flex has been drug free since 2002 here is a current photo of him. he has even issued a challenge to anyone that he will freely admit to a drug test only if the challenger of his drug free status will donate a million dollars to charity of his schoice.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
trextacy wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
trextacy wrote:
On the charge that no bodybuilders use full body- i have provided MANY non-Waterbury examples.
I don’t think we’re debating what bodybuilders USE. It’s what they USED to get to where they currently are. And please, show me all these bodybuilders who got big (not maintained their size) on full body training, I would actually find that cool.
There actually isn’t a debate on this thread. It was started so people who deride proponents of full body methods can continue to complain (ironic considering they wanted the debate to go away).
There a 2 fundamental issues. First, there is the assertion that splits are vastly superior to full body approaches because pros use splits. Someone like me would say that logic is flawed when applied to a natural trainer because it doesn’t take into account the drug use component.
I would say that you can’t isolate the training variable because there are other variables (i.e. drug use) that skew the results. The fact that it’s there job (so, unlimited time and focus on bb-ing is a factor) is another factor, but not as important as the drugs.
People who act like aas and hormones are only a modest factor are kidding themselves. It isn’t just like supplements, and the shit works amazingly…if that wasn’t the case they wouldn’t do it. Period. So, that argument is a non-starter.
There may be other reasons splits are superior, but “because pros do/did it” is not a good one. This is pure intuition/opinion, but I think if you take drugs out of the equation, old school bbers who did full body (Reg Park, Steve Reeves, Grimek, etc.) would compare much more favorably with modern pros.
The other issue (the one that I find more interesting and worthy of discussion) is whether anyone with any “credibility” advocates full body training for packing on mass. I will exclude Waterbury from the discussion because, right or wrong, he has no credibility with most of the T-Cell guys.
I would say that bbers and respected trainers fall into this category, so what they do or recommend is relevant.
My only point is that full body can add large amounts of muscle and that splitting things out can be good for advanced bbers who need to focus on specific bodyparts or move so much weight that it makes sense. Or if they want to add a high volume cycle.
I also think that full body has benefits over splits for most people because it can eliminate training ADD and analysis paralysis and requires that the focus be on compounds (not to the exclusion of isolation movements though).
Here are some examples of bbers and trainers who advocate this approach (note that I don’t mention madcow, texas method, rippetoe or starr because the powers that be have already said they don’t “count”-lol).
Steve Reeves- he did full body and a 3-way split, but full body was his go-to for adding mass.
Reg Park- here are 2 T-Nation articles from the last few months that highlight his methods and the results:
Mike Mahler:The Reg Park Way To Serious Size And Strength
T-Nation editors:
HST- Hypertrophy Specific Training:
www.hypertrophy-specific.com/about.html
Joel Marion: Stripped down hypertrophy:
Sensible Training by Dr. Leisnter:
www.cyberpump.com/preview/sense.html
These are just a few. Again, remember that the focus is adding as much muscle mass as possible while training naturally.
I think for many guys, training the basic compounds movements on a 3 day per week schedule (ABA, then BAB) works very well if consuming a caloric surplus and progression is there. for example:
A:
Squats
Bench
Rows
(some arm isolation)
B:
Deadlift
Military/overhead press
chins
(some calves/abs isolation)
have a heavy day (4x6, 5x5) and lighter day (3x10, 2x15) for each. Add weight or reps every time. Every 8 weeks, sub in cg bench, sl deads or whatever. Train with a focus and intensity that would frighten people.
I think that if someone eats big and clean, gets rest and progresses on the above for 3 years, you will see someone who is ahead of 99% of people. No log books or spreadsheets, no worrying about the optimum # of sets, reps, no worrying about exercise selection, no training ADD, no stressing about their split.
They will be big and strong as fuck. Then, if they want to add in more volume PER SESSION (remember, splits only have a volume advantage on a per session basis, with total weekly volume being roughly equivalent often times) then they can do that for a cycle and reap the benefits.
I would assert that they will be glad they waited and “reserved” that tool for use after they have pushed ahead with what I set out above and will get far more results from it then if they had started out that way.
