Anyone Tried CW's TBT Workout?

Training Bodybuilding
101

You’re smarter than that, brick.

your uncle IS undedicated to the art of developing every muscle to its fullest extent - and while his goals are definitely worthy - I would not expect to see him voicing his opinion loudly on THIS forum.

THere’s a good chance that 30 years down the line I may be unable to continue trainign the way I am right now. MY joints may have exploded and for all you know - I could be doing bosu ball aerobics - but will I expect validation of my (at that point) goals and methods on THIS forum given my (at that point) limitations, NO!!! At that point when I can no longer fdollow a BB split or use gear - I will post on the forum strictly in reference to my own PRIOR experience regarding the art of developing each muscle group to the fullest extent - and for validation and/or critique of my (at that point) goals and training I will log on to a geriatric activity forum instead.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Oh, I have another undedicated gym-loser for ya: my uncle. I mean, he’s all undedicated because he doesn’t want to get huge and follow a split routine that is completely out of line with his lifestyle or health goals. He works 6 days per week, 10 hours per day, and has a one-hour commute to and from work. He supports two kids and a wife and has a nice house in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Oh, on top of his work, he likes to spend time with his kids. He does a TBT routine. He does all this because… well, you know… he’s “undedicated”.[/quote]

102

Wow. Where did you read about me not changing the routine for 10 years?

When I first started lifting I used FB and it served me good…when i got out of prison a few years back I used a 5x5 for close to a year before I evolved it over time into a FB split by adding/rotating movements, changing sets and reps and even order and using separate days for individual muscle groups. I have spoken before about EVOLVING from a FB scheme to a BP split over time.

That said, if a program DID allow me to steadily add weight from session to session, I would not be stupid enough to change it for the4 “sake” of switching things up - I personally have found that raising calories and “supplements” (within reason) have allowed me to use routines for a LONG time with minimal changes.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Bullshit…
Besides you and PX I don’t know any bodybuilders that stuck to the EXACT same program for longer than 10 years.
But guess what there are even BP split guys that change the routine…SHHHHHH!!!. I saw it on an black ops underground website called muscular development. This huuuuggeee guy went to Charles glass for a few weeks because his chest was lagging… WOW!!! can you believe it… He did splits and actually had a lagging bodypart…Oh Shit Batman!!. I bet you he was secretly doing TBT in his basement.

[/quote]

103

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, squelchy, yes, you do need direct arm work. Either that or you guys have far lesser goals or standards than the rest of us. I’m not going to post my biceps shot from that same day I posted earlier. But I can tell you my arms were FAR more along than yours and the idea that biceps shouldn’t be trained directly sure doesn’t seem to be panning out for most of you.[/quote]

I’d be far more worried about his triceps, to be honest. They’re literally non-existent compared to his bis.
(no knock on you, squelchy, just saying… I didn’t bother with my tris much at first and that was definitely not a good idea… Let me tell you: Some close-grips and pjrs or so can go a long way towards fixing the issue…)

104

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
you guys are missing the point.

  1. If TBT isn;t adding some serious size to your frame you’re either retarded or eating to lose weight.
  2. TBT can create serious imbalances - you can see Squelchy’s arms are on the small side given his torso.
  3. USing a BP split will promote the biggest gains without leaving any muscle group undeveloped - assuming you are not over-reaching your recovery.

Bullshit…
Besides you and PX I don’t know any bodybuilders that stuck to the EXACT same program for longer than 10 years. Generally if they have been doing one routine(split or TBT) after some time they see bodyparts lagging, and switch their program up to make corrections. You and Px are the only ones who’ve never had a lagging bodypart, I doubt I could ever find a post in this forum of PX with a lagging bodypart.

So yeah after a few months some TBT people will have a lagging bodypart, don’t alert the CIA but they sometimes follow a routine to correct that afterwards. Keep that on the hush though I’m not sure if routine switching has been legalized yet.

But guess what there are even BP split guys that change the routine…SHHHHHH!!!. I saw it on an black ops underground website called muscular development. This huuuuggeee guy went to Charles glass for a few weeks because his chest was lagging… WOW!!! can you believe it… He did splits and actually had a lagging bodypart…Oh Shit Batman!!. I bet you he was secretly doing TBT in his basement.

