People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar
[quote]crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar[/quote]
Like who?
Is there some new exercise that was just developed which somehow works every muscle in your body with each rep?
No?
O.K., then you are doing a split whether you like it or not.
Do BB’ers hit every muscle group within a training period?
Yes.
Are they doing TBT? No.
It all depends on where you draw the line in a training session, period, or cycle.
I think that where a lot of people newer to training make a mistake is when they don’t understand the appropriate application of a given training system or technique.
They lack the ability to understand how to conjugate training variables to achieve a desired effect.
Then comes the TBT versus split debate.
The list of people who have had NATURAL success with a tbt-style approach is long. The argument that “no successful BBers have used tbt” is false.
Regardless- the debate is this: Which training style is best for most adult males who are training naturally and want to build muscle.
I am getting very sick of the “dogma” that is preached by the T-Nation gatekeepers that says that “if you want to be a bodybuilder, train like one”…when they are ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room–the fact that the mass monsters (that apparently some that post here aspire to be like and actually think they can approach naturally, lol) have used copious amounts of drugs in connection with their 6-way volume split.
I used to beat the “train like a bodybuilder” drum myself. However, it takes more to be a bodybuilder than simply declaring it. IMHO, true “bodybuilding” does not begin until a strong base of strength and mass have been built. It’s like saying “if you want to fight like an 8th degree black belt, train like one!” 'fraid not. It takes more than saying “I’m a bodybuilder” or even “I want to be a bodybuilder” to justify training like a professional BBer.
I would be shocked if ANY of the Mr. Olympia competitors (much less the winners) over the last 30-40 years did not use assistance. Many, many, many professional bb-ers (even ones at tested events) who achieve the kind of size that the anti-full body people on here seem to aspire to were on drugs or used them to cross over their genetic limits. The ones that weren’t (if there were any) were so genetically gifted that to analyze “what they did” is pointless.
I’m not saying judging what they do. BUT, I am saying that to compare training styles as if they function in a vacuum is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It’s not like the only difference between Alwyn Cosgrove and Ronnie Coleman is their training styles.
It’s like a bunch of chicks in a discussion forum talking about how to get to look like a porn star without discussing cosmetic surgery or discussing how to be a runway model without acknowledging that a healthy diet of cigs, diet coke, cocaine, and otherwordly genetics is not at play. Nope, they all just do pilates and the zone diet.
Also, the notion that FB workouts are for pussies is, in my experience, completely backwards. I don’t see how a workout that consists of deads, presses, chins, squats, etc. can be considered “pussy” by any means, while I guess a high volume “arm day” is considered bad ass.
Finally, the so-called “Golden Age” BBers would not hold a candle to today’s heavy weight BBers in terms of shear size and contest leanness, BUT, they did it naturally, looked much better year round, and did it using full body and higher frequency approaches and look better than essentially all of the posters on here (even those who kid themselves into thinking they are going to walk around at a muscular 270 some day naturally).
To summarize: I’m not trying to be an asshole. I can see why there would be a backlash against someone like Chad Waterbury and his fanboys. I do believe that splits can work. When an appreciable amount of muscle has already been built, splitting up the body may very well be the best way to go about inducing further growth in certain areas assuming pure muscle growth is the goal. However, there aren’t that many people on here who really fit that description.
Oh and check out CT’s article for today- a mass program centered around lifting heavy weights, compound movements, full body, 3 times per week. Hmmmmm, I guess he is all of the sudden wrong. That workout won’t build muscle??
[quote]crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar[/quote]
Name three of these people.
Just three.
I think X and a few others already mentioned the point that TBT may give the most bang for your buck for those time restricted individuals.
For the rest of us who can make the time, split is usually the most efficient use of our time in the gym.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar
Name three of these people.
Just three.
[/quote]
John Grimek
Reg Park- http://www.robertuniverse.com/davidgentle/parkgentle.htm
Sergio Oliva (I have read that he built most of his mass using a full body approach and split things up once he was very strong and very large).