Let me reiterate that I respect guys like X and ceph_carn who feel otherwise but hope that you can see where I’m coming from. This is a forum for discussing bodybuilding.
Listen, forget about pro-IFBB bodybuilders who take drugs. You are aware that there are drug free competitions out there, right? Sure, different associations have different definitions of what ‘drug free’ is (for some you have to be drug free for only a few years, others require you to be drug free for life).
But of the drug-free bodybuilder profiles I’ve read I’ve still never heard of any of them training using Full Body routines.
You’re putting in a lot of effort citing popular authors who recommend TBT but your arguments fail to deliver any sort of knock-out punch because none of these authors or experts have with any sort of consistency produced BIG MEN while using TBT in the last 10-15 years ! Let that sink in for a moment…
Fine, we get it, we should stop bringing up CW because his idea of TBT is maybe not the same as yours (consider it done), but let’s look at the authors/systems you have brought up:
Before I continue, let me say that I don’t care for a moment how articulate these individuals are or how strong their arguments appear to be - I’m judging them based solely on real world results.
HST: Great read, but I cannot think of a single individual who has gotten from skinny/average to, at least, Golden Age huge. If you can post some pictures of someone who has gotten big using that system please post them.
Joel Marion: He’s has a full body routine, but again, who do you know who has gotten big using it? Certainly not Joel! I’ve been reading his stuff from all the way back when he won the EAS body transformation and I know he didn’t get big using TBT.
Reg park: Ok, he got pretty big using TBT, but it reportedly took him around 3 hours per session 3 times per week (or 9 hours per week) to complete. Do you think all the pro-TBT guys are training 3 hours per session?
That’s a greater time and volume (tonnage lifted) investment than most split trainees invest (yes, the same split routines that are best suited for steroid users… /sarcasm). Not to mention that he later abandoned TBT and switched to split training because he stated it was better for bodybuilding
PS: If TBT is better suited for natural trainees because traditional split routines have too much volume, how do you explain Reg training at volumes higher than split routines?
Mike Mahler: Who has he gotten big using TBT? Himself? While he definitely looks like an athletic guy - “big” or “muscular” are not words I would use to describe him.
I’m not even comparing him to modern IFBB pros, but Reg Park (who trained around 9 hours per week - greater than modern day split routines). That’s not a knock on the guy.
If that’s the look he wants and the look you’re after - then all the power to both of you. But his low time investment TBT routines have never proved they could produce a physique remotely similar to today’s drug free lifters… or Golden age lifters.
I don’t know anything about Dr. Leisnter, so I won’t comment on him.
Now, before you feel the need to pick apart some of my points can you please show evidence that any of the guys and their TBT systems you mentioned have gotten a skinny or average dude to at least Reg Park huge with any sort of consistency? Because that’s the only think that counts. Anything else is just theory. [/quote]
I agree- results >>>>theory. And to clarify, when I say spli I mean a traditional 3-5 way bp split.
Boris Kleine is a very successful pro BBer and got that way using HST.
Powerlifters and O-lifter who diet down look pretty damn good.
As I said in another post, I consider Doggcrapp to be in line with my beliefs and people get big as shit on that. It’s a 2-way split based on frequency over volume-based once per week splits. It has more in common with what I’m advocating than it does with, say, Arnold’s split.
[quote]Rat Poison wrote:
flex has been drug free since 2002 here is a current photo of him. he has even issued a challenge to anyone that he will freely admit to a drug test only if the challenger of his drug free status will donate a million dollars to charity of his schoice.[/quote]
That photo seems to support the assertion that drugs make a HUGE difference.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Before I continue, let me say that I don’t care for a moment how articulate these individuals are or how strong their arguments appear to be - I’m judging them based solely on real world results.
…If you can post some pictures of someone who has gotten big using that system please post them.
…
PS: If TBT is better suited for natural trainees because traditional split routines have too much volume, how do you explain Reg training at volumes higher than split routines?
…
Now, before you feel the need to pick apart some of my points can you please show evidence that any of the guys and their TBT systems you mentioned have gotten a skinny or average dude to at least Reg Park huge with any sort of consistency? Because that’s the only think that counts. Anything else is just theory. [/quote]
Good post…but we’ve been asking for evidence for YEARS. I want to see someone who went from anywhere between 130-160 (at AVERAGE HEIGHT AFTER THE AGE OF 18) to over 230lbs relatively lean while using TBT the majority of the time to do it.