[/quote]

This post was retarded. Nowhere have I ever written that I am still doing the exact same exercises in the exact same order as ten years ago. In fact, what I have written is that changes are only made if necessary…like changing gyms to one that doesn’t have the same equipment so now different movements are done to switch from exercises I had access to previously. Calling that some entirely different routine is dumb as hell and no, most really big lifters are not changing things up much more than that. The basic premise remains the same even if different movements are thrown in.

I used to train 2-3 body parts in one session as a beginner…so how is that the exact same thing that I am doing now? It clearly isn’t which means your post is clearly LYING.

105

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Also, squelchy, yes, you do need direct arm work. Either that or you guys have far lesser goals or standards than the rest of us. I’m not going to post my biceps shot from that same day I posted earlier. But I can tell you my arms were FAR more along than yours and the idea that biceps shouldn’t be trained directly sure doesn’t seem to be panning out for most of you.

I’d be far more worried about his triceps, to be honest. They’re literally non-existent compared to his bis.
(no knock on you, squelchy, just saying… I didn’t bother with my tris much at first and that was definitely not a good idea… Let me tell you: Some close-grips and pjrs or so can go a long way towards fixing the issue…)

[/quote]

I just don’t see many of these guys who avoid isolation movements for biceps who have huge biceps as a result of it. I must be missing the logic involved that dictates not training muscles directly leads to optimal growth of that muscle group.

106

[quote]trextacy wrote:

The fact is that certain people around here are heavily emotionally invested in tearing down a particular contributor- Chad Waterbury. [/quote]

You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a “fact.”

Myself, I would characterize that as not only an almost undoubtedly false statement, but a completely ridiculous one – that ANYBODY here is “heavily emotionally invested in tearing down Chad Waterbury.”

There are some that enjoy ridiculing his accomplishments including his physique, which I think is (also) ridiculous. But these are the same folk that will call anything less than 20" calves (for example) pathetic, who are out to knock anything short of truly top-notch physique existing in any bodypart. Some who have met Waterbury say he in person appears about 250 lb in quite lean condition: photographs can be deceiving as there are optical illusions we cannot overcome regardless of intellectually knowing the truth. For example, no matter that you know that the Moon is the same size at the horizon as when high in the sky, and seen for yourself that it matches (approximately) the width of a dime held at arm’s length regardless of where it is in the sky, and appears the same width no matter where it is in the sky if viewed through a tube, nonetheless it is going to look way bigger at the horizon when using no such references but just looking.

Similarly, we can know very thoroughly that in a photograph the eye largely references other sizes to head size to judge body size, and therefore a larger individual that has a head that is bigger yet in proportion will look smaller than a smaller individual who has, in proportion, a more moderate or especially if a touch small head size. Waterbury has a physically large head. Thus, to the eye his body appears smaller than it is. Wow, therefore he must be a slacker.

Besides it being ridiculous to criticize his size as a means of knocking his program, if I recall correctly he has significant athletic accomplishments. Beyond that, if it were the case that he had completely crappy genetics (certainly not crappy though) and therefore much less of a physique than actual and no one with the same genetics with any method and dedication would have a physique satisfying these folk, that would still say nothing whatsoever about the suitability of his training method for his target audience. Arguing that he is small or undeveloped is just silly, as personal opinion.

The fact, and it is the important and relevant fact, is that his methods satisfy a given significant segment. Apparently very much so.

The site has never been only about bodybuilding for maximum size and/or best muscular appearance, exclusively. Waterbury has never said his methods are about that and most of those that like his methods are not in that camp. Many are interested in improved sports performance or other better physical performance in their lives and don’t really have bodybuilding type goals.

What is ridiculous is those that take his articles, or any articles aimed at purposes other than flat-out bodybuilding, and claim that for “everyone but the elite” this is the way to bodybuild.

That really is the thing that most here, IMO, are objecting to. And rightly so.

107

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
trextacy wrote:

The fact is that certain people around here are heavily emotionally invested in tearing down a particular contributor- Chad Waterbury.

You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a “fact.”

Myself, I would characterize that as not only an almost undoubtedly false statement, but a completely ridiculous one – that ANYBODY here is “heavily emotionally invested in tearing down Chad Waterbury.”

There are some that enjoy ridiculing his accomplishments including his physique, which I think is (also) ridiculous. But these are the same folk that will call anything less than 20" calves (for example) pathetic, who are out to knock anything short of truly top-notch physique existing in any bodypart. Some who have met Waterbury say he appears about 250 lb in quite lean condition, and if I recall correctly he has significant athletic accomplishments. Beyond that, if it were the case that he had completely crappy genetics (certainly not crappy though) and therefore much less of a physique than actual and no one with the same genetics with any method and dedication would have a physique satisfying these folk, that would still say nothing whatsoever about the suitability of his training method for his target audience.

