[quote]pumped340 wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
All right guys.
I think it’s time for CW to weigh in on this.
Let’s Clear Some Stuff Up
LOL
that seems like it would be really funny if i got it lol
greekdawg how many sets are you hitting each muscle with each week with the split your using?[/quote]
and whats his split actually look like? whats the weekly breakdown from monday to sunday?
People can argue theory all day. Where are all the present day great physiques developed exclusively with TBT?
TBTers remind me of HITers in that they desperately cling on to a few examples of past lifters.
For HITers it’s Mentzer and Viator, and for TBTers it’s the Golden Age lifters like Reeves and Park (who later switched to split training).
Listen, CW didn’t single handedly resuscitated TBT, he just popularized it on this web site (like he also did with 8x3). A small percentage of trainees never stopped training this way since it was first introduced in the Golden Age. Where are all the great physiques TBT produced during that time?
But for the sake of argument let’s pretend that CW did invent TBT on Friday December 14, 2001 with his "The Next “Big Three” program ( http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding/the_next_big_three_program&cr= ) - shouldn’t there be at least be a few impressive physiques developed with this method in the past 6.5 years?
I mean, according to CW high frequency blows away traditional split routines because you recruit (which I feel is different than stimulate) the same muscles 3 times more often than traditional splits. According to CW this provides 3 x 53 weeks = 159 growth opportunities compared to the 53 growth opportunities the lowly traditional split provides.
So, seeing how his first TBT article is already 6.5 years old we should be seeing at least a handful of trainees who look like they’ve been training for 6.5 years x 3 (times more growth opportunities) = 19.5 years! Hell, because of the law of diminishing return let’s only calculate it at 2 growth opportunities x 6.5 years = 13 years.
Sadly this isn’t the case… and in reality most TBTers look like rank beginners.
Listen, I gave TBT a try for almost a year because I, like most of you, wish that what CW was promising would pan out (actually I regressed). I mean, why wouldn’t I? Spend less time in the gym and get more results sounds awesome to me. I have no vested interest in split routines and don’t make or lose anything if they continue or cease to exist, but TBT routines they were as effective for me as they were for virtually everyone who has recently tried them… at least from a real world results POV.
PS: And by the way, I do agree that TBT does recruit more muscle per session than splits do, but simply recruiting a muscle does not mean it was sufficiently stimulated to cause growth. If it was that simple every time we’d move we’d be causing growth.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
seriously, if the argument is “professor x is big, professor x has always done a traditional split, therefore everything else sucks” then please tell me what weight you were when started lifting seriously (after age 17-18; pubescent “gains” don’t count for shit because men grow up and gain weight naturally) and what you weigh now. how old are you? i’m just curious (honestly).
[/quote]
Umm, if Im not mistaken, prof is in the the neighborhood of 260-270 naturally and back when he put his pictures on the Flex forums he was like 210 or so and looked like a grown ass man to me.
I think the more important question is how much have YOU gained post-puberty using your training ideas?
A previous post (several pages ago) brought up a good point. What is TBT? There’s a big difference from 8 exercises working every small and large bodypart for 3 sets. This is a beginners routine that is also TBT. CW and others use a horizontal push, horizontal pull and a quad or ham dominant exercise, throw in some single joint work for weak points, vary the rep/set range, superset, triset some things (the whole 9-yards). This to me is more of an advanced routine that I think would serve seasoned lifters. So my question is, what is TBT?
[quote]pepperman wrote:
A previous post (several pages ago) brought up a good point. What is TBT? There’s a big difference from 8 exercises working every small and large bodypart for 3 sets. This is a beginners routine that is also TBT. CW and others use a horizontal push, horizontal pull and a quad or ham dominant exercise, throw in some single joint work for weak points, vary the rep/set range, superset, triset some things (the whole 9-yards). This to me is more of an advanced routine that I think would serve seasoned lifters. So my question is, what is TBT?[/quote]
CW’s definition of TBT is having in one session at least:
1 compound push exercise (horizontal or vertical)
1 compound pull exercise (horizontal or vertical)
1 squat or dead lift variation
Anything else, including isolation exercises, is gravy.
this isn’t entirely related to the split vs. TBT argument, but an earlier comment reminded me of something i read awhile ago on ironaddicts web site dealing with these splits doing 4-5 workouts a week. Keep in mind he trains tons of clients and has gotten up to 260 himself at around 5’10-11 if i’m not mistaken.
