Chad Waterbury and Ellington Darden

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Darden backs his articles by giving a long drawn out story about how so and so made such amazing gains doing this program.

Waterbury backs his articles by providing science and logic.

Regardless of what they were writing, I’d be more prone to listen to someone that could back their logic up with more than “well this guy did this 200 years ago, and old school is the only way to train”[/quote]

You’re an idiot.

EDIT: No offense to either Darden or Waterbury, but the HIT jedi and Waterbury jedi seem to be some of the most close minded morons to ever push against any kind of resistance. In both cases, they see their way as being the only possible route to success without the aid of fortuitous genetics and/or a generous supply of AAS. This is, of course, a complete load of bullshit.

22

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Darden backs his articles by giving a long drawn out story about how so and so made such amazing gains doing this program.

Waterbury backs his articles by providing science and logic.

Regardless of what they were writing, I’d be more prone to listen to someone that could back their logic up with more than “well this guy did this 200 years ago, and old school is the only way to train”[/quote]

I would be more willing to listen to someone who has actually reached a certain level themselves and/or has many current examples of their handy work walking around, but that’s just me. Even then, I would know enough to not follow every single word from any one person as if they can’t be wrong, misinformed or have faulty perception concerning a subject.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wressler125 wrote:
Darden backs his articles by giving a long drawn out story about how so and so made such amazing gains doing this program.

Waterbury backs his articles by providing science and logic.

Regardless of what they were writing, I’d be more prone to listen to someone that could back their logic up with more than “well this guy did this 200 years ago, and old school is the only way to train”

I would be more willing to listen to someone who has actually reached a certain level themselves and/or has many current examples of their handy work walking around, but that’s just me. Even then, I would know enough to not follow every single word from any one person as if they can’t be wrong, misinformed or have faulty perception concerning a subject.[/quote]

Ok, but it’s easier to think for yourself when you have more to base your judgement on then some story.

I don’t really follow either of their methodologies, instead I choose to take what works from everyone and apply what I know works for me.

My point is, Darden’s articles read like a story while Chad’s read like a textbook.

24

[quote]TheSicilian wrote:
<<< My point is this… If we do not treat weightlifting as a trial and error, effort based, unique unto our own individual genetics and goals, endeavor…we become THESE GUYS. >>>[/quote]

To go along with this I’m a big believer in learning to listen to your body for lack of a better way to phrase it.

It’s a language only yours speaks and only to you. It’s tough to describe to anybody else, but it becomes unmistakable as you start to nudge your way into the intermediate level of experience if your listening and becomes clearer the longer you train.

I’m not against any source of information in itself or I wouldn’t hang out here, but I do think too many guys rely on others too heavily to do their body’s talking for them and consequently never learn that unique language for themselves as well as they could.

On one level I’m almost glad I had nobody to teach me anything when I first started. I learned some valuable lessons on how MY body doesn’t work.

25

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

On one level I’m almost glad I had nobody to teach me anything when I first started. I learned some valuable lessons on how MY body doesn’t work.[/quote]

I was much more open to those around me as far as knowledge than many of these guys seem to be when I was a beginner. I also had to search for info on my own as none of it was all clumped together on one resource where they don’t know what is meant for “beginners” and what is meant for advanced lifters. I don’t know if it is because there are no experienced lifters at their gyms or whether they have bought into the line that larger bodybuilders don’t know what they are talking about, but many of these fan boys are also strangely some of the least developed on this site. You would think common sense would set in eventually.

I suppose if you can convince people that size is NOT an indicator of progress, you can rope them in for life even though their overall progress over years is minimal in comparison.

26

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Darden backs his articles by giving a long drawn out story about how so and so made such amazing gains doing this program.

Waterbury backs his articles by providing science and logic.

Regardless of what they were writing, I’d be more prone to listen to someone that could back their logic up with more than “well this guy did this 200 years ago, and old school is the only way to train”[/quote]

Do you not understand the scientific method? Much of science involves observing phenomena and finding the cause of the phenomena. E.g., if you have a bunch of fat people dying of heart attacks, a scientist would hypothosize that obesity potentially causes this condition.

If you have really big dudes, a scientifically-minded person would observe what they do, how they eat, how they train, what drugs they take, etc.

Pulling out studies about muscle fibers has its value. But it takes a great degree of extrapolation to reason from muscle fibers to the totality of a person.

As it now stands, there is empirical proof that split-based training leads to the biggest physiques.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t hate either author. [/quote]

It’s so bizarre that you had to say this. People here think that if you disapprove of an author’s methods, you must hate him. (I think Poliquin’s writings are the most valuable but suspect I would personally dislike him.)

I have never met any S&C writer for this site. (I met TC and Cy Willson at the Arnold Classic in '00. Cy was freaking huge and well-deserving of his “Cy-Borg” nickname.)

I don’t hate or love any author for this site. I think some have more valuable ideas than others. But that’s so different I don’t know where to begin.