I would also appreciate not some RARE example but something that suggest many people are finding success that way.
There are tons of examples of lifters who have done this using split routines…EVEN SOME ON THIS SITE…so why is it so hard to show some examples of this approach churning out hundreds of extremely muscular bodies?
well if you’re using DBol you’d bloody well better be able to hit 230 whether your using tbt or a split.
i give up on you tbt guys have fun spinning your wheels in the mud. later
[quote]trextacy wrote:
I agree- results >>>>theory. And to clarify, when I say spli I mean a traditional 3-5 way bp split. [/quote]
That’s fine. And to clarify, when I said I read present day natural bodybuilders doing splits I meant a traditional 3-5 way split.
Either way, we’re trying to find examples of bodybuilders who have gone from average to something resembling “Reg Park huge” using TBT (not splits of any kind, including 2-way splits).
Preferably we could find a bodybuilder who has used a TBT system similar to those prescribed in recent decades (ie: not 9hr/week Reg Park TBT, but somewhere in the 3-5 hr/week like is popular at the moment) - but I’m flexible and won’t hold you to that.
[quote]
Boris Kleine is a very successful pro BBer and got that way using HST.[/quote]
Wow, I just looked him up… No doubt about it he’s a big MOFO! (I’ve attached his picture below), but here’s my problem with this (single) example you provided:
It says here (Kleine, Boris) he was already 3rd in the WABBA World Championships in 1999, but HST, on July 12 2002 created a “buzz about Bryan’s new training program called Hypertrophy-Specific Training or HST”…
How could he have gone from average to placing 3rd using only or mostly HST when the system only come out 3 years later? I mean, let’s assume BH kept it under wraps for a while, that would mean that he had to have kept it a secret for at least 8 years!
[quote]
Powerlifters and O-lifter who diet down look pretty damn good.[/quote]
Uh… what’s you point? I don’t know of any prime time power lifter who trains TBT, and I’m willing to bet neither do you.
O-lifters? I agree, they do train TBT. I also admit their leg development (especially their quads) and spinal erectors shame many bodybuilders.
Their arms, chest and sometimes lats… not so much. During the Olympics I saw many kayakers with better arm development that o-lifters… so to compare them with modern day drug free bodybuilders or even Golden age lifters is laughable.
[quote]
As I said in another post, I consider Doggcrapp to be in line with my beliefs and people get big as shit on that. It’s a 2-way split based on frequency over volume-based once per week splits. It has more in common with what I’m advocating than it does with, say, Arnold’s split.[/quote]
Uh… ok… fine… but what does this have to do with TBT or this discussion? If your opinion is that DC (a split training system) is better suited to build muscle compared to TBT - wtf are you arguing about? Everyone here knows that DC and Westside split routines build tons of muscle…
Oops, I forgot to post Boris’s picture.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
trextacy wrote:
I agree- results >>>>theory. And to clarify, when I say spli I mean a traditional 3-5 way bp split.
That’s fine. And to clarify, when I said I read present day natural bodybuilders doing splits I meant a traditional 3-5 way split.
Either way, we’re trying to find examples of bodybuilders who have gone from average to something reassembling Reg Park huge using TBT (not splits of any kind, including 2 way).
Preferably we could find such a bodybuilder who has used a TBT system reassembling those prescribed in recent decades (ie: not 9hr/week Reg Park TBT, but somewhere in the 3-5 hr/week like is popular at the moment) - but I’m flexible and won’t hold you to that.
Boris Kleine is a very successful pro BBer and got that way using HST.
Wow, I just looked him up… No doubt about it he’s a big MOFO! (I’ve attached his picture below), but here’s my problem with this (single) example you provided:
It says here (Kleine, Boris) he was already 3rd in the WABBA World Championships in 1999, but HST, on July 12 2002 created a “buzz about Bryan’s new training program called Hypertrophy-Specific Training or HST”…
How could he have gone from average to placing 3rd using only or mostly HST when the system only come out 3 years later? I mean, let’s assume BH kept it under wraps for a while, that would mean that he had to have kept it a secret for at least 8 years!