www.ironaddicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6823
look at that last post too by a guy named “halfway”. He’s huge and says he can’t recover from 4 days a week and doesn’t follow anything like how “bodybuilders” train with extremely high volume
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
pepperman wrote:
A previous post (several pages ago) brought up a good point. What is TBT? There’s a big difference from 8 exercises working every small and large bodypart for 3 sets. This is a beginners routine that is also TBT. CW and others use a horizontal push, horizontal pull and a quad or ham dominant exercise, throw in some single joint work for weak points, vary the rep/set range, superset, triset some things (the whole 9-yards). This to me is more of an advanced routine that I think would serve seasoned lifters. So my question is, what is TBT?
CW’s definition of TBT is having in one session at least:
1 compound push exercise (horizontal or vertical)
1 compound pull exercise (horizontal or vertical)
1 squat or dead lift variation
Anything else, including isolation exercises, is gravy.
[/quote]
Maybe in a few programs (25 method, maximum recruitment training), but I believe his official TBT program included 4 compounds with 2 isolations movements. The programs that suggest 3 primary compounds still include assistance work at the end.
The premise of those programs is that an individual is willing or able to devote approximately 3 hours per week in the gym…BASED ON THAT ASSUMPTION (and that alone), those programs provide alternate templates, depending on whether the goal is strenth or hypertrophy. No one has ever argued that those types of programs are optimum for developing professional heavyweight bbers. Come on.
Also, CW is not the oracle of full body programs and he isn’t T-Nation’s L. Ron Hubbard.
Joel Marion’s “TBT” is a 5-day per week plan (Stripped Down Hypertrophy- use the search function)
Brian Haycock’s program is still different (HST).
Look at CT’s article on today’s front page (Reality Show program). Still yet another take on full body.
Bill Starr- another take.
Rippetoe- another take (related to Starr of course)
Here are 4-5 modern, recent takes on this form of training that are not Chad Waterbury.
You seem intelligent and your prior post illustrates that you understand CW’s unique take on “tbt”. However, please look at the article I posted earlier in this thread (I’ve now posted the link twice). Very different from CW as well.
Without knowing anything about your diet, perhaps one reason you didn’t progress is you didn’t force progression, which is key to these programs working. I don’t know (obviously).
It could be that a split works better for you. That is of course very possible if not likely. I am not anti-split.
Why even bother arguing anymore? If people with sub-par physiques and progress want to keep limiting themselves let them.
[quote]pepperman wrote:
A previous post (several pages ago) brought up a good point. What is TBT?[/quote]
I think that’s a good point. Is 5x5 not a total body-type program? I’ve rarely seen people bash 5x5 on here, but it seems like TBT gets shit on constantly.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Since powerlifters work the whole body, I doubt this is true. If you are using extreme loads, then the “pump” and volume for volume’s sake style of split training is not likely to lead to big numhers.
If you nuance it to say “a split of some kind” as you’ve done, you have an “out” but that is simply wordsmithing it. This isn’t entire body vs. everything else…this is a discussion about whether “traditional bodybuilding” style split training is superior than full body for building muscle.[/quote]
are you saying most powerlifters do fullbody routines?
that’s moronic at best.
I have not read this entire thread, but one point people fail to mention. Steroids greatly increase the muscle’s ability to recover. Why would it be necessary to be on a split to make steroids effective? Steroids would allow TBT to more effective due to the greater recovery ability. It is the exact opposite of what a lot of people are claiming.
When you are natural and strong and recruiting a large number of motor units you need a decent amount of time to recover, whether that is 3-7 days depends on a lot of factors. So if TBT was awesome for size, it would work even better when on juice, not the other way around.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I have not read this entire thread, but one point people fail to mention. Steroids greatly increase the muscle’s ability to recover. Why would it be necessary to be on a split to make steroids effective? Steroids would allow TBT to more effective due to the greater recovery ability. It is the exact opposite of what a lot of people are claiming.
When you are natural and strong and recruiting a large number of motor units you need a decent amount of time to recover, whether that is 3-7 days depends on a lot of factors. So if TBT was awesome for size, it would work even better when on juice, not the other way around.[/quote]
From another angle some folks seem to think that steroids somehow magically transform people into alien beings who are no longer operating under the same physiological rules as everybody else.
