundation of manliness. Out of it grow the other masculine virtues. Even Jack Donovan's 4 tactical virtues grow out of the bedrock of Strength.

Rosie's strong, but not masculine.

     Now I'm sure someone is saying "No way! Woman can be strong too!" And then they'll probably spew some feminist, girl power clap trap about women being stronger than men.

     I don't want to get into my opinions on strength as it applies to women, except to say: yes, women can and should be strong. But strength is not the essence of femininity. A woman can be weak and still be womanly.

     Not so for a man. For a man, strength is a part of who he is. Men who eschew strength, as is so popular these days, cannot hope to be a masculine man.

     This is why the America is full of men with an identity crisis. American men under 40 have spent their entire lives in a society where the attitudes concerning masculinity are largely shaped by women who hate men. This latest wave of feminism is an attempt to bring the strength of men down to the level of women. And the previous generation stood by and watched it happen.

     But this is why we're here. We know there is a problem. But there is also a solution and it starts with those of us who see the problem. The first step is to be a man.

     Start working on yourself.  Become the proverbial light shining in the darkness. Become a beacon of manliness.

     Start working on your weaknesses. Are you skinny and weak? Hit the gym. Don't like working out? Man up. Are you not well read? Head over to Project Gutenberg and start reading the classics for free. Read Plato, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli. Read the writings of the Founding Fathers. Hop on over to Amazon.com and grab a copy of The Way of Man by Jack Donovan (<---By using this affiliate link you help support the blog. And seriously...read this book.)

Steve Reeves had at least 1/2 of the masculinity equation down pat.

     Become a man that other men are drawn to. Being a man that other men want to emulate is the first step in gaining influence with other men. And only by influencing other men can we stem the tide of suckage in this world.