Steve Reeves
[quote]trextacy wrote:
The list of people who have had NATURAL success with a tbt-style approach is long. The argument that “no successful BBers have used tbt” is false.
Regardless- the debate is this: Which training style is best for most adult males who are training naturally and want to build muscle.
I am getting very sick of the “dogma” that is preached by the T-Nation gatekeepers that says that “if you want to be a bodybuilder, train like one”…when they are ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room–the fact that the mass monsters (that apparently some that post here aspire to be like and actually think they can approach naturally, lol) have used copious amounts of drugs in connection with their 6-way volume split.
I used to beat the “train like a bodybuilder” drum myself. However, it takes more to be a bodybuilder than simply declaring it. IMHO, true “bodybuilding” does not begin until a strong base of strength and mass have been built. It’s like saying “if you want to fight like an 8th degree black belt, train like one!” 'fraid not. It takes more than saying “I’m a bodybuilder” or even “I want to be a bodybuilder” to justify training like a professional BBer.
I would be shocked if ANY of the Mr. Olympia competitors (much less the winners) over the last 30-40 years did not use assistance. Many, many, many professional bb-ers (even ones at tested events) who achieve the kind of size that the anti-full body people on here seem to aspire to were on drugs or used them to cross over their genetic limits. The ones that weren’t (if there were any) were so genetically gifted that to analyze “what they did” is pointless.
I’m not saying judging what they do. BUT, I am saying that to compare training styles as if they function in a vacuum is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It’s not like the only difference between Alwyn Cosgrove and Ronnie Coleman is their training styles.
It’s like a bunch of chicks in a discussion forum talking about how to get to look like a porn star without discussing cosmetic surgery or discussing how to be a runway model without acknowledging that a healthy diet of cigs, diet coke, cocaine, and otherwordly genetics is not at play. Nope, they all just do pilates and the zone diet.
Also, the notion that FB workouts are for pussies is, in my experience, completely backwards. I don’t see how a workout that consists of deads, presses, chins, squats, etc. can be considered “pussy” by any means, while I guess a high volume “arm day” is considered bad ass.
Finally, the so-called “Golden Age” BBers would not hold a candle to today’s heavy weight BBers in terms of shear size and contest leanness, BUT, they did it naturally, looked much better year round, and did it using full body and higher frequency approaches and look better than essentially all of the posters on here (even those who kid themselves into thinking they are going to walk around at a muscular 270 some day naturally).
To summarize: I’m not trying to be an asshole. I can see why there would be a backlash against someone like Chad Waterbury and his fanboys. I do believe that splits can work. When an appreciable amount of muscle has already been built, splitting up the body may very well be the best way to go about inducing further growth in certain areas assuming pure muscle growth is the goal. However, there aren’t that many people on here who really fit that description.
Oh and check out CT’s article for today- a mass program centered around lifting heavy weights, compound movements, full body, 3 times per week. Hmmmmm, I guess he is all of the sudden wrong. That workout won’t build muscle??
[/quote]
Nobody said FB doesn’t build ANY muscle.
You are flat out wrong about the guys from the past:
They were pretty much all on drugs, including Reeves and the like.
Also, I guess Prof-X and us others all somehow don’t count as current natties, or what?
You’re not really saying anything that hasn’t been debunked to the death…
I’m curious as to what your stats are, actually.
This is not supposed to be an attack on you, I’m just really curious.
[quote]crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar[/quote]
Hell, just name ONE since this seem to be taking a while.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar
Hell, just name ONE since this seem to be taking a while.[/quote]
Anybody here read that Interview were Oliva opens up about drug use back in the day (and before) ?
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar
Name three of these people.
Just three.
John Grimek
Reg Park- http://www.robertuniverse.com/davidgentle/parkgentle.htm
Sergio Oliva (I have read that he built most of his mass using a full body approach and split things up once he was very strong and very large).
Steve Reeves[/quote]
And you think Reg Park, Sergio Oliva and others were all natural?