Powerlifters and O-lifter who diet down look pretty damn good.
Uh… what’s you point? I don’t know of any prime time power lifter who trains TBT, and I’m willing to bet neither do you.
O-lifters? I agree, they do train TBT. I also admit their leg development (especially their quads) and spinal erectors shame many bodybuilders.
Their arms, chest and sometimes lats… not so much. During the Olympics I saw many kayakers with better arm development that o-lifters… so to compare them with modern day drug free bodybuilders or even Golden age lifters is laughable.
As I said in another post, I consider Doggcrapp to be in line with my beliefs and people get big as shit on that. It’s a 2-way split based on frequency over volume-based once per week splits. It has more in common with what I’m advocating than it does with, say, Arnold’s split.
Uh… ok… fine… but what does this have to do with TBT or this discussion? If you’re opinion is that DC (a split training system) is better suited to optimally build muscle compared to TBT - wtf are you arguing about? Everyone here knows that a DC and Westside split routines build tons of muscle…
[/quote]
I’m not arguing from a purely tbt point of view. The premise of the thread is that bodybuilders train the “right” way, which implies that the 3-5 way split w/ high volume is the “best” way to train.
I think a full body approach like the one I outined in my previous post is more than adequate for anyone up through an interemediate level (which I would consider to be bigger and stronger than most realize). Things can be split up further after that if necessary.
I do believe that the extremely high volume, once per week, one bp per session training is only optimal when drugs are involved. Sorry, that’s what I believe. It has everything to do w/ recovery and avoiding overtaining (the drugs keep that from happening).
I was just reading the new Flex for this month and it has Phil Heath’s shoulder day routine-- it is 20+ sets. Wtf. Also, it is not optimal for a beginner or intermediate to attempt to build up any appreciable amount of strength doing 10-20 sets for a bodypart in a session.
Most powerlifting routines I’ve seen are 2-way splits. Again, they are more akin to what I would recommend than the bodybuilding routine.
Thibadeau is one guy that built most of his muscle with o-lifting. Also, Thibs views Sergio Oliva as another example of a guy that built a ton of muscle O-lifting and the “refined” things and cut fat when it was time for the stage (you can see his quote on this in the Splits vs TBT roundtable article).
I’m no expert on Boris Kleine, but he trains full body and has had great results. I won’t hammer on Reeves, Grimek and Park, but they built impressive physiques training the whole body.
Again, I don’t see how you can’t acknowledge the link between the rise of anabolics in bb-ing and the shift to high volume routines. It’s very clear that once drugs came in the mix, splits and high volume became particularly useful.
Yes, most natural pros do train with a high volume split. A lot of that is monkey-see monkey-do imho.
Finally, just because the word “split” is used doesn’t mean that Jay Cutler’s routine is per se more similar to Doggcrapp or Westside than what I set out above. In fact, the opposite is true. This isn’t just about “splits”-- it’s about whether training “like a bodybuilder” is in fact the best way to build large amounts of muscle naturally. I say it isn’t.
“Most powerlifting routines I’ve seen are 2-way splits. Again, they are more akin to what I would recommend than the bodybuilding routine.”
opinion, I disagree. Much closer to a 3 or 4 of 5 day split then TBT.
Adequate isn’t good. A split of some sort is likely going to be more then ‘adequate’. It may actually be ‘great’.
"it’s about whether training “like a bodybuilder” is in fact the best way to build large amounts of muscle naturally. I say it isn’t. "
wrong.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
As I said in another post, I consider Doggcrapp to be in line with my beliefs and people get big as shit on that. It’s a 2-way split based on frequency over volume-based once per week splits. It has more in common with what I’m advocating than it does with, say, Arnold’s split.[/quote]
Don’t even try to lump DC in with your ideas… DC is a freak factory of a training philosophy and is in now way shape or form like the TBT programs you posted.
If being right about bodybuilding was your job you’d be picking out which type of cheese your food stamps allows you to buy right now.
I’m going to use a TBT for cutting. Does anyone have a good experience with this?
what is entertaining to me is that both sides here seem like their lives depend on convincing the other side. Who cares? Train well, gain, enjoy, shut the fuck up?
