10/16 Cool Tip?

[quote]Modi wrote:
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

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.
[/quote]

Hi Modi,

Sorry, to be unclear.

No, I was not trying to imply that TBT involves only compounds (although sometimes it does), and that Splits involve only isolations. And yes, many people who do splits do begin their workouts with heavy compound movements.

What I was trying to get at is this; If your goal were to gain the most overall mass possible in the least amount of time, then what would be the point of wasting your energy on isolation movements? Would it make sense to devote all of your energy to the exercises that would give you the best improvements? Or, do you think it would make more sense to devote some of your energy to those exercises and some to exercises that weren’t really going to do much for you at this point?

Now, hey, everyone is entitled to their own choices, but I for one would do the former.

I also completely agree with you about what CT is saying regarding the need to switch to splits for BB’ing purposes, and actually I did say that in my original post. But, you bring up an interesting point. CT started out as a powerlifter. So, I think it’s safe to assume that he didn’t do all that much (in relation) isolation work coming up. He instead built the majority of his mass using heavy compound exercises (which are the staples of any good program be it TBT or Splits).

Of course, now that he is more concerned with how his body looks, rather than how it functions, he has realized the need to utilize more isolation work to bring up lagging body parts. And this is really what I think the point of his article was. It was not to challenge those who suggest that doing TBT, or other programs based almost entirely around heavy compound lifts are the best overall mass builders. It was to make a distinction that if one’s goal is bodybuilding, then they will most likely need to switch to a split routine at some point down the road.

Good training,

Sentoguy

AA and Prof X - good posts

Anybody know what Waterbury’s stats are? I did a search and couldn’t find anything. He did mention he added 100 lbs of muscle to his frame in one article and his pic looks pretty good but again I don’t know much about him.

Anybody read his “How to build a massive chest article,” I had a smile the whole time I was reading it.

how many people here have actually tried both methods properly? and how many people actually have the muscle mass to need to catch up lagging body parts? from what i’ve seen everything is lagging on everyone, and i think splits are largely to blame.

i have recently switched to full body after years of splits. splits got me results as they have lots of people, but i firmly believe i’d be well ahead of where i am now if i used a full body approach.

a couple reasons i’m loving full body:
i get to train everything every time i make the effort to go to the gym
i never miss a squat workout
my fitness levels are going up
my overall strength is skyrocketing
a bad workout doesn’t mean i have a 13 day gap between good workouts for a body part
get to try different excercises every workout
my whole body just feels healthier, nothing like a hearty meal after training your whole body

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic.

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic. [/quote]

No it isn’t. I am glad I started training the way I did. I never avoided major movements and would never to this day make a pec deck flye a core component of my chest training. It may be the last thing I do just to get more blood in the area, but heavy pressing movements are why chest is big. Many of you are forgetting GENETICS and how fast individuals may adapt to training. I DO have enough development to focus on “lagging body parts” and I have never done any form of “total body training”…ever. My body functions just fine from the way I train.

If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. However, if you have been lifting for years and you still don’t look like an extremely muscular person even to most gym goers, don’t blame the routine.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZedLeppelin wrote:

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic.

No it isn’t. I am glad I started training the way I did. I never avoided major movements and would never to this day make a pec deck flye a core component of my chest training. It may be the last thing I do just to get more blood in the area, but heavy pressing movements are why chest is big. Many of you are forgetting GENETICS and how fast individuals may adapt to training. I DO have enough development to focus on “lagging body parts” and I have never done any form of “total body training”…ever. My body functions just fine from the way I train.

If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. However, if you have been lifting for years and you still don’t look like an extremely muscular person even to most gym goers, don’t blame the routine.[/quote]

i don’t think anyone here would suggest that you should do full body workouts at your development. unfortunately the majority of this site isn’t at your level (me included) and need to stop worrying about there chest or biceps and just put on some overall mass.

why are you glad you started training with splits? how was that road any better then training full body until switching to a split routine?

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZedLeppelin wrote:

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic.

No it isn’t. I am glad I started training the way I did. I never avoided major movements and would never to this day make a pec deck flye a core component of my chest training. It may be the last thing I do just to get more blood in the area, but heavy pressing movements are why chest is big. Many of you are forgetting GENETICS and how fast individuals may adapt to training. I DO have enough development to focus on “lagging body parts” and I have never done any form of “total body training”…ever. My body functions just fine from the way I train.

