[quote]rainjack wrote:
you are beyond help.
[/quote]
dang…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
DPH wrote:
[sarcasm]
by the way, DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO TRAIN WITH THE WESTSIDE SYSTEM? OR ARE YOU TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY?
[/sarcasm]
Maybe. I just don’t care to make my training that involved. I like splits. I like TBT. I like EDT.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about strength. I can’t tell you what my max bench, squat, or DL is because I don’t care. I just want to get bigger. Nothing I see in Westside makes me think I would do anything but buy a bunch of chains, and bands and boxes. Fuck - I just want to train and get out.
SO what does that have to do with anything? Does that mean that you will answer one of my questions now? God knows you have a real talent for avoiding them.
BTW - I think you misquote him. He says that tbt is the best for hypertrophy and fitness. At least that’s the way I read him. [/quote]
Funny. You say you don’t care about strength. And you use Waterbury.I thought Big Thib was more along the bodybuilder lines, and Waterbury was more along the athlete (hence, strength) lines.
http://www.T-Nation.com/findArticle.do?article=06-161-training
That’s the link where you will find the quote used in the training tip.
What they left out was the next sentence: Enough with the sales pitch
Now - he admitted that the whole speech was a sales pitch. A sales pitch. One more time for those that came in on the short yellow school bus - A SALES PITCH.
If youread closely through the article CW even throws some props to Staley’s EDT - go figure.
EDIT
I apologize for saying that the quote was an intro to an article. It seems that the quote is really about halfway through the article. I should have read before I spoke.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Funny. You say you don’t care about strength. And you use Waterbury.I thought Big Thib was more along the bodybuilder lines, and Waterbury was more along the athlete (hence, strength) lines.
[/quote]
CW’s stuff works for me - CT’s doesn’t.
But maybe I should rephrase. I don’t care about my raw lifts. I have never, ever wondered if I could total 1200, or 1500.
I want to get stronger, as that is part and parcel to gaining mass. I will just never have an answer other than “I don’t know” for how much I can bench, squat, or DL.
I hope that makes some sense.
I am finding this debate interesting and consider myself neither in CW or CT’s camp, though, as a relatively new trainee, I have only tried Chad’s programs so far. I just wanted to point out though that Chad is not the only trainer in the world who feels that way about splits:
“Training a body part less than 2X/week will not give you optimal gains. An upper/lower split done Mon/Tue/Thu/Fri is close to optimal for most. Full body twice a week can work very well. Once every 5th day is the least frequently I would ever recommend a natural train. You’ll get less sore training more frequently and you’ll grow better. Save once/week body part training for pro bodybuilders (read: steroid users) and the genetically elite.”
This is a quote from Lyle McDonald on another site. Just throwing it out there.
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
No offense taken. Yeah I did not read the article and I am sure it helps to understand the context of that quote.
I dont mind having my dogma questioned at all. This is how I train and these are my results. That does not make my methods the solution to everyone, but at least I can say this is what I do and this is what it has done for me.
In order for me to consider using a different method, I would prefer a better one, it would help me to see some examples of what it has done for people. I am big in believing things I can see, that does not mean I am close minded to other strategies and approaches.
[/quote]
Well said. The people who look like I want to look have all used split training as their base to reach that point (many often relying on a powerlifting background).
This argument is a little like those with HIT trainers. They all claim it is the best way to train on the planet…yet when you ask for any gigantic bodybuilders who use the programs as proof, they point to either Dorian Yates or some other lifter who built the majority of his size using SPLIT training and who may have changed to HIT later after they were already bigger than most people will ever get.
While we can argue about what a rank beginner might benefit more from, the statement that TBT beats split training all of the time is ridiculous.
Claiming that it is a sales tactic is exactly what the problem is…because people are basing their lives around these tactics. We hear people all of the time bitch and moan about supplement ads using bodybuilders who are huge who have probably never used that particular product unless they received it for free. Yet, somehow, it is off limits to point out the same tactics in the training community.
It would be easier to brush off as near insignificant if the many debates on this forum didn’t show just how outreaching and effective many of these claims are as far as ‘brainwashing’.
The claim that these programs are aimed at “regular people” is also a lame one. This site isn’t supposed to be for the ‘average person’ (meaning like the billions of barely active couch potatoes the world over who think simply having a gym membership makes you a ‘weight lifter’ regardless of effort).
