Another Muscle Revolution Review

Training Bodybuilding
1

I just received and read Waterbury’s Muscle Revolution. Since some of the reviews on here shaped my decision to buy it I figured I would do the same and give my opinion of it.

First, well done book, good pics, easy to read, essentially no errors. Bound well.

It has two sections, theory and practical. I enjoyed the theory section and personally agreed with 95% of it.

Practical section - well laid out, easy to follow. Whether you like Waterbury’s programs or not one good thing about them is they are easy to do. He tells you exactly what exercise to do, reps, sets, weights, rest, order, etc. Many books give you the theory and then leave you to figure it out. That is a big plus for him.

Book is easy to read and flows, you could read it in a few hours full through and then go back and read key parts again a second time to fully absorb them. His writing style is similar to T-Nation articles, complete with jokes and side bars and he speaks to reader directly (which I think is a plus).

A few minor criticisms:

Some anecdotal evidence I didn’t agree with, no big deal.

As a powerlifter, I was interested in the TSP routine. It was laid out in detail. At first glance it looked weird, definitely different from the norm. I haven’t tried it yet so I can’t say if it is good or bad, but after 10+ years of competing you develop something of a sense of what should work and what might not. I still may try it though.

Seemed a bit supplement heavy.

This is small and may sound harsh but Lou Schuler’s forward about previously benching 260, then being down to 225 and then getting back to 250ish didn’t move me. Honestly it was too light of weight and too little of change to be impressive. If he overcame some sort of adversity or illness it might be different, but he seemed to me to be a normal guy lifting slightly more than normal weight. Good for him but nothing to write about. Others might feel differently.

A few times Waterbury mentions that some people might make gains on programs different than his, but they are probably genetically gifted or used steroids. As somebody who made decent gains without being either one of those, it was a little insulting and arrogant, and most important unnecessary. He did a good enough job explaining his point of view without that remark.

To summarize quite a good book and nice addition to the fitness world, certainly a step up and not a step down. I would recommend it and rank it a 9 out of 10 (and I am not a big believer in high frequency training although I am currently trying it out).

2

I just got the book a few days ago, and I thought I’d address a point or two in this post then add some thoughts of my own, now that I have the book.

Waterbury says that genetic “freaks” and steroid users make better gains on programs that use tons of sets and reps, in other words Muscle & Fitness type workouts. I think he mentions this maybe twice. He mentions many more times that individual results are achieved by individuals, and he doesn’t discount all programs that aren’t like his.

Also, how can you really critique a program at all before you try it? TSP that is. I don’t really know why you wouldn’t think it would work before you try it.

I think the book is great, good layout and good read cover-to-cover, then good for reference. Even for T-Nation fans of Waterbury there are some new points that make the book worth having on your shelf. TSP looks good to me but the proof is in the pudding. And it’s definitely handy to have it to reference Waterbury’s point of view on various aspects of fitness.

My only problem with the book was with the program spreadsheets. TBT was shortened to 4 weeks instead of 8, Hybrid Hypertrophy was basically typed up wrong (you do 3x3, 1x12-14, and then 1x3…but it says 4x3 then 1x12-14). Triple Total Training was shortened from about 40 days to 19.

Lift Fast Get Big didn’t even include a proper explanation of the stretch-shortening cycles, etc. “This three-day-per-week, total body program uses a different tempo guideline in each of its three training phases: fast contractions with no pause; fast contractions with a four-second pause; and fast contractions with a one-second pause. Look for big size and strength gains.”

Then on the program itself none of these things are listed. Three phases? Huh? The original T-Nation article had it about 40 days long, but this version is 26 days!

One more complaint: there were some exercises that I had heard of, and some that I hadn’t, that were made up obviously by CW: Waterbury crucifix, Waterbury walk, and one or two more. I have no idea what 2x15 reps of Waterbury walk looks like, and it’s annoying to have to turn on my computer to reference it when I payed 40 bucks for the book.

These are strange changes to make to programs, and a couple of them are obvious oversights or errors. I give the book 8.5/10; it would be 10/10 except for the errors.

3

[quote]nptitim wrote:
A few times Waterbury mentions that some people might make gains on programs different than his, but they are probably genetically gifted or used steroids. [/quote]

That’s quite a claim. I’m not surprised he made it. Of course, anyone who says that claim is nonsense is either a “hater” or a “critic.”

4

CALaw, this is a very old post…but I wanna reply since I basically mistyped that.

He didn’t imply that ANY gains on ANY non-CW program are due to steroids, mostly just the Muscle & Fitness ones. And he did specifically call out HIT to say it is very subpar.

5

[quote]nptitim wrote:
This is small and may sound harsh but Lou Schuler’s forward about previously benching 260, then being down to 225 and then getting back to 250ish didn’t move me. Honestly it was too light of weight and too little of change to be impressive. If he overcame some sort of adversity or illness it might be different, but he seemed to me to be a normal guy lifting slightly more than normal weight. Good for him but nothing to write about. Others might feel differently.