If it works for you, great. Keep doing it. However, if you have been lifting for years and you still don’t look like an extremely muscular person even to most gym goers, don’t blame the routine.

i don’t think anyone here would suggest that you should do full body workouts at your development. unfortunately the majority of this site isn’t at your level (me included) and need to stop worrying about there chest or biceps and just put on some overall mass.

why are you glad you started training with splits? how was that road any better then training full body until switching to a split routine? [/quote]

Because it worked

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
how many people here have actually tried both methods properly? and how many people actually have the muscle mass to need to catch up lagging body parts? from what i’ve seen everything is lagging on everyone, and i think splits are largely to blame.

i have recently switched to full body after years of splits. splits got me results as they have lots of people, but i firmly believe i’d be well ahead of where i am now if i used a full body approach.

a couple reasons i’m loving full body:
i get to train everything every time i make the effort to go to the gym
i never miss a squat workout
my fitness levels are going up
my overall strength is skyrocketing
a bad workout doesn’t mean i have a 13 day gap between good workouts for a body part
get to try different excercises every workout
my whole body just feels healthier, nothing like a hearty meal after training your whole body

splits certainly have there place and they do work but promoting them to newbies is a little unrealistic. [/quote]

You’re so full of hot air ZedLeppelin, no wonder all it took was a spark to set you off. First of all. Whoever said that splits require training a muscle once every 13 days? For your information… I train almost all my muscles anywhere from 1 to 3 times a week depending on my routine for the week. Splits mean that you train the muscles on “split muscle” routines, not all at once which is what “Fullbody” refers too. Some off you assholes claiming your fullbody superiority… I doubt you even train some of your muscles as often as I do on my split routine. My calves for exmple are trained almost everyday, usually 6 days a week. I train chest usually 2-3 times a week. Back & legs maybe once unless I train them together than its twice. I use to train biceps every other day. Another thing… oh the heart braker, SPLIT TRAINING involves training muscles of the arms, chest, shoulders, back, and sometimes legs almost everytime you go to the gym(The same as a fullbody trainer). The difference is that we choose which muscles we want to accentuate through the exercises choosen. We still work the delts and back and triceps on chest day, but we concentrate on chest. When working for physique goals, don’t you think it might be a good idea to work the muscle your trying to build instead of the movement your trying to do? If I was an athlete, I might be looking for acceleration type exercises and try doing snatches and jerks and disregard how lopsided and unsymmetrical it made my body look.

The entire reason to do splits in the first place is to use maximum intensity per muscle, give lagging bodyparts more attention, and give more intensity to certain muscle groups that you can’t do on a fullbody routine. This is what cause imbalances in the first place, by doing fullbodys and not being able to work aestheticly on symmetry. The body will find the easiest way to perform a task and take those muscles to get the job done. A split muscle routine is the best counter for this… instead of doing a bench press and using 174 muscles to press the weight. I prefer to use the bench as a base and add alot of other movements such as dumbbells and flys to hit that muscle as hard as possible…this cannot be done on a fullbody routine. This would take you 28 hours to hit a fullbody routine and recieve the intensity that the bodybuilder put into all his muscle groups on his well thought out plan of attack.

I do remember Arnold spliting his muscle groups up so he could train twice a day and hit every muscle 2 or 3 times a week. Arnold knew the value of spliting muscle groups up and using maximum intensity on each muscle. He also knew the value of training them as often as he could, so he divised a plan that was bar none better than anything I’ve ever seen written in print… that was a split training routine hitting each individual muscle as often as possible. I train this exact same way. I’m not as good as Arnold, but I don’t use steroids either… so I do as much as I can.

When I go to the gym to train chest… that’s exactly what I do. I don’t fuck around and take the intensity off of my chest so I can say “I trained a bunch of muscles today and I did it at sub-par intensity for the chest but its cool because I also got shoulders and back and legs in too.” Then I train that fucker as soon as it will allow me to. I don’t even train back and shoulders that much any more because they got hit so much on all my training over the years… and in my overall training now that they arn’t weak points and no need to hit them constantly. I work my weakest muscles first and most often trying to create the most balanced and symmetrical physique I can. This will NEVER come from doing a fullbody routine. I will join the opinion and experience of the 99.9% of professional bodybuilders and non professionals that use SPLIT TRAINING for their physiques.

Split training… there is no substitute.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
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!

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]

Probably not smart enough (but too smart to bother replying to such a stupid insult with a counter personal insult ala internet tough guy style.)

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
It all works! Training comes down to personal preference and how well you respond (genetics).
We all respond to exercise diffently and have our preferences.
We just have to make sure we are following the absolutes: Systematic progressive overload, recovery, and nutrition. If these three elements are present then you will improve within the limits of your genetics.[/quote]

This thread should have pretty much ended right here, though I also agree with rainjack.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
You’re so full of hot air ZedLeppelin, no wonder all it took was a spark to set you off.[/quote]

haha oh, the humanity…though if you used that phrase in an attempt to play off the name, you should know that that zeppelin was filled with hydrogen, not air.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:

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]

What’s funny is that it what Chad said was a sales pitch. He admits it. In the article. How obtuse can some of you idiots be?

If you guys want to have a discussion over TBT v. Splits v. HIT - that is one thing.