The fact is that his methods satisfy a given significant segment.

The site has never been about bodybuilding for maximum size and/or best muscular appearance only. Waterbury has never said his methods are about that and most of those that like his methods are not in that camp. Many are interested in improved sports performance or other better physical performance in their lives and don’t really have bodybuilding type goals.

What is ridiculous is those that take his articles, or any articles aimed at purposes other than flat-out bodybuilding, and claim that for “everyone but the elite” this is the way to bodybuild.

That really is the thing that most here, IMO, are objecting to. And rightly so.

[/quote]

Well said…only you forgot that many people believe this is the way to bodybuild BECAUSE HE USES ENOUGH HYPERBOLE AND RANDOM OFF THE WALL STATEMENTS TO GIVE THAT IMPRESSION.

CW doesn’t just present his routine…he tears down bodybuilders in the process and then acts like the only reason they grow by not using his routine is because they have alien genetics and use enough steroids to fill the Panama Canal from back to front. Remember, bodybuilders can’t climb stairs.

I have had this exact debate with him before (even though the entire thread was erased for some strange reason) and it took several pages for him to admit this…but he did admit it.

108

I haven’t read all of his statements or articles. I will take your statement as being completely correct as that is ordinarily the case.

Granting this, then yes, the hyperbolic and off-the-wall statements are fully worthy of criticism.

109

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I haven’t read all of his statements or articles. I will take your statement as being completely correct as that is ordinarily the case.

Granting this, then yes, the hyperbolic and off-the-wall statements are fully worthy of criticism. [/quote]

I have always avoided his articles…until they spark a debate and someone tells me to take a look. Go find his thread about “The Critic”…the article discussion. Most of my replies were deleted so it now looks as if I never raised an issue at all, but it should still be clear why people speak poorly about him in a bodybuilding context.

He was apparently under the impression that he was the only educated person on the site at one time.

110

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
trextacy wrote:

The fact is that certain people around here are heavily emotionally invested in tearing down a particular contributor- Chad Waterbury.

You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a “fact.”

Myself, I would characterize that as not only an almost undoubtedly false statement, but a completely ridiculous one – that ANYBODY here is “heavily emotionally invested in tearing down Chad Waterbury.”

There are some that enjoy ridiculing his accomplishments including his physique, which I think is (also) ridiculous. But these are the same folk that will call anything less than 20" calves (for example) pathetic, who are out to knock anything short of truly top-notch physique existing in any bodypart. Some who have met Waterbury say he in person appears about 250 lb in quite lean condition: photographs can be deceiving as there are optical illusions we cannot overcome regardless of intellectually knowing the truth. For example, no matter that you know that the Moon is the same size at the horizon as when high in the sky, and seen for yourself that it matches (approximately) the width of a dime held at arm’s length regardless of where it is in the sky, and appears the same width no matter where it is in the sky if viewed through a tube, nonetheless it is going to look way bigger at the horizon when using no such references but just looking.

Similarly, we can know very thoroughly that in a photograph the eye largely references other sizes to head size to judge body size, and therefore a larger individual that has a head that is bigger yet in proportion will look smaller than a smaller individual who has, in proportion, a more moderate or especially if a touch small head size. Waterbury has a physically large head. Thus, to the eye his body appears smaller than it is. Wow, therefore he must be a slacker.

Besides it being ridiculous to criticize his size as a means of knocking his program, if I recall correctly he has significant athletic accomplishments. Beyond that, if it were the case that he had completely crappy genetics (certainly not crappy though) and therefore much less of a physique than actual and no one with the same genetics with any method and dedication would have a physique satisfying these folk, that would still say nothing whatsoever about the suitability of his training method for his target audience. Arguing that he is small or undeveloped is just silly, as personal opinion.

The fact, and it is the important and relevant fact, is that his methods satisfy a given significant segment. Apparently very much so.

The site has never been only about bodybuilding for maximum size and/or best muscular appearance, exclusively. Waterbury has never said his methods are about that and most of those that like his methods are not in that camp. Many are interested in improved sports performance or other better physical performance in their lives and don’t really have bodybuilding type goals.

What is ridiculous is those that take his articles, or any articles aimed at purposes other than flat-out bodybuilding, and claim that for “everyone but the elite” this is the way to bodybuild.

