[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Perhaps you should go back and read some of his articles again. He often posts scientific references at the end of his articles.[/quote]
Hmmm…
Where’s the scientific references that definitively prove only genetic freaks and/or AAS users can make gains using body part based splits (isn’t a guy like Christian Thibaudeau living proof that body part based splits can be highly effective)? Where’s the scientific references that definitively prove full body workouts beat any split routine any day of the week?
Both Darden and Waterbury have some good solid training ideas, and they’ve also both said some serious exaggerated bullshit.
As I said before, hyperbole seems to be part of the game. Without some amount of bombastic claims it’s very difficult for a trainer to stand out from the crowd.
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.
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?[/quote]
I don’t follow bodybuilding, so this might seem ignorant, but could it be that all those bodybuilders are just following convention? It makes sense that splits allow for developing a complete physique, but what about getting the mass in the first place? Have there been a lot of cases where guys didn’t have success with total body training? It could be that most of these guys could have gotten huge with either style, but they just started off with splits and never tried TBT.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
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 don’t follow bodybuilding, so this might seem ignorant, but could it be that all those bodybuilders are just following convention? It makes sense that splits allow for developing a complete physique, but what about getting the mass in the first place? Have there been a lot of cases where guys didn’t have success with total body training? It could be that most of these guys could have gotten huge with either style, but they just started off with splits and never tried TBT.[/quote]
I think you missed the posts earlier in this thread implying that your hard work in the gym is more important than what specific program you are on. I am on no brand name program. Much of what I do in the gym I came up with myself. No one gave me the idea to train my upper chest on a day by itself when it was lagging. I did it because based on what I knew about training, and based on the results I got from it, it simply made sense.
I think the ones who have it most screwed up are the ones who have divided this into “TBT” and “Split training” boxes and refuse to realize that the best approach is probably to get rid of the ridiculous labels and simply do exercises that work. That has always (FOR DECADES) included compound AND isolation movements.
Isn’t it a little ridiculous that now the brand name is more important than what actually works? Some of you treat this like a pair of fashionable jeans.
It leads me to believe that many of you might be better off NOT reading much of what is on this site until you understand the absolute basics first.
Where’s the scientific references that definitively prove only genetic freaks and/or AAS users can make gains using body part based splits (isn’t a guy like Christian Thibaudeau living proof that body part based splits can be highly effective)? Where’s the scientific references that definitively prove full body workouts beat any split routine any day of the week?
[/quote]
When did I say that his scientific references gave proof of any of the above. My point was simply that many of the methodologies that he utilizes (such as explosive lifting speeds and using maximal loads for example) are based on scientific evidence and theory. Notice I also said that he utilizes personal observations and experience as well, as does Darden. I have never however seen a single scientific reference in one of Darden’s articles. Does that make his stuff crap, or less worthy? No. But, the fact that Waterbury’s stuff at least has some scientific basis adds to it’s credibility (at least in my opinion).
Also, Christian Thibideau isn’t a good example because his base of muscle was built using compound strength focused training. He was a performance athlete before he was a “bodybuilder”. Yes, his physique is more symetrical and aesthetically pleasing than it was when he was training purely for performance. And, body part splits have allowed him to improve his weaknesses to further fully develop his body. But, he still built the base of his muscle not using traditional body part splits.
And while on the topic of CT (who’s articles I feel are very well written and informative), notice that he has mentioned several times that whenever he feels like a body part/muscle is falling behind/lagging, one of the most effective methods for brining it up is to drastically increase frequency. Hmmm…sound familiar? Once again, this doesn’t mean that HIT is worthless, just that Waterbury isn’t the only one who realizes the benefits of high frequency training.
[quote]
Both Darden and Waterbury have some good solid training ideas, and they’ve also both said some serious exaggerated bullshit.
As I said before, hyperbole seems to be part of the game. Without some amount of bombastic claims it’s very difficult for a trainer to stand out from the crowd.[/quote]
I agree. Both have been guilty of exaggerations and blanket statements. However, it seems like almost every one of Darden’s articles contains sensational claims, many of the article’s titles are themselves such sensational claims. That is what I don’t like about his writings.
And while on the topic of CT (who’s articles I feel are very well written and informative), notice that he has mentioned several times that whenever he feels like a body part/muscle is falling behind/lagging, one of the most effective methods for brining it up is to drastically increase frequency. Hmmm…sound familiar? [/quote]
Yes, it does sound familiar…to what I have heard from several different lifters since the late 80’s who have actually built their bodies up more than average. This shit isn’t new. Not one author here gets credit for making that up or stamping their name on it.
Take it easy with the scientific references thingie. Before the late nineties no one was writing references to sports studies at all. Does it mean the advice given didn’t work? No, it just meant that it was the authors opinion and you were supposed to figure out if it worked for you.
Now people demand a scientifically proven training program with undulating and linear progression, 2 barometers, a geometer, 2 Chinese mathematicians, 1 German physicist, 3 trained monkeys and a turkey sandwich with maltodextrin before stepping into a gym. Shut up and train.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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. [/quote]
Although the utter lack of experienced lifters (or at least lifters who have used said experience to make actual progress) seems to run rampant at most commercial gyms, I don’t think it would matter if the people you speak of were surrounded by the entire cast of the Mr. Olympia and World’