But to take a quote completely out of context and use it to run down CW - when he admitted it was just a sales pitch - is chicken shit.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:

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?

What’s funny is that it what Chad said was a sales pitch. He admits it. In the article. How obtuse can some of you idiots be?

If you guys want to have a discussion over TBT v. Splits v. HIT - that is one thing.

But to take a quote completely out of context and use it to run down CW - when he admitted it was just a sales pitch - is chicken shit. [/quote]

boo-hoo. I don’t think anyone has mentioned him in the last 20 posts. The discussion has in fact turned to just what you said.

We get it. You like Chad. Sales pitch or not, it is the philosophy he bases his training on. That then can be argued, no?

Everyone responding is doing so under his own screen name which T has a record of our real names and adresses. I don’t think we are being chicken shit about anything.

I don’t belong to any camp, but would like to add my two cents.

As I’ve mentioned before the only real difference worth noting between the two systems is the total amount of work performed in each systems.

Total body guys usually perform 3 x 1hr per week of work.

Split guys usually perform 4 - 6 hours per week. (Note: IF you think that split routines require Flex Magazine or Arnold volume you have the wrong impression of splits).

Depending on your lifestyle and recovery ability one system may be better than the other for you.

In essence its really the volume (and your recovery abilities) of the different systems that have the biggest impact!

Depending on your lifestyle and your recovery ability one system (BECAUSE OF ITS VOLUME) may be better for you than the other.

If you permit me another minute I’ll try to demonstrate that splits can actually be more beneficial than a total body routine. Again, I don’t belong to any camp, but authors of the total body system are making bold claims that need to be examined.

For me to do so let me take Avoids Roids sample Total Body workout routine that he just posted.

If I’m not mistaken he performs this on Mon/Wednesday/Friday

[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
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
[/quote]

If I were to keep the volume EXACTLY the same but split the above routine in upper body and lower body do you feel that the effectiveness of the routine would be reduced?

Lets say:
Day A on Monday - Wednesday - Friday

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
Curls
Smith French Press or Close Grip BP

Day B Tuesday - Thursday - Saturday

DB Shrugs
Deep Squats
Deep Deadlifts (not SLDL)
Leg Extensions (High Reps)

On the contrary, the effectiveness of the program would probably be improved! Why? well you would be fresher on squats and deadlifts which were placed later in the Total body routine. If you’re fresher, you’re stronger, you lift more weight, you potentially grow more.

Let me take it further with a 4 day split. Upper body all on one day, lower body on the second day. This time we’ll split each day in AM and PM sessions (Again, still with the exact same volume and time in the gym.)

Lets say:
AM Monday - Wednesday - Friday Upper Body PUSH ONLY Workout
DB Incline Bench Press
Dips
Flat Bench Flyes
DB Seated Military Press
Smith French Press or Close Grip BP

PM Monday - Wednesday - Friday Upper Body PULL ONLY Workouts
Close Grip Underhand Lat Pull Down or Chins
Wide Grip Pull Downs or Pull ups
Seated Rows
Curls

AM Tuesday - Thursday - Saturday Quad Dominant workout
Deep Squats
Leg Extensions (High Reps)

PM Tuesday - Thursday - Saturday Hip Dominant workout
DB Shrugs
Deep Deadlifts (not SLDL)

Again, the same principle applies. You’d be fresher, stronger and probably get more growth with this split than with Total body approach.

The common argument to the above suggestion is that even though you spend the exact same time in the gym, you would waste a lot of time driving back and forth from the gym. To this I say, “I agree!”, but we’re not debating whether or not this split would fit in your schedule, we’re debating whether or not Total Body splits could theoretically produce better results than splits. I think that I demonstrated how splits could, at least in theory, be more productive than a total body approach.

Sorry for the long winded example, but it’s been on my mind for a while and had to get it out once and for all! :slight_smile:

[quote]ckg21 wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
It all works! Training comes down to personal preference and how well you respond (genetics).
We all respond to exercise diffently and have our preferences.
We just have to make sure we are following the absolutes: Systematic progressive overload, recovery, and nutrition. If these three elements are present then you will improve within the limits of your genetics.

This thread should have pretty much ended right here, though I also agree with rainjack.

Go heavy fool wrote:
You’re so full of hot air ZedLeppelin, no wonder all it took was a spark to set you off.

haha oh, the humanity…though if you used that phrase in an attempt to play off the name, you should know that that zeppelin was filled with hydrogen, not air.[/quote]

I know dingleberry. Flamable paint!

Stay on topic.

Would you fullbody motherfuckers stay on topic and stop the personal attacks?

Looks like fullbody is taking an ass beating in my thread. They won’t stay on topic. Sure sign of a loser.