They make everything that works work better. They do not make ineffective methods work, at least not to the degree they think.
In other words, generally speaking, what works best naturally still works best enhanced albeit faster and more dramatically.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I have not read this entire thread, but one point people fail to mention. Steroids greatly increase the muscle’s ability to recover. Why would it be necessary to be on a split to make steroids effective? Steroids would allow TBT to more effective due to the greater recovery ability. It is the exact opposite of what a lot of people are claiming.
When you are natural and strong and recruiting a large number of motor units you need a decent amount of time to recover, whether that is 3-7 days depends on a lot of factors. So if TBT was awesome for size, it would work even better when on juice, not the other way around.[/quote]
Good post. They won’t accept that, however.
Think about it…when I started, I based my actions on those around me who had seen tons of progress. I didn’t go running up to the smallest guy in the gym for advice. I went up to the people benching 2 and 3 times what I could back then.
Here, we have a bunch of people who have seen less progress REFUSING to accept what worked for decades before they ever got started and claiming it is now inferior. They disregard the fact that there are very few people who ever got truly HUGE who trained that way in majority all so they can focus more on theory.
I mean, I treat people all day long and I don’t think like this. I am sure I have had more clinical and lab experience when it comes to the human body in a medical setting than most of the authors here and I STILL don’t think like that.
What kind of mind ignores real world results in majority to focus on theory? If you have to rationalize the gains others are seeing by writing it off as simply related to drug use or genetics, you may want to check why you feel the need to do so.
Anabolics would aid in recovery…so why do they think the best in the world would choose a routine that worked LESS efficiently to build muscle mass? Does this really make sense to people? They really think we are hitting the gym several days a week because we are too stupid to know better?
“Well it works for me so I’m fine doing it this way”
It amazes me how blindy people will follow a belief system just because its what they’ve been doing for a while. Its like they’re world will collapse if they even acknowledge that theres a possiblity that they may be wrong or theres a better way.
Forget discussing intensity, fibre recruitment and all the other technical shit. Get two groups of guys. Let one use a good TBT routine, the other a good split routine. Which group will make the best gains? Answers on a postcard please.
Jesus, I missed all the fun…
This is like arguing with zombies…
Zombie: “Brains…”
Random Big Guy: “At some point you simply get too strong to train your whole body for hypertrophy every session, three times a week.”
Zombie: “Braaains…”
Random Big Guy: “But where is the army of totally huge people who got there using only tbt and managed this faster than split-users?”
Zombie: "Brains…? "
Random Big Guy: “Well, how big and strong are you? You know, when you’re small and weak, then you’ll grow off anything… As long as the program follows logic and you keep on progressing in the hypertrophy zone…
So how big did you get off TBT in the 6+ years during which this argument has been going on on this site?”
Zombie: “Brains.”
Random Big Guy: “Why the hell am I even arguing with you, you say the same shit again and again and completely ignore reason and reality. And you’re not even close to big, yet you still argue?”
Zombie: “But… BRAAAAAAAINS!”
Just wait till I get back from from training with my crappy DC split routine…
Substitute “BRAINS” with “ASS” and I think you’ve nailed it.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I have not read this entire thread, but one point people fail to mention. Steroids greatly increase the muscle’s ability to recover. Why would it be necessary to be on a split to make steroids effective?
Steroids would allow TBT to more effective due to the greater recovery ability. It is the exact opposite of what a lot of people are claiming.
When you are natural and strong and recruiting a large number of motor units you need a decent amount of time to recover, whether that is 3-7 days depends on a lot of factors. So if TBT was awesome for size, it would work even better when on juice, not the other way around.[/quote]
I am quite sure you know much more about training than I do, but I don’t think that your logic makes sense here. Recovery from the complete decimation of a muscle group in a split is a different animal than recovery when you haven’t trained to failure 3x per week.
This is illustrated by the fact that it takes longer to recover from 15 sets in 1 session than it does 15 sets spread out over 3 sessions.
Hypothetically, it would allow someone to apply that extreme level of damage to their muscles and STILL train them 2x per week (hence the 6-day, each muscle 2x per week split that used to be more popular with pro bb-ers).
So, if assistance is in the mix, your split does not sacrifice as much on frequency (you get the best of both worlds). On a full body approach, the recovery-aiding properties of AAS does not provide as much help because recovery is already “managed” in a full body routine and there is frequency.