That really is the thing that most here, IMO, are objecting to. And rightly so.

[/quote]

I’m not defending Chad Waterbury. I’m saying that it is a fact (yes, I know what that means and if you’ve been a part of these threads before and were honest you would acknowledge it) that many here have invested a lot of time fighting against him, either directly or indirectly.

CW is not the end all be all nor the spokesperson for full body training. He didn’t invent it, and he sure didn’t perfect it.

By saying full body programs have a place in bodybuilding, I’m not necessarily saying that CW’s version of it is the way to go.

For instance, in Modok’s other thread, someone suggested that Madcow’s 5x5 (linear, intermediate) could be used by someone for a couple of years and continue to progress and add muscle provided there is a caloric surplus, of course.

So, if someone had done some training, was 150 lbs, 18 years old and wanted to get out fo the beginner stage and begin bodybuilding, having them work their stength and lifts up for 2 years on that program along with a serious diet would yield large increase in muscle. I bet a chest/bi, back/tri, legs, shoulders 4-way would too.

The bottom line is that just because CW advocates full body, doesn’t mean that all full body approaches suck for bodybuilding.

111

[quote]trextacy wrote:

So, if someone had done some training, was 150 lbs, 18 years old and wanted to get out fo the beginner stage and begin bodybuilding, having them work their stength and lifts up for 2 years on that program along with a serious diet would yield large increase in muscle. [/quote]

Good for them. It would likely also cause imbalances and cause that same newbie to avoid thinking of individual body parts and focus only on specific exercises and movements.

There are always several ways to get a job done, but that doesn’t mean it is the best way which is exactly what most of his followers believe as evidenced by many of these posts. They have written it right here. They think that TBT somehow yields better results than anything else for newbies. Do you know why they think that? Do you think they are pulling that belief out of thin air or do you want to take a leap and consider how CW writes may be why they think this?

That alone is what many (including myself) object to, not CW himself. I have never met the man. I only know him from an ancient internet debate years back where he threw a temper tantrum.

112

LOL, boy do people prove your point when they don’t get the sarcasm.

BOTH TBT and Splits leave you with lagging bodyparts. You guys used different routines and splits to what you felt was necessary in the mirror, the same thing a TBT person would do. So again if you state one gains muscle on TBT what’s wrong with doing a 3 month run to gain muscle in all the major muscle groups, then looking at your body and deciding on how you should train next?

You guys are using splits, which can mean literally one or a ton of combinations of muscle groups per day and comparing it to exactly one style of training.

So if Squelchy did 6 months and gained 60lbs of muscle which is a lot better than most on here, he can use other routines/splits to fix his lats or whatever else.

113

Another question, I know one or some of the T-Nation authors rights for mens health sometimes. Isn’t it Chad? or is it Christian? if it’s Chad, aren’t you basically going from his program to his program, by following the book?

114

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
LOL, boy do people prove your point when they don’t get the sarcasm.

BOTH TBT and Splits leave you with lagging bodyparts. You guys used different routines and splits to what you felt was necessary in the mirror, the same thing a TBT person would do. So again if you state one gains muscle on TBT what’s wrong with doing a 3 month run to gain muscle in all the major muscle groups, then looking at your body and deciding on how you should train next?

You guys are using splits, which can mean literally one or a ton of combinations of muscle groups per day and comparing it to exactly one style of training.

So if Squelchy did 6 months and gained 60lbs of muscle which is a lot better than most on here, he can use other routines/splits to fix his lats or whatever else.
[/quote]

His perception was that he was right on track. Did you skim that other thread linked here? He thought his traps were huge. He thought his arms were huge. I doubt he even considered he was lagging in those areas until he came here because he was surrounded by people doing worse than him on that other site.

Most of these guys are not thinking of these routines as “something I do until I get to a certain point”. If that were so, he would have corrected that lat, trap, shoulder issue before the end of nearly 3 years had passed.

People like this are not doing constant assessment of progress and then making intelligent changes…because they have more faith in some brand name training program than they do in their own effort.

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
LOL, boy do people prove your point when they don’t get the sarcasm.

BOTH TBT and Splits leave you with lagging bodyparts. You guys used different routines and splits to what you felt was necessary in the mirror, the same thing a TBT person would do. So again if you state one gains muscle on TBT what’s wrong with doing a 3 month run to gain muscle in all the major muscle groups, then looking at your body and deciding on how you should train next?