If I prefer to train one way but were forced to use the other, I wouldn’t enjoy training.
The “shut up your (sic) stupid” is a nice touch.
When will someone bust out that their dad or big brother can beat up your dad or big brother?
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
what is entertaining to me is that both sides here seem like their lives depend on convincing the other side. Who cares? Train well, gain, enjoy, shut the fuck up?
If I prefer to train one way but were forced to use the other, I wouldn’t enjoy training.
The “shut up your (sic) stupid” is a nice touch.
When will someone bust out that their dad or big brother can beat up your dad or big brother?
[/quote]
The person who puts more focus into how much they enjoy lifting (as if this is a theme park…I ENJOY lifting because I see progress from it and my goal is to get better or stronger. If I didn’t see progress, I would find a new hobby) over how much progress they are making is likely not going to make all that much progress to begin with.
If there weren’t authors making statements in order to do just what you stated…ie. convince newbies that their way is better…we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It is interesting that you don’t fault the authors, but you do fault us for discussing it in the face of hundreds of clueless newbies filling up the forums.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
I was just reading the new Flex for this month and it has Phil Heath’s shoulder day routine-- it is 20+ sets. Wtf. Also, it is not optimal for a beginner or intermediate to attempt to build up any appreciable amount of strength doing 10-20 sets for a bodypart in a session.
[/quote]
When you all see a pro bodybuilder discuss how he trains, there are actually some of you who think this is a RECOMMENDATION for all beginners to do the same?
Why would anyone think this way?
You are a newbie…who is apparently so well read that you have made yourself really fucking stupid.
Hey guys
serious question
Ive read so much that says that hitting a body part with such low frequency (1x a week) does not work very well for strength or size for people who are not on steroids. I dont have an article to link offhand but im sure you have all heard/read this as well. I was wondering what your take on it is.
I have used Upper/Lower splits in the past (WS4SB) and TBT splits (Madcow’s 5x5, currently on Bigger,Faster,Stronger). I have never used bodypart splits and was wondering, for the future, on their effectiveness for a natural lifter.
Would something like:
Day 1 - Chest, Triceps, Shoulders
Day 2 - Back, Legs, Biceps
Day 4 - Same as day 1
Day 5 - Same as day 2
Be superior (hitting each part 2x a week) to a split that had something like:
Day 1 - Chest
Day 2 - Legs
Day 3 - Back
Day 4 - Shoulders, Traps
Day 5 - Arms
Also, where would you put things like Power/Hang Cleans, if you did a body part split?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
what is entertaining to me is that both sides here seem like their lives depend on convincing the other side. Who cares? Train well, gain, enjoy, shut the fuck up?
If I prefer to train one way but were forced to use the other, I wouldn’t enjoy training.
The “shut up your (sic) stupid” is a nice touch.
When will someone bust out that their dad or big brother can beat up your dad or big brother?
The person who puts more focus into how much they enjoy lifting (as if this is a theme park…I ENJOY lifting because I see progress from it and my goal is to get better or stronger. If I didn’t see progress, I would find a new hobby) over how much progress they are making is likely not going to make all that much progress to begin with.
If there weren’t authors making statements in order to do just what you stated…ie. convince newbies that their way is better…we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It is interesting that you don’t fault the authors, but you do fault us for discussing it in the face of hundreds of clueless newbies filling up the forums.[/quote]
On the contrary. There are a ton of articles that I don’t even look at. I think they are full of crap. I read some for the WTF factor, (Darden) There is more debate in the pits here, and this is entertaining.
I want to write a training manual. It’d go something like this.
Find out the action of a muscle. Apply resistance. Do action. Add more resistance over time. Gain weight. Keep record book.
The end
The author would like to thank some of the various Dr.s of English and other non-science fields for their glossy infomercial in print work.
Weight loss manual.
Eat less
The end
You jumped to a conclusion about the progress thing. I enjoy lifting, I enjoy challenging myself and the progress I measure is the poundage output and the body composition changes. I also have had some injuries I have had to work around.
Would I post my routine here? What for? I’ve probably spent more time in the gym than some of these children have been alive.