[/quote]

Lou has had a shoulder injury to work around since he was young. How old is Lou? Maybe that has significance in this.

I haven’t read the book yet.

6

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
nptitim wrote:
A few times Waterbury mentions that some people might make gains on programs different than his, but they are probably genetically gifted or used steroids.

That’s quite a claim. I’m not surprised he made it. Of course, anyone who says that claim is nonsense is either a “hater” or a “critic.”[/quote]

Watch out man…the T-Nation witch hunt might catch wind of how you really feel about Waterbury…

7

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
nptitim wrote:
A few times Waterbury mentions that some people might make gains on programs different than his, but they are probably genetically gifted or used steroids.

That’s quite a claim. I’m not surprised he made it. Of course, anyone who says that claim is nonsense is either a “hater” or a “critic.”

Watch out man…the T-Nation witch hunt might catch wind of how you really feel about Waterbury…[/quote]

I am going to go to bat for Chad for a minute. It’s no secret that I don’t find a large degree of personal compatibility with much of what he preaches. It’s also no secret that I sometimes wince when reading one of his pieces because I know his sometimes, in my view, less than wisely chosen phraseology, is going to grow legs and lead the underdiscriminating among us down an unnecessary path of controversy. I also just plain disagree with some of what he believes.

Having said all that I do not however find it useful to beat up on the guy like is sometimes done, even by people I respect and have a lot in common with.

Also there are guys here who’s experience and knowledge cannot be disputed who are big CW fans, Ramo and Disc Hoss spring immediately to mind for instance so it isn’t exclusively inexperienced noobs who believe in his methods, though it IS largely the inexperienced noobs who are responsible for making his work more controversial than it needs to be.

I will additionally credit him personally with singlehandedly persuading me to rethink and reapply my own views on failure and volume which believe me took some doing. As usual this did not require a wholesale adoption of his entire philosophy, I have my own, but he helped me make a significant improvement. The guy isn’t a moron or a quack and I don’t believe he’s a charlatan either.

I’m not trying play momma here, but I would hope we could find more productive ways to express our differences.

8

Not personally knocking Waterbury, I am more frustrated with the high school kids who start internet fights with experienced lifters and tell them that what they did to get to 200+ lbs of mass didnt work. Its kind of absurd. Kind of like some dickbag posting on ExileSwede’s photo thread that split training doesnt work.

9

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
nptitim wrote:
A few times Waterbury mentions that some people might make gains on programs different than his, but they are probably genetically gifted or used steroids.

That’s quite a claim. I’m not surprised he made it. Of course, anyone who says that claim is nonsense is either a “hater” or a “critic.”

Watch out man…the T-Nation witch hunt might catch wind of how you really feel about Waterbury…

I am going to go to bat for Chad for a minute. It’s no secret that I don’t find a large degree of personal compatibility with much of what he preaches. It’s also no secret that I sometimes wince when reading one of his pieces because I know his sometimes, in my view, less than wisely chosen phraseology, is going to grow legs and lead the underdiscriminating among us down an unnecessary path of controversy. I also just plain disagree with some of what he believes.

Having said all that I do not however find it useful to beat up on the guy like is sometimes done, even by people I respect and have a lot in common with.

Also there are guys here who’s experience and knowledge cannot be disputed who are big CW fans, Ramo and Disc Hoss spring immediately to mind for instance so it isn’t exclusively inexperienced noobs who believe in his methods, though it IS largely the inexperienced noobs who are responsible for making his work more controversial than it needs to be.

I will additionally credit him personally with singlehandedly persuading me to rethink and reapply my own views on failure and volume which believe me took some doing. As usual this did not require a wholesale adoption of his entire philosophy, I have my own, but he helped me make a significant improvement. The guy isn’t a moron or a quack and I don’t believe he’s a charlatan either.

I’m not trying play momma here, but I would hope we could find more productive ways to express our differences.

[/quote]
Great post.

I read “Muscle Revolution” with A LOT of skepticism, and even though I didn’t necessarily agree with everything or the way certain things were phrased, I thought it was a GREAT READ and really enjoyed it. The section giving an overview about weight, set, rep, rest, speed progression was AWESOME - as simple as can be, but awesome. That 10 or so pages made the book more than worth it.

From this armchair expert’s point of view, I’d give it an A+!

10

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
Not personally knocking Waterbury, I am more frustrated with the high school kids who start internet fights with experienced lifters and tell them that what they did to get to 200+ lbs of mass didnt work. Its kind of absurd. Kind of like some dickbag posting on ExileSwede’s photo thread that split training doesnt work.[/quote]

You don’t owe me anything dude and I usually find myself agreeing with you. Waterbury is more balanced than some of his writings here would seem to indicate.