You guys are using splits, which can mean literally one or a ton of combinations of muscle groups per day and comparing it to exactly one style of training.

So if Squelchy did 6 months and gained 60lbs of muscle which is a lot better than most on here, he can use other routines/splits to fix his lats or whatever else.

His perception was that he was right on track. Did you skim that other thread linked here? He thought his traps were huge. He thought his arms were huge. I doubt he even considered he was lagging in those areas until he came here because he was surrounded by people doing worse than him on that other site.

Most of these guys are not thinking of these routines as “something I do until I get to a certain point”. If that were so, he would have corrected that lat, trap, shoulder issue before the end of nearly 3 years had passed.

People like this are not doing constant assessment of progress and then making intelligent changes…because they have more faith in some brand name training program than they do in their own effort.[/quote]

A full body program can have all the isolation movements to make sure there are no lagging parts though. There’s nothing that says you can’t throw in shrugs, laterals, curls, skullcrushers, calf raises, etc. on a full body program.

If you want 9 sets per week of direct biceps work, just work them in 3 full body sessions for 3 sets at a time, maybe with barbell curl, hammer curl and concentration curls (dif exercise each time).

116

[quote]trextacy wrote:

A full body program can have all the isolation movements to make sure there are no lagging parts though. There’s nothing that says you can’t throw in shrugs, laterals, curls, skullcrushers, calf raises, etc. on a full body program.

If you want 9 sets per week of direct biceps work, just work them in 3 full body sessions for 3 sets at a time, maybe with barbell curl, hammer curl and concentration curls (dif exercise each time).

[/quote]

Yes, yes, we all know all things are possible with a TBT routine.

What you seem to be missing are the several posts (at least two in this very thread) of people claiming they don’t need to start training biceps directly yet…or that they can’t see why they would need to add direct work for a muscle group on their upper arm that only weighs 4lbs (this dumbassery was written here as well).

That is what I debated with CW, his delivery sucks when it comes to the truth…but it sure is great for selling shit which I am sure is all he cares about.

Newbies are turned around because they see hyperbole and take it for the gospel truth.

117

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
LOL, boy do people prove your point when they don’t get the sarcasm.

BOTH TBT and Splits leave you with lagging bodyparts. You guys used different routines and splits to what you felt was necessary in the mirror, the same thing a TBT person would do. So again if you state one gains muscle on TBT what’s wrong with doing a 3 month run to gain muscle in all the major muscle groups, then looking at your body and deciding on how you should train next?

You guys are using splits, which can mean literally one or a ton of combinations of muscle groups per day and comparing it to exactly one style of training.

So if Squelchy did 6 months and gained 60lbs of muscle which is a lot better than most on here, he can use other routines/splits to fix his lats or whatever else.

His perception was that he was right on track. Did you skim that other thread linked here? He thought his traps were huge. He thought his arms were huge. I doubt he even considered he was lagging in those areas until he came here because he was surrounded by people doing worse than him on that other site.

Most of these guys are not thinking of these routines as “something I do until I get to a certain point”. If that were so, he would have corrected that lat, trap, shoulder issue before the end of nearly 3 years had passed.

People like this are not doing constant assessment of progress and then making intelligent changes…because they have more faith in some brand name training program than they do in their own effort.[/quote]

Ok, but I wouldn’t blame TBT for their lack of “intelligence” to training.

118

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

Ok, but I wouldn’t blame TBT for their lack of “intelligence” to training.[/quote]

How is the program itself ever to blame? Some of the people who are to blame are the authors giving that commentary while injecting their own complexes (like one here who is apparently more afraid of getting fat again than he is of an Ebola infection) which leads to newbies taking on these thoughts for themselves.

“Bodybuilders can’t climb stairs”

119

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Airtruth wrote:

Ok, but I wouldn’t blame TBT for their lack of “intelligence” to training.

How is the program itself ever to blame? Some of the people who are to blame are the authors giving that commentary while injecting their own complexes (like one here who is apparently more afraid of getting fat again than he is of an Ebola infection) which leads to newbies taking on these thoughts for themselves.

“Bodybuilders can’t climb stairs”[/quote]

They can’t… stairs are too little, they jump em. Damn X I thought you seen the hulk b4.

120

[quote]trextacy wrote:
I’m saying that it is a fact (yes, I know what that means and if you’ve been a part of these threads before and were honest you would acknowledge it)…[/quote]

Fuck you.