So I just bought the book "New Rules of Lifting" off of Ebay because of everything I've heard on here. I went onto Amazon to look at the reviews and saw a few negatives (there were mostly positives though). Just wanted to get your thoughts on some of these reviews. I don't think I can post the link so here are a couple copy and pasted:
"I was curious to read what all the fuss was about after reading so many sterling reviews here, but I found this book to be just another mish-mash of current trendy ideas in the fitness world. Most of this information has been around for 50-100 years, before steroid bloated "bodybuilders" and the comic magazines that eulogize them destroyed any resemblance to common sense and reality about working out with weights. The beginner may get a few good bits of information and will probably make some muscle gains - as most beginners do on just about ANY program, but the experienced lifter he or she will soon be looking elsewhere for routines that will give results.
Schuler states in the book that the reader should not necessarily look at a trainer's body or state of fitness to judge if what he is teaching is valid or if he has real knowledge of how to train and therefore how to train others - and when I looked at the photos of him and Cosgrove I could see why he made this disclaimer. They may be fit (depending on your interpretation of "fit") but they are not much to look at. Personally I do think that if someone talks the talk he should be able to walk the walk.
Schuler acts like he and Cosgrove - I guess due to their brilliance and number of trainers certificates - just discovered that multi-joint compound movements are the best even though this has been known since the early 1900's. Schuler also relates how he tried the squat once and then didn't perform the movement again for 12 years and yet he was a writer for "Men's Fitness"? Sorry, but any weightlifting/fitness instructor should know that the squat and deadlift, military press, chins and dips (and to a much lesser extent the bench press) are the cornerstones of any good routine! When I first started lifting 30 years ago I went to the library and found a beginners book that taught me to Squat, Deadlift, and Press - and the book was written in the 60's! In fact that book would be more useful for any aspiring weight-trainee that this one.
As for the various programs in the book, good luck to anyone who attempts to follow them for the 52 week period outlined. Most of them will quickly lead to over-training for the majority of trainees not using steroids. I got the impression that the routines are formulated based on a conglomeration of various training techniques as espoused by West Side, Russian "Secrets", latest "weight-loss" fads, etc. Hey, this looks good let's throw it in! Also, there is one major flaw in these programs - the amount of weight one should be lifting for the stated number of reps has been conveniently omitted. Prescribing 6 sets of 3,2,1,3,2,1 reps is fine but is this with the same weight for each set or should the weight be increased? Oops!
I think the reason you are seeing 5-star ratings for this book is because so many cookie-cutter certified trainers who work at a fern and juice-bar spa, have trained with weights for 6 months or so, and now are "experts" and "qualified" to train others, have very little concept of how to effectively train with weights, so they read a book like this and it provides them with information they have not been exposed to before, whereas anyone who has taken the time to do real research into weight training methodology or has been fortunate enough to join a real weight lifting gym rather than a fern and juice-bar spa, will already know that full-body programs based around the multi-joint, compound movements are the way to go.
Any serious weight-trainee would be much better served reading books by Bill Starr (mentioned in this book), Stuart McRobert, Perry Rader, and some of the old-timers who developed tremendous physiques and strength without "scientific knowledge" so highly thought of today.
After a year or so The New Rules of Lifting will become the "Out-Dated" Rules of Lifting as writers like Schuler/Cosgrove will contradict almost everything in the book with the latest, greatest "trends" of fitness. Why? Well, in order to sell more books of course!"
AND FROM ANOTHER USER:
"First of all post a shirtless pic of the author, who might not be in shape. Second simply define full rest superset in one sentance! The Author seems to know he goofed and then goes on this scatterbrained tirade about people not having basic information. lol Quit the bs dude and simply define your terms!! I still can't make out from your scatterbrained english (no not having basic subject verb predicate sentances does not make you seem 'in the know). Who has gotten ripped from this plan? Has the author? Or is this another pseudo science money making essay?? "
I know that there's always going to be someone who doesn't like something but are these guys completely off with what they are saying about the book?
~Nicole
"I was curious to read what all the fuss was about after reading so many sterling reviews here, but I found this book to be just another mish-mash of current trendy ideas in the fitness world. Most of this information has been around for 50-100 years, before steroid bloated "bodybuilders" and the comic magazines that eulogize them destroyed any resemblance to common sense and reality about working out with weights. The beginner may get a few good bits of information and will probably make some muscle gains - as most beginners do on just about ANY program, but the experienced lifter he or she will soon be looking elsewhere for routines that will give results.
Schuler states in the book that the reader should not necessarily look at a trainer's body or state of fitness to judge if what he is teaching is valid or if he has real knowledge of how to train and therefore how to train others - and when I looked at the photos of him and Cosgrove I could see why he made this disclaimer. They may be fit (depending on your interpretation of "fit") but they are not much to look at. Personally I do think that if someone talks the talk he should be able to walk the walk.
Schuler acts like he and Cosgrove - I guess due to their brilliance and number of trainers certificates - just discovered that multi-joint compound movements are the best even though this has been known since the early 1900's. Schuler also relates how he tried the squat once and then didn't perform the movement again for 12 years and yet he was a writer for "Men's Fitness"? Sorry, but any weightlifting/fitness instructor should know that the squat and deadlift, military press, chins and dips (and to a much lesser extent the bench press) are the cornerstones of any good routine! When I first started lifting 30 years ago I went to the library and found a beginners book that taught me to Squat, Deadlift, and Press - and the book was written in the 60's! In fact that book would be more useful for any aspiring weight-trainee that this one.
As for the various programs in the book, good luck to anyone who attempts to follow them for the 52 week period outlined. Most of them will quickly lead to over-training for the majority of trainees not using steroids. I got the impression that the routines are formulated based on a conglomeration of various training techniques as espoused by West Side, Russian "Secrets", latest "weight-loss" fads, etc. Hey, this looks good let's throw it in! Also, there is one major flaw in these programs - the amount of weight one should be lifting for the stated number of reps has been conveniently omitted. Prescribing 6 sets of 3,2,1,3,2,1 reps is fine but is this with the same weight for each set or should the weight be increased? Oops!
I think the reason you are seeing 5-star ratings for this book is because so many cookie-cutter certified trainers who work at a fern and juice-bar spa, have trained with weights for 6 months or so, and now are "experts" and "qualified" to train others, have very little concept of how to effectively train with weights, so they read a book like this and it provides them with information they have not been exposed to before, whereas anyone who has taken the time to do real research into weight training methodology or has been fortunate enough to join a real weight lifting gym rather than a fern and juice-bar spa, will already know that full-body programs based around the multi-joint, compound movements are the way to go.
Any serious weight-trainee would be much better served reading books by Bill Starr (mentioned in this book), Stuart McRobert, Perry Rader, and some of the old-timers who developed tremendous physiques and strength without "scientific knowledge" so highly thought of today.
After a year or so The New Rules of Lifting will become the "Out-Dated" Rules of Lifting as writers like Schuler/Cosgrove will contradict almost everything in the book with the latest, greatest "trends" of fitness. Why? Well, in order to sell more books of course!"
AND FROM ANOTHER USER:
"First of all post a shirtless pic of the author, who might not be in shape. Second simply define full rest superset in one sentance! The Author seems to know he goofed and then goes on this scatterbrained tirade about people not having basic information. lol Quit the bs dude and simply define your terms!! I still can't make out from your scatterbrained english (no not having basic subject verb predicate sentances does not make you seem 'in the know). Who has gotten ripped from this plan? Has the author? Or is this another pseudo science money making essay?? "
I know that there's always going to be someone who doesn't like something but are these guys completely off with what they are saying about the book?
~Nicole