And just fyi, if you go back and look at the thread, NO ONE ever said that steriods were “necessary” for a split to work. Prof twisted a post where I said splits “may work particularly well” when steroids are involved and he responded something to the effect of “LOL I’m falling out of my chair because you said steriods are necessary for splits to work!” then acted like that was the only way to take my post.
wtf.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tim Henriques wrote:
I have not read this entire thread, but one point people fail to mention. Steroids greatly increase the muscle’s ability to recover. Why would it be necessary to be on a split to make steroids effective? Steroids would allow TBT to more effective due to the greater recovery ability. It is the exact opposite of what a lot of people are claiming.
When you are natural and strong and recruiting a large number of motor units you need a decent amount of time to recover, whether that is 3-7 days depends on a lot of factors. So if TBT was awesome for size, it would work even better when on juice, not the other way around.
Good post. They won’t accept that, however.
Think about it…when I started, I based my actions on those around me who had seen tons of progress. I didn’t go running up to the smallest guy in the gym for advice. I went up to the people benching 2 and 3 times what I could back then.
Here, we have a bunch of people who have seen less progress REFUSING to accept what worked for decades before they ever got started and claiming it is now inferior. They disregard the fact that there are very few people who ever got truly HUGE who trained that way in majority all so they can focus more on theory.
I mean, I treat people all day long and I don’t think like this. I am sure I have had more clinical and lab experience when it comes to the human body in a medical setting than most of the authors here and I STILL don’t think like that.
What kind of mind ignores real world results in majority to focus on theory? If you have to rationalize the gains others are seeing by writing it off as simply related to drug use or genetics, you may want to check why you feel the need to do so.
Anabolics would aid in recovery…so why do they think the best in the world would choose a routine that worked LESS efficiently to build muscle mass? Does this really make sense to people? They really think we are hitting the gym several days a week because we are too stupid to know better?[/quote]
My points have not changed:
Full body training works well for newbs and intermediates for strength and hypertrophy.
Splits become particularly effective when someone has built enough strength and mass to warrant splitting up the body. What is “too much” for one session is, most of the time, more than what most people are willing to do.
What is “advanced” vs. “intermediate” is not what most on here would think.
Waterbury is not the master of full body training. I have provided an article from 1971 and cited CT’s article from yesterday, Alwyn Cosgrove, Joel Marion’s Stripped Down Hypertrophy, Rippetoe/Starr and Brian Haycock’s HST as examples of plenty of modern (not just Golden Age) trainers who have obtained great results with full body methods.
That splits became the dominant training protocol once steroids were introduced is not a coincidence.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO BANG THE DRUM OF “DO WHAT BODYBUILDERS AND THE BIG GUYS DO” IN A DEBATE ABOUT TRAINING METHODS, TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT MOST OF THOSE GUYS ARE ON AAS IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND IGNORES A CRITICAL FACTOR.
Now, why these points draw so much ire in a discussion about training is beyond me. I would be interested in Tim Henriques’ take on the above points since I respect his opinion. I would like to hear Prof’s and some other guys points on these as well, but I’ve made them before and they have been ignored them in favor of ad hoc attacks so I’m not holding my breath.
Seriously, GTFO
You’re hurting my brain from all of your stupidity.
Just stop.
No one cares. Do you’re CW sucking elsewhere.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Seriously, GTFO
You’re hurting my brain from all of your stupidity.
Just stop.
No one cares. Do you’re CW sucking elsewhere.[/quote]
Hey dumbass- this thread (which you clicked on, read, hit “reply” to, and typed an answer in) is about splits vs full body approaches. That is what it’s about. That is what it will continue to be about, because that’s the way discussion forums work. That is also why there are multiple boards and threads/topics within those boards.
Do you want me to leave this thread so you can talk about something ELSE in it? If you don’t like it, don’t click on it and read!
If people didn’t care about the topic there wouldn’t be roundtables on the issue, constant discussion and this thread wouldn’t be 12 pages.
Naturally, you don’t have anything of substance to contribute, but still want to post so you can look badass to all your anonymous friends. That is why there are all of these “gtfo, stfu, you are stupid, my brain hurts, you are a zombie, you are moronic, lol, etc.” ad infinitum rather than meaningul discussion. It speaks volumes (which is ironic I suppose).
So, how about you gtfo or answer at least 1 of the points in my prior post.