Anyone Tried CW's TBT Workout?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What, there is no such thing as advancement of knowledge?

Today’s natural bodybuilders – almost all of whom follow split routines – don’t look, on the whole, much better than all but the very cream of the crop of old-timers did?[/quote]

It’s a ploy used by some of these authors as if the goal is to discredit all current bodybuilders as weak clueless morons that you should never take advice from. That ensures clueless newbies don’t go to anyone who is actually big for any tips which saves even more time for the newb to read more articles.

I personally have no clue what logic is involved that makes someone believe the thousands of really built people today are somehow BEHIND bodybuilders from the fucking 50’s.

62

So no pics? Disappointing.

63

I’m in agreement with Bill and Professor. Yeah, sure there were very muscular men from back in the days who looked pretty darn good, a result of following TBT routines.

But the natural and enhanced pros of today are FAR MORE developed than they were.

Anyway, not all old-timers followed TBT programs. Chucks Sipes followed a 5-way split and if memory serves me correctly, held the world record in the bench at one time in addition to some other incredible strength feats he performed.

64

Thing is that all the tbt programs are being lumped together and that they all suck for bodybuilding. For advanced bodybuilders they probably do, thats what Maybe 10% here. There are proven programs that aren’t rocket science that work and work very well for what they do for beginners and intermediate lifters. So are you saying for a beginner or intermediate lifter putting 40-50 pounds on meat on em isn’t good or that for bodybuilding the only way good way to put that weight on is with a split?

I guess I just get tired of hearing tbt programs suck. There really isn’t in validity to the statement if you want to say for advanced intermediates or the very few advanced bb’ers thats fine but for the majority of people starting out or have never put on any significant size then a program like riptoe or madcow is definitely comparable to a split.

65

I quite want to see the pics now

66

I’ve seen Squelchy on a different forum and the before and after pics are very impressive, would like to see X at 210, be good to compare

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[/quote]

Thanks prof X but 28 pages and from 2005!!!

Any one page or post you can direct me to for a decent BB routine? Thanks!

68

[quote]Gup wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Thanks prof X but 28 pages and from 2005!!!

Any one page or post you can direct me to for a decent BB routine? Thanks![/quote]

LOL

69

read it all, its worth it (well ProfX’s and C_C’s posts anyway)

70

[quote]Gup wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Thanks prof X but 28 pages and from 2005!!!

Any one page or post you can direct me to for a decent BB routine? Thanks![/quote]

Read his whole thread and you’ll have one and it will save you alot of time reading through all the crap on this site and getting confused.

71

[quote]Rapt wrote:
Thing is that all the tbt programs are being lumped together and that they all suck for bodybuilding. For advanced bodybuilders they probably do, thats what Maybe 10% here. There are proven programs that aren’t rocket science that work and work very well for what they do for beginners and intermediate lifters. So are you saying for a beginner or intermediate lifter putting 40-50 pounds on meat on em isn’t good or that for bodybuilding the only way good way to put that weight on is with a split?

I guess I just get tired of hearing tbt programs suck. There really isn’t in validity to the statement if you want to say for advanced intermediates or the very few advanced bb’ers thats fine but for the majority of people starting out or have never put on any significant size then a program like riptoe or madcow is definitely comparable to a split.[/quote]

It’s exactly like Prof X said, people can advocate TBT all they want but it doesn’t mean anything. We have raised the challenge to all these TBT’ers who think they have the best way to post pics and us who do splits will post pics in response. That way we can see who looks better and can see some real evidence for a programs efficiency for building muscle.

None of the TBT guys are ever up for the challenge so this debate continues…

72

Starting Strength/Starr/Madcow templates are primarily full body.

HST is full body.

DC is a 2 way split built on the same frequency principles that TBT is.

Programs fall on a continuum based on frequency, intensity and volume, and the only thing that varies is how those 3 elements are utilized in a plan.

People have put on muscle (i.e. “built their body”, i.e. bodybuilding) with all sorts of programs- that isn’t to say that all programs are equally good for all people, but Waterbury’s TBT, for instance, has built in progression (either weight, a set, or reps are added each week). With a caloric surplus, a body will grow more muscle on that.

I also take issue with the notion that “BODYBUILDING” means, to some, "PROFESSIONAL bodybuilding.

Well, folks, no one on here save a few people, are actually pros. So, we are hobbyists/amateurs.