I did personally like Dan Duchaine and Mel Siff, and cried when I found out about their deaths. But I knew both at some level of informality and respected them as people and GIANTS of the field.

Even if I had disliked either man, I would have recognized their important contributions.

Disagreement is not disdain.

28

[quote]unearth wrote:
No offense to either Darden or Waterbury, but the HIT jedi and Waterbury jedi seem to be some of the most close minded morons to ever push against any kind of resistance. In both cases, they see their way as being the only possible route to success without the aid of fortuitous genetics and/or a generous supply of AAS. This is, of course, a complete load of bullshit.[/quote]

I wish these jedis would start posting pictures to demonstrate the superiority of their Way.

29

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
unearth wrote:
No offense to either Darden or Waterbury, but the HIT jedi and Waterbury jedi seem to be some of the most close minded morons to ever push against any kind of resistance. In both cases, they see their way as being the only possible route to success without the aid of fortuitous genetics and/or a generous supply of AAS. This is, of course, a complete load of bullshit.

I wish these jedis would start posting pictures to demonstrate the superiority of their Way.[/quote]

hopefully they include a picture of their shoe, to ensure proper body fat measuring. And heck, they can toss in a light saber too, after all, they’re jedis, right?

30

The thing that twists my knickers in relation to this whole general topic of authoritative expertise is the following. There’s been a few of these popping up lately so it’s a perfect example:

A guy starts a thread that says I’ve been using (insert acronym and author of choice here) and I’m getting great results except my arms aren’t growing like I want them to.

Now right here is a great opportunity for personal learning and advancement. Why not do your best to determine what about this program has been working well, what hasn’t and make adjustments? Add something, dump something, switch something around? Even if you’re wrong you’ve learned something valuable about yourself.

Instead the question just about always is “should I just try a different program?”. Which I suppose is better than continuing with something that is lacking for you in some area, but not nearly as useful as learning the lessons that are staring you in the face.

Over time you wind up figuring out a good deal about what type of shit is going to work well for you and what maybe not so well or at all.

In my mind this makes other people’s insight more valuable, not less so if viewed that way.

31

[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
unearth wrote:
No offense to either Darden or Waterbury, but the HIT jedi and Waterbury jedi seem to be some of the most close minded morons to ever push against any kind of resistance. In both cases, they see their way as being the only possible route to success without the aid of fortuitous genetics and/or a generous supply of AAS. This is, of course, a complete load of bullshit.

I wish these jedis would start posting pictures to demonstrate the superiority of their Way.

hopefully they include a picture of their shoe, to ensure proper body fat measuring. And heck, they can toss in a light saber too, after all, they’re jedis, right?
[/quote]

Just to get my understanding of the term ‘jedi’ it would mean lone, basement dwelling guys who worship one method and quote the hell out of it, who often look as if they don’t even lift, the guys you steer clear of at the gym because, aside from questionable personal hygiene, they have that creepy Columbine-esque “I’ll show them all some day” look on their faces, who can never get a spot unless they’ve somehow found another jedi to work with or, god forbid, an “apprentice”?

Is this correct? or is it more like the wrinkled old guy who sits in the corner and tells everybody else what to do by quoting some rigid method, like Mick from the Rocky movies without the guts or the charm?

32

For me it comes down to trying both types of programs and having better success with Waterbury’s. When on Darden’s routines I would always burn out quickly with training to failure and usually get sick three weeks in. I find that Waterbury’s programs, which are higher in volume but stop you a rep or two from failure, do a much better job of balancing the fine line between training just enought to trigger a grow response and strength gains without over training. I also like Waterbury’s promotion of active recover. Doing GPP on your off days. On Darden’s programs and on other HIT programs (especially Metzner’s Heavy Duty) I felt very out of shape.

33

I couldn’t have said it better myself. However, my “Super-Jedi Trainer” would be a frankenmix of Starr, Leistner, Steiner, Ditillo and Zatsiorsky!!

34

[quote]Mattlaw27 wrote:
<<< do a much better job of balancing the fine line between training just enought to trigger a grow response and strength gains without over training. >>>[/quote]

I don’t think that line is as fine as you think it is in terms of either volume or intensity. I do believe everyone has a threshold for each beyond which returns diminish in proportion to how far beyond it you go.

I don’t see it as “I would’ve gained 20 lbs last year, but made no progress because I did one set too many each workout or I tended to push a bit too hard within sets”.

You have to over or under shoot by a decent amount before there are drastic consequences for most people in my opinion. I emphasize drastic.

Also in my opinion, I think this guy is right in that a lot of people would rather work less hard at more volume because it’s easier or at least doesn’t hurt as much. For better or for worse. Maybe that works for you in which case that’s what you should do. I just don’t see the problem in asking the question.

EDIT: I got interrupted and typed the last paragraph thinking I was in the Jason Ferruggia thread about overtraining.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Uhm, notice how MOST bodybuilders who win competitions train using body part splits.