I find it funny how suddenly, the mediocre are fighting to turn this site into less than what it stood for originally. You can have a family and a career and still be above average in life. There are apparently many people who think otherwise.
[quote]Rykker wrote:
Jesus.
Just train according to your own personal goals. Who gives a mother flying fuck if someone else has a different philosophy than yours?
No one Way is best for everyone at all times. Everything works.
Cluttering up the board with these bullshit arguments is senseless. Just shut the fuck up and train.
Anyone with the proper commitment and dedication will find their path. If they can’t (and truly wish to), they need to try harder.
Find what works for you. Do what works for you. [/quote]
Exactly what I was thinking. People are so worried about other accepting what they prefer.
How about some middle ground. Do a full body routine with a body part or two emphasis. Switch what you are focusing on at each of your sessions and you can be a middle grounder on this arguement.
Just a thought for the moderator. Why not move a thread like this that is going to end up in a whiney assed pissing match to the T-Vixen thread?
The arguements that no one has…does not support that no one can.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I find it funny how suddenly, the mediocre are fighting to turn this site into less than what it stood for originally. You can have a family and a career and still be above average in life. There are apparently many people who think otherwise.
[/quote]
It was a sales pitch. Thats the ONLY point I have been trying to make.
The folks who pick the training tips should have either included that in the quote, or not used it. If you read what he wrote in context, leaving out the last sentence is a crucial oversite.
You have folks on the Kill Chad side that are not paying attention.
[quote]Hannibal King wrote:
I haven’t seen a single full-body program where people squat and deadlift on the same day. Usually the squat is on, let’s say monday for example, and the deadlift would follow on tuesday or wednesday.
[/quote]
Now you have:
DB Incline Bench Press
Close Grip Underhand Lat Pull Down or Chins
Dips
Wide Grip Pull Downs or Pull ups
Flat Bench Flyes
Seated Rows
DB Seated Military Press
DB Shrugs
Deep Squats
Deep Deadlifts (not SLDL)
Leg Extensions (High Reps)
Curls
Smith French Press or Close Grip BP
3X per week. 1 set each. 15 reps M, 5 reps W, 10 reps F. Change order to bodypart giant sets when doing 5 reps or add in a drop set. Been doing similar workouts for several years since I got open minded enough to try a full body workout…after about 20 years of stagnation. (Hey, I’m slow.) They are not just for the young (61 here)or beginners (almost 50 years of lifting).
Splits work also. Especially for the advanced who need more volume to CONTINUE growing. However, I would still recommend hitting each BP twice per week such as Stan McQuay does. Hitting each muscle once every 10 days to 3 weeks doesn’t work too well. It’s like bowling once a decade. You’re not going to improve much.
On the other hand, both Waterbury and McQuay are just a couple of skinny shrimps so why listen to them? It makes more sense to continue doing the same old program, especially if you have gone stale! Like Galeleo, these heretics who rely on scientific experiments to back up their silly theories should be shunned, if not strung up! Down with the new!
Personally I really like CW and CT articles equally, and have been using a combination of Total body and splits from week to week. But to be honest TB has been my main focus.
But to read CW state this is a receint article “Many of my clients need to get absolutely shredded for one reason or another, and as I said in the beginning, my clients’ results determine my success. If peri-workout carbs slowed their fat loss or didn’t improve their recovery, I’d drop them quicker than Anna Nicole Smith drops a blind date once she finds out he’s not a billionaire”
why drop them, too big of a challenge, or not worth the risk to your business goal ? Just found that comment abit non-caring for that person or anybody that is a slow responder thus “damaging” CW’s rep.
But then again may have read that incorrectly, and be 180 degrees out.
[quote]Mr.Bill wrote:
Personally I really like CW and CT articles equally, and have been using a combination of Total body and splits from week to week. But to be honest TB has been my main focus.
But to read CW state this is a receint article “Many of my clients need to get absolutely shredded for one reason or another, and as I said in the beginning, my clients’ results determine my success. If peri-workout carbs slowed their fat loss or didn’t improve their recovery, I’d drop them quicker than Anna Nicole Smith drops a blind date once she finds out he’s not a billionaire”
why drop them, too big of a challenge, or not worth the risk to your business goal ? Just found that comment abit non-caring for that person or anybody that is a slow responder thus “damaging” CW’s rep.