The logic that bodybuilding = pro bodybuilding only means that we should also do all the drugs they do. I don’t care that they do them, but my point is that looking at what the elite, extreme .00001% of guys do and expect to mimic that is ridiculous.

I have done TBT and wouldn’t do Waterbury’s version of it again. I felt run down after a few weeks- it’s a ton of work and your joints (knees and shoulders especially) will take a beating if are training intensely. Maybe I trained to intensly on it- after all, it’s volume and frequency heavy (esp. from a CNS perspective) so maybe it was my fault.

I bet someone who has been doing a 4-6 way split did a 6 week cycle using a full body approach might be pleasantly surprised.

Anyways, the notion that training the whole body in a session cannot build muscle is bullshit. It may not be optimal when someone gets very strong or wants to devote 5+ days a week to training, but that’s personal and someone in that position knows what’s best for them.

73

Squelchy put up his pics on this thread, interestingly in another full body vs TBT war lol

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/chatroom/topic/308846/

he has changed his username from “Squelchy” to “…” .

He has some development to look above average compared to most weekend warriors, but come
on dude. The guy is a little small and a bit soft (strictly from a BBing standpoint of course) but definitely athletic-looking.

[quote]ruggerbugger wrote:
I’ve seen Squelchy on a different forum and the before and after pics are very impressive, would like to see X at 210, be good to compare[/quote]

74

[quote]trextacy wrote:

The logic that bodybuilding = pro bodybuilding only means that we should also do all the drugs they do. I don’t care that they do them, but my point is that looking at what the elite, extreme .00001% of guys do and expect to mimic that is ridiculous.[/quote]

Or maybe what’s ridiculous is concocting strawman arguments like this.

Hint: everyone here knows many lifters outside your “0.00001%” doing better with split training.

Didn’t we just cite the very many natural bb’ers that are doing so well with split training?

What, is Professor X for example in the “0.00001” percent? (Granted he is more gifted than most, but do you put him in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent?)

Am I in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent? (I have tried both thoroughly and generally speaking split routine works better for me.) What would be a better question, actually, is am I even in the top half for genetics. Tough call there, I would think right at about the 50th percentile though certainly quite possibly lower.

If you have to reach for strawman arguments like this, that suggests quite a lot about the quality of your argument. It DEPENDS on bogus statements like that. Really you had no choice.

Hey, good news everybody! All of us who have found from experience we do better with split routines are in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent! Aren’t we special! Doesn’t that just make your day.

75

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Squelchy put up his pics on this thread, interestingly in another full body vs TBT war lol

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/chatroom/topic/308846/

he has changed his username from “Squelchy” to “…” .

He has some development to look above average compared to most weekend warriors, but come
on dude. The guy is a little small and a bit soft (strictly from a BBing standpoint of course) but definitely athletic-looking.

[/quote]

Holy Christ, that thread is infantile. There are the pics though, even if he didn’t put them up himself. Your turn, X :slight_smile:

76

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
trextacy wrote:

The logic that bodybuilding = pro bodybuilding only means that we should also do all the drugs they do. I don’t care that they do them, but my point is that looking at what the elite, extreme .00001% of guys do and expect to mimic that is ridiculous.

Or maybe what’s ridiculous is concocting strawman arguments like this.

Hint: everyone here knows many lifters doing outside your “0.00001%” doing better with split training.

Didn’t we just cite the very many natural bb’ers that are doing so well with split training?

What, is Professor X for example in the “0.00001” percent? (Granted he is more gifted than most, but do you put him in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent?)

Am I in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent? (I have tried both thoroughly and generally speaking split routine works better for me.) What would be a better question, actually, is am I even in the top half for genetics. Tough call there, I would think right at about the 50th percentile though certainly quite possibly lower.

If you have to reach for strawman arguments like this, that suggests quite a lot about the quality of your argument. It DEPENDS on bogus statements like that. Really you had no choice.

Hey, good news everybody! All of us who have found from experience we do better with split routines are in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent! Aren’t we special! Doesn’t that just make your day.
[/quote]

Good post. I was thinking it, but I couldn’t have said it half as well.

77

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
Squelchy put up his pics on this thread, interestingly in another full body vs TBT war lol

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/chatroom/topic/308846/

he has changed his username from “Squelchy” to “…” .

He has some development to look above average compared to most weekend warriors, but come
on dude. The guy is a little small and a bit soft (strictly from a BBing standpoint of course) but definitely athletic-looking.