[quote]crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar[/quote]
This idea has always driven me nuts. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the earlier bodybuilders were just as genetically superior as current bodybuilders, so their training methods have to be just adapted to our abilites as current split routines. Besides, most of them used as many split routines as full body routines throughout their careers (search the net for interviews).
Oh, and by the way, a Waterbury-type full body routine, utilizing just one upper body push, one upper body pull, and one lower body movement per session, is not the same kind of routine used by earlier bodybuilders, as they worked EVERY bodypart in a single session. In other words, even this modification seems to acknowledge the limits of full body routines.
Also, some old-timers will tell you that the old 3x a week, full body routines were done on hard/easy/medium rotations, again a far cry from the setups pushed by modern authors.
And, finally, we’re all just guessing as to how earlier bodybuilders trained, as many of them have just as many reasons to falsify/exaggerate as current bodybuilders do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
crowbar46 wrote:
People seem to forget the role of drugs in this equation. Drugs will allow split routines (or anything for that matter)to be far more effective. If you ask me, look at the bodybuilders and strongmen of yesteryear–they blow away the “modern” natural guys, and they used TBT pretty much exclusively.
Crowbar
Name three of these people.
Just three.
John Grimek
Reg Park- http://www.robertuniverse.com/davidgentle/parkgentle.htm
Sergio Oliva (I have read that he built most of his mass using a full body approach and split things up once he was very strong and very large).
Steve Reeves
And you think Reg Park, Sergio Oliva and others were all natural?[/quote]
“Moreso” than the modern guys for the simple reason that anabolics are used to a much greater degree today. The amounts of T that some of those early guys did was negligible. And, at best, all you are saying that is that it’s a wash because that would mean champion bodybuilders have used both training methods successfully when assisted.
Here is an interesting article from 1971 that shows that this debate has been raging for some time. I think it’s a great training article and still has application for 95% of T-Nation readers.
bodybuilding.ericsgym.com/trainingarticles/basicexercises/index.htm
Look, I really like training and discussing training. I like this site and I respect many of the posters on here. The disgust and condescension sprayed towards folks who simply think that full body workouts are superior to splits for beginner to intermediate lifters is uncalled for and not based on reality.
Consider this- one of the most annoying (and destructive) things young lifters do is focus on the beach/mirror muscles. Things like a “chest day” and an “arms day” are to blame for things like this. The concepts of “splits” encourages this imo. If bodybuilding were presented as simply getting progressively stronger over the whole body and training it that way, it wouldn’t be as big an issue.
Other than focusing on the mirror muscles, probably the second and third biggest training mistakes young lifters make are analyis paralysis (esp. in the internet age) and lack of real intensity. Again, the beauty of the routine laid out in the above article is that it is simple (little analyis over sets/reps/exercise selection) and cannot be done without intensity.
See my point? For many, many people, this type of training has benefits far beyond the purely physiological.
[quote]leon79 wrote:
Oh, and by the way, a Waterbury-type full body routine, utilizing just one upper body push, one upper body pull, and one lower body movement per session, is not the same kind of routine used by earlier bodybuilders, as they worked EVERY bodypart in a single session. In other words, even this modification seems to acknowledge the limits of full body routines.
[/quote]
Here is My TBT training log from the past Saturday…Give it a spin and tell me what you think…
workout
power cleans 5x3 205
workout
B1 Squats 4x5 315 Could have added 20lbs
b2 Seated row 4x5 225 wide grip light add 20lbs
C1 Step-ups 4x5 with 45lb Dumbells drop 5lbs
c2 Incline Bench 4x5 285 good weight
D1 Stand calves 4x5 415…Machine got lazy
d2 pulley crunches 4x5 195
Completed in 50 min…add 1 set of failure on barbell curl 115
[quote]trextacy wrote:
“Moreso” than the modern guys for the simple reason that anabolics are used to a much greater degree today. The amounts of T that some of those early guys did was negligible. And, at best, all you are saying that is that it’s a wash because that would mean champion bodybuilders have used both training methods successfully when assisted.[/quote]
Uh, no, what I am saying is that this argument about who’s natural and who isn’t is a wasted effort because anabolics have been used since the 50’s. I am also saying that the sheer numbers of successful bodybuilders who looked BETTER than any of the guys you just posted vastly outweighs those who tried using a TBT routine in majority. I am also saying that Sergio Oliva did not avoid isolation movements which makes your claim that he somehow used a Waterbury style TBT routine throughout his career suspect at best and a flat out lie at worst.