If people would preface their statements with “what worked for me…” or “I found that when I couldn’t progress…” “what you might consider…” instead of the personal insults, glittered with the words delusional or stupid or ignorant. If I went from 13" upper arms to 24" upperarms with triceps kickbacks, then it worked for me. If I “just eat more food and lift more weight” and the target muscles isn’t growing or I can’t increase the load, I change things.
There are some HUGE people that grow despite what they do and some that can’t despite enormous effort. Others got huge because of what they do and some remain stagnant because of what they do. Is the bigger and stronger a good model to follow? absolutely. No question about that. If it doesn’t work, find another big fella or strong fella.
I just think a lot more class could be demonstrated. I’ve looked back at some of my posts and wished…
The TBT argument? The routines in the TBT are probably a lot better than some of the splits some people perform. The measuring stick is, ala Dr.Phil, “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”
Out of curiosity. When Bulking how high go you guys allow you BF to go. I didn’t start lifting weights to be fat. I wanted to grow large amounts of muscle and look good. Now I understand that one needs to gain some fat but it seems that alot of guys end up looking like a fat guy with muscle??? Then they have to diet down which I’m sure can’t be easy coz you were probably eating everything in sight before?
I’ve managed to put on some descent size while keeping my bf in check. Is it really worth putting on that extra pounds of fat. How much extra muscle are you going to have when you diet down again???
[quote]Professor X wrote:
trextacy wrote:
I was just reading the new Flex for this month and it has Phil Heath’s shoulder day routine-- it is 20+ sets. Wtf. Also, it is not optimal for a beginner or intermediate to attempt to build up any appreciable amount of strength doing 10-20 sets for a bodypart in a session.
When you all see a pro bodybuilder discuss how he trains, there are actually some of you who think this is a RECOMMENDATION for all beginners to do the same?
Why would anyone think this way?
You are a newbie…who is apparently so well read that you have made yourself really fucking stupid.[/quote]
You don’t see the complete idiocy here?
X one minute: “Bodybuilders TRAIN this way. You should do what the bigger m’fers are doing if you want to gain like them.”
[note Phil Heath’s shoulder routine]
X next minute: “What a fucking idiot–who would look at a bodybuilders routine and think that’s an actual recommendation.”
Dude, there is no winning (or reasoning) with you. You have decided I’m going to be one of your pinatas for the month as you bolster your online persona, and there isn’t a gd thing I could say/do to change that. Good thing it doesn’t matter to me at all.
FWIW- I’ve said from the start that splits (of the 3-5 day variety) are great for people that are advanced or approaching advanced.
JP is the smartest guy on this thread. I don’t know why it matters. I guess it comes back to not thinking that naturals training like pro bbers is optimal and for 90% of the forum members. So, questions are posed by people looking for help and I want to provide it to them. I guess that’s why.
[quote]silverbullet wrote:
Out of curiosity. When Bulking how high go you guys allow you BF to go. I didn’t start lifting weights to be fat. I wanted to grow large amounts of muscle and look good. Now I understand that one needs to gain some fat but it seems that alot of guys end up looking like a fat guy with muscle??? Then they have to diet down which I’m sure can’t be easy coz you were probably eating everything in sight before?
I’ve managed to put on some descent size while keeping my bf in check. Is it really worth putting on that extra pounds of fat. How much extra muscle are you going to have when you diet down again???[/quote]
That is a answer no one can give but yourself. If you aren’t willing to ever go above 10% body fat (not saying that is how you think), then you need to accept that you may gain less muscle over the same period of time than someone who cares ONLY about adding more strength and muscle mass and doesn’t mind carrying a little more body fat than that.
That’s just life.
In the end, the most important factor is that all of our time is limited. You don’t have 100 years to meet your goals. Your best time for growing is long before the age of 40 (in fact, in bodybuilding, if you haven’t built a HUGE level of muscle mass before the age of 30, you just need to accept that large muscles may not be in your future), with those starting in their teens having the opportunity to make more progress than anyone else.
That means find what works and stick with it until you reach a goal. There isn’t much time to sit around stagnating because you fear body fat more than you want bigger muscles.