Holy Christ, that thread is infantile. There are the pics though, even if he didn’t put them up himself. Your turn, X :slight_smile:

[/quote]

How much is he weighing in those pics?

I didn’t post this to degrade someone else’s progress. However, like I have seen with quite a few others, those who seem to train using TBT end up looking like they now need to bring up lagging body parts. His traps are weakly developed along with his lateral delts.

That has actually been my primary argument against it from the beginning, that newbies will end up with imbalances if they never consider isolation as being very important.

I was weighing about 210lbs in this picture. It has also been posted several times before. Genetics aside, I believe using a decent split routine from the start will keep someone from causing entire muscle groups to lag behind others.

And no, I am not insulting his development since he has made progress.

78

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
trextacy wrote:

The logic that bodybuilding = pro bodybuilding only means that we should also do all the drugs they do. I don’t care that they do them, but my point is that looking at what the elite, extreme .00001% of guys do and expect to mimic that is ridiculous.

Or maybe what’s ridiculous is concocting strawman arguments like this.

Hint: everyone here knows many lifters outside your “0.00001%” doing better with split training.

Didn’t we just cite the very many natural bb’ers that are doing so well with split training?

What, is Professor X for example in the “0.00001” percent? (Granted he is more gifted than most, but do you put him in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent?)

Am I in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent? (I have tried both thoroughly and generally speaking split routine works better for me.) What would be a better question, actually, is am I even in the top half for genetics. Tough call there, I would think right at about the 50th percentile though certainly quite possibly lower.

If you have to reach for strawman arguments like this, that suggests quite a lot about the quality of your argument. It DEPENDS on bogus statements like that. Really you had no choice.

Hey, good news everybody! All of us who have found from experience we do better with split routines are in the top one-hundred-thousandth-of-one-percent! Aren’t we special! Doesn’t that just make your day.
[/quote]

If they believe their genetics are that weak and that everyone growing on a split routine is some genetic freak, what do they think they can get out of bodybuilding at all? They limit themselves before they ever actually get anywhere.

79

As far as I understand, the argument that Prof x and other guys are making doesn’t apply to beginners, correct?

I mean, as far as theories go, it makes sense that beginners would see greater gains of LBM from a total body style of training versus splits, right? This gain in body mass can be attributed to many reasons, such as the sudden increase in athletic activity and a greater load than the body is used to handling. The total sudden increase in load would be greater if the beginner started off doing exclusively deadlifts, squats, bench press and pull ups rather than using a four day split that includes a separate day for shoulders and a separate day for arms.

Of course this style of training would only lead to Body building (read: aesthetics) related goals for a certain amount of time, as it could lead to imbalances and stagnation. And since your body has already adapted to the increased external load at this point (may be 3 months, may be 1 year), you would have to hit it at different angles and frequencies and volumes to continue making respectable gains. A lot of this would depend on genetics, diet, and personal history.

X, how tall are you? You are a rather large man.

80

[quote]BSrunner wrote:
As far as I understand, the argument that Prof x and other guys are making doesn’t apply to beginners, correct? [/quote]

Wrong. The argument I am making is that it makes no sense to avoid using a split routine from the very beginning especially if you plan to stand out in a crowd. This idea that beginners need TBT is a marketing gimmick. Most really big guys didn’t do anything drastically different in their training from what they always did, progressively going heavier and heavier while not ignoring individual muscle groups or treating them as if isolation exercises are less important or irrelevant.

[quote]

I mean, as far as theories go, it makes sense that beginners would see greater gains of LBM from a total body style of training versus splits, right? [/quote]

Why do you believe this? It makes no sense to come to that conclusion. You are just repeating what you heard somewhere.

[quote]

This gain in body mass can be attributed to many reasons, such as the sudden increase in athletic activity and a greater load than the body is used to handling. The total sudden increase in load would be greater if the beginner started off doing exclusively deadlifts, squats, bench press and pull ups rather than using a four day split that includes a separate day for shoulders and a separate day for arms. [/quote]

Why do you think someone using a split routine is somehow missing out on “[quote]sudden increase in athletic activity and a greater load than the body is used to handling[/quote]”?

[quote]

X, how tall are you? You are a rather large man. [/quote]

I am 5’10.5 or over 5’11" in shoes. I am bigger now than in that picture.