I can’t wait for that asshole in the metal jockstrap to say something on topic. I think he has avoided it at all costs in a vein attempt to tell Chad Waterbury that he wants to suck his dick. Even Chad’s probably saying “dude stop defending me, you fuckin’ moron”. Chad can defend himself rainman. If he feels it necessary, he’ll pop in. I called him out on a horseshit statement, let him defend himself. I can defend myself against the entire website. I’m sure Chad can manage a few bullshit sales pitches he got called out on.

Anyone claiming one method doesn’t work for them might not have been doing that particular method corectly.

I used CW’s ABBH I and II and had great results, that I and others saw.

I then went on with other CW routines from his other articles and they ‘didn’t work’ for me. Mostly due to the fact that I wasn’t ready for the amount of volume in the cookie cutter program that was posted, so I stopped.

One of CT’s earlier routine that was getting a lot of positive attention didn’t work for me at the time I tried it either, but now I’m using his methods from his ebook that I bought and it’s working great for me.

I bet almost ANYONE who thinks one method doesn’t work for them gets trained by either CW or CT personally, they will get great results faster than they have done on their own.

If they were given a chance to adjust to your personal needs, but still stuck to their methods, I bet they can make their methods work for just about anyone.

I personally am more of a fan of splits, but maybe that just means I’m better at figuring out what works for me when I use splits. And all of my split-routine workouts that I’ve ever done included many compound movements, and plenty of relatively heavy weight.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:

The entire reason to do splits in the first place is to use maximum intensity per muscle, give lagging bodyparts more attention, and give more intensity to certain muscle groups that you can’t do on a fullbody routine. This is what cause imbalances in the first place, by doing fullbodys and not being able to work aestheticly on symmetry. The body will find the easiest way to perform a task and take those muscles to get the job done. A split muscle routine is the best counter for this… [/quote]

GHFool,
That’s it, in a nutshell. I know you weren’t the first person to say this, but those are my thoughts exactly. Well said.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Would you fullbody motherfuckers stay on topic and stop the personal attacks?[/quote]

Followed by…

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I can’t wait for that asshole in the metal jockstrap to say something on topic. I thing he has avoided it at all costs in a vein attempt to tell Chad Waterbury that he wants to suck his dick. Even Chad’s probably saying “dude stop defending me, you fuckin moron”.[/quote]

Hmm…

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Looks like fullbody is taking an ass beating in my thread. They won’t stay on topic. Sure sign of a loser.
[/quote]

What is it we are losing, exactly? This argument? Has anyone offered PROOF to show that we are “losing” or is it just “majority rules” around here?

Thing is, I don’t have to prove anything to you. And, guess what? You don’t have to prove anything to me, either. What works for me works for me, and what works for you, works for you. Who really cares about anything else?

The only way a person can know which method is “better” for him ISN’T to listen to some random dude making fellatio references on the Internet, but to get his shit together, go to the gym, and see for himself through trial and error.

I’d like to think that after all the time I’ve spent lifting, I’ve managed to get a SLIGHTLY better handle on what works for me and my body than some anonymous person over the 'net.

It’s been said before: everything works…for a while. Since we can’t prove which is better beyond all doubt, why not worry about just making it to the gym consistently, eating right, recovery, and rinsing/repeating the next day.

This topic has been covered before in the past; right now we’re just flogging a dead horse.

this is getting far too heated…

if you’re getting results you’re happy with, stick with it. when it comes to changing you’re routine, how about you try the other method and judge it properly?

in my opinion (and that’s all it is) full body routines are more effective for the majority of lifters due to there increased frequency and simplicity.

[quote]ZedLeppelin wrote:
this is getting far too heated…

if you’re getting results you’re happy with, stick with it. when it comes to changing you’re routine, how about you try the other method and judge it properly?

in my opinion (and that’s all it is) full body routines are more effective for the majority of lifters due to there increased frequency and simplicity.

[/quote]

In your opinion! Now where’s your proof? I will take the angle of A.A., Prof X, and others that are asking for proof. We have seen proof of thousands of bodybuilders, every Mr. Olympia, Arnold Schwarzenegger(The best ever physique)… all built with split routines.

Can you post the pictures of top level muscular physiques that were built using total body workouts and post their routines.

For every one that you produce… I will produce 10 and all my 10 will be famous names that either are professional bodybuilders or have won the Mr. Olympia.

Until you produce proof. Your opinion along with Chad Waterbury’s are worthless and just a bunch of HORSESHIT. I want to see proof of this far superior way to build bigger and better muscles. Get to steppin’, times a wastin’.

[quote]ckg21 wrote:

What is it we are losing, exactly? This argument? Has anyone offered PROOF to show that we are “losing” or is it just “majority rules” around here?

Thing is, I don’t have to prove anything to you. And, guess what? You don’t have to prove anything to me, either. [/quote]

Here’s proof of building a body with split routines. Where’s your proof? Where’s your pic?