The point being that if the goal is to focus in on what is most likely to produce a physique that gets “wow” statements on a daily basis, your best bet is to do some form of a split routine.
None of that means that TBT is useless or that it won’t built any muscle at all.
i dont know why some are assuming full body has to have just a few compounds or low volume.
You could do full body routines 4x a week for more volume.
or you could include sets for any muscle group.
lets say you do
squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
all for 3 sets. Your doing 21 sets which one could easily complete in an hour and your getting 9 sets per body part a week which is sufficient for most people, including those with a lot of experience. If you need a little more add a 4th set to the bigger exercises and tell me thats not enough. Like i said i like splits but i dont like how some are assuming you cant have more volume or isolations in TBT.
Professor X, i am not saying i think it will benefit you any more at all, but why would you not even consider trying full body routines? I dont mean for a very long time but your bashing it without trying it when you always talk about how “if something works keep doing it”. You could do one for 8 weeks and see the results, if you only put 2lb. of lean weight on instead of 4 i dont think you’ll be too screwed
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
i dont know why some are assuming full body has to have just a few compounds or low volume.
You could do full body routines 4x a week for more volume.
or you could include sets for any muscle group.
lets say you do
squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
all for 3 sets. Your doing 21 sets which one could easily complete in an hour and your getting 9 sets per body part a week which is sufficient for most people, including those with a lot of experience. If you need a little more add a 4th set to the bigger exercises and tell me thats not enough. Like i said i like splits but i dont like how some are assuming you cant have more volume or isolations in TBT.
[/quote]
If you can do [quote]squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
[/quote]
All in one workout, your intensity SUCKS and I am betting your overall development isn’t exactly making people move out of the way.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you can do squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
All in one workout, your intensity SUCKS and I am betting your overall development isn’t exactly making people move out of the way.[/quote]
how do you know without trying it? (btw read what i said above again, i added something)
When i do my split workouts now they’re not even long, only about 40min. and when im done its easy to say “oh man i could do another 20min.” or whatever amount of extra training/time. however i’ve done TBT before and i know i actually could. I’ve done workouts where i Start with squats and push hard and do that with all the following exercises. what is this about not having intensity, do you think its physically impossible to continue after going heavy on the first few exercises…?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
i dont know why some are assuming full body has to have just a few compounds or low volume.
You could do full body routines 4x a week for more volume.
or you could include sets for any muscle group.
lets say you do
squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
all for 3 sets. Your doing 21 sets which one could easily complete in an hour and your getting 9 sets per body part a week which is sufficient for most people, including those with a lot of experience. If you need a little more add a 4th set to the bigger exercises and tell me thats not enough. Like i said i like splits but i dont like how some are assuming you cant have more volume or isolations in TBT.
If you can do squats
bench
rows
military press
calf raises
tricep ext.
bicep curls
All in one workout, your intensity SUCKS and I am betting your overall development isn’t exactly making people move out of the way.[/quote]
Look at my post above…
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
how do you know without trying it? [/quote]
Because I have trained for nearly 15 years and know my body. I know the weights I use and there is no way I could do all of that after doing what I use for bench press movements or shoulder exercises. I am not a newbie. That is WHY I usually do one body part a day or two at the most. I can bench over 405lbs for reps (not just a one rep max). When you can, come back and tell me how many other muscle groups you will be training that day. Inform me when you plan to follow that up with something like HS rows using 5 plates a side or some other movement that requires full focus and intensity to get in the air.
Some of you seem to only be viewing this through the eyes of newbies.