But then again may have read that incorrectly, and be 180 degrees out.[/quote]
I think he’s talking about the peri-workout carbs. Not the client.
It is just hype to help him market himself.
Don’t take it so seriously. I am sure he doesn’t.
[quote]Mr.Bill wrote:
Personally I really like CW and CT articles equally, and have been using a combination of Total body and splits from week to week. But to be honest TB has been my main focus.
But to read CW state this is a receint article “Many of my clients need to get absolutely shredded for one reason or another, and as I said in the beginning, my clients’ results determine my success. If peri-workout carbs slowed their fat loss or didn’t improve their recovery, I’d drop them quicker than Anna Nicole Smith drops a blind date once she finds out he’s not a billionaire”
why drop them, too big of a challenge, or not worth the risk to your business goal ? Just found that comment abit non-caring for that person or anybody that is a slow responder thus “damaging” CW’s rep.
But then again may have read that incorrectly, and be 180 degrees out.[/quote]
He is talking about dropping the carbs, not the client.
Thanks Rain and Zap, makes sense now.
Was hoping I read that incorectly.
I personally enjoy reading the articles written by both CW and CT. However, I have only used CW’s up until this point. It isnt becausee I disagree with CT; it is the fact that mentally and physically CW’s programs fit me at the time, just like when I did DeFrancos WSFSB, which I had great success with.
Thank you both, CT & CW, for your articles.
I like both of CW’s and CT’s articles and one thing I did read that CT wrote that is very true was
"It seems that every trainee is looking for the “perfect program” that’s sure to give him the body of his dreams. These people think that doing a certain workout, even if they’re only going through the motions, will give them the gains they want.
Let me tell you something: the worst program in the world performed pedal to the metal will bring on more results than the best possible program done half-assed!"
[quote]Hannibal King wrote:
I haven’t seen a single full-body program where people squat and deadlift on the same day. Usually the squat is on, let’s say monday for example, and the deadlift would follow on tuesday or wednesday.[/quote]
The periodized Starr/Pendlay 5x5 has such a setup in the volume phase (see Wednesday):
[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
Like Galeleo, these heretics who rely on scientific experiments to back up their silly theories should be shunned, if not strung up! Down with the new!
[/quote]
LMAO. All the thinking men on this site have asked for is EVIDENCE. Galileo offered EVIDENCE in support of his claims. Waterbury simply makes ASSERTIONS. Are you smart enough to recognize the difference?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hi Go Heavy,
I really don’t understand the recent increase in heated debates over this subject. I realize that some people prefer total body, while others prefer splits. I also realize that many people will passionately defend their choice of workout paradigm and ridicule the other paradigm.
However, I don’t agree with ridiculing CW , or CT for that matter, for saying that one is “always” better than the other. If you really take the time to read through what they say, and take into account the context in which they are saying these things, you’ll realize that both coaches actually agree with each other.
Waterbury’s articles are about how to build the maximal overall muscle mass in the quickest most efficient way possible. They also tend to be directed towards beginners (not that more advanced trainees can’t also see results from them). Therefore he recommonds using total body workouts, high frequency, and diverse exercise selections/set-rep schemes.
CT’s latest article was purely about building an asethetically pleasing phsyique. And from what I gathered from it was geared more towards experienced lifters who had already built up a good base of strength/muscle.
In the article CT wrote:
“I want to make it clear that the big, basic, compound free-weight movements performed with heavy weights will always be the best overall mass-builders.”
You see, so CT is actually agreeing with Waterbury. He is simply trying to say that at some point in one’s training, if they want to build an aesthetic looking body, or be a bodybuilder, one will need to switch to bodypart splits (unless they are lucky enough to be someone with perfect genetics/structure as CT said). He also cites the excessive volume needed for optimal balance and development of naturally weaker body parts for a reason to switch to body part splits.
But, hey that’s just my observations on the subject.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[/quote]
Sento,
I’m not sure if I agree with what you think CT is saying. Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but it seems to me that you are implying that FBT uses only compound movements and that splits involve only isolation movements.
I think CT is saying that compound movements are the big mass builders but at some point BB’ers will need to fine tune their bodies by concentrating on specific parts of a muscle to attain a symmetrical body.
I think most if not all of CT’s recent programs begin with compound movements which are then complimented with isolation movements. This may not have been the case when he was focused on olympic/PLing, but now that he concentrates on BBing I think it is.
If I’m way off base from what you were saying, my apologies.