I don’t hate either author. I hate fan boys.

[/quote]

My point exactly. Personally it is impossible for me to train my legs properly and then train my back properly in the same session. Note, I say properly, if I make a half assed attempt I can train everything twice a day…

Most succesful coaches also use a bodypart split. Such as Charles Poliquin and Ian King. Top bodybuilding coach Charles Glass says that the legs need a lot, and he means a lot, of work. According to him it’s almost impossible to overtrain the legs. That alone rules out full body training.

Fan boys often have the worst physique of them all because they don’t try to figure out what works for them. They’d rather put someone on a pedestal and make him God, rather than think for themselves. Which is exactly what has happened with Chad Waterbury on this site. He has become the god of T-Nation. This is one of the reasons why I don’t understand that many of these fan boys proudly proclaim to be part of bodybuilding’s think tank. Evidently they lack the capacity to think for themselves.

I remember when I was in the gym with my buddy and after the workout I had a little chat with this big competitive bodybuilder, he was on the national level. After my chat my friend told me: “Geez, everything he said was wrong.” This annoyed me and it happens here (on T-Nation) all the time.

36

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:

Do you not understand the scientific method? Much of science involves observing phenomena and finding the cause of the phenomena. E.g., if you have a bunch of fat people dying of heart attacks, a scientist would hypothosize that obesity potentially causes this condition.

[/quote]

Yes I do… However, just because some bodybuilder did it and it worked, doesn’t mean it’s scientifically sound. The scientific method is based on REPEATED OBSERVATION.

The guy asked a question, I gave an answer. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong. I answered why so many people bash Darden while backing Waterbury. Whether it is right to think this way does not mean it is not true.

I am telling you what I figure is the reason for many people thinking this way, and you are telling me I am wrong for thinking that way… When did I say I agreed with it, or that it was the right way to think?

37

Why do people rip on Chad? His programs consist of low frequency 2 times a week upper/splits and high frequecy seven days a week stuff.

They are wide and varied. To labell him exclusively as HFT is daft.

I don’t know much about Darden but my 140 pound wet mate, who has a bowflex, thinks the sun shines out of his behind.

38

[quote]Huh? wrote:
Why do people rip on Chad? His programs consist of low frequency 2 times a week upper/splits and high frequecy seven days a week stuff.

They are wide and varied. To labell him exclusively as HFT is daft.

I don’t know much about Darden but my 140 pound wet mate, who has a bowflex, thinks the sun shines out of his behind. [/quote]

teeeheeeheee…bowflex…

39

[quote]unearth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
he tends to base his conclusions on a combination of scientific data, observations of a large percentage of the population, and experiential evidence.

Horseshit.

Alot of Darden’s stuff = hyperbole.
Alot of Waterbury’s stuff = hyperbole.

That’s just the way it is with gurus, it’s been explained to me that’s how they gain their foothold in the highly competitive ‘fitness’ market place.

However, both the low frequency (Darden) and the high frequency (Waterbury) methodologies have their pros and cons.

Personally I think both systems have their place in a well thought out training program.[/quote]

Horseshit?

Perhaps you should go back and read some of his articles again. He often posts scientific references at the end of his articles. Many of his methodologies are derived from observations of people who have built muscle, many times unintentionally, on far from optimal diets and highly unorthodox routines (the forearms of mechanics, the upper bodies of gymnasts, the upper backs of lumberjacks, etc…), which is a fairly large percentage of the population. He also, like Darden does utilize his own personal experience, and his experience with training others.

Now, before you try lumping me into the Waterbury “Jedis”, let me assure you that I am not. I like the way he isn’t afraid to think outside of the box, and his focus on performance. But, I don’t believe that his articles were handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. I read his articles as I read any author’s articles, with an open yet skeptical mind.

Lastly, I agree with you that all training methodologies have their place at some time depending on goals. I was not arguing that there is any end all be all of training methodologies, nor was I suggesting that any methodology is worthless.

Sentoguy

40

[quote]wressler125 wrote:

Yes I do… However, just because some bodybuilder did it and it worked, doesn’t mean it’s scientifically sound. The scientific method is based on REPEATED OBSERVATION.
[/quote]

And the past century isn’t long enough to come to some conclusions? The thousands of professional and highly competitive bodybuilders since the 1950’s just aren’t enough to come to any conclusions?

I think it is plain stupid that anyone would IGNORE that much evidence as to what works for so many and pull all conclusions strictly from scientific studies that simply support what they want to believe.

I wonder how many of you would choose going to a doctor who gained all of his knowledge from theory and classes with NO real world practice at all…over the guy who studied and has experience in the real world.

Anyone who has been through any training like that will tell you that you don’t really start to learn until you get OUT of school…and then you learn that much of what you learned in theory doesn’t always apply in the real world.

If your upper arms are smaller than the forearms of most of the people telling you one thing, perhaps it would be in your best interest to not assume they simply don’t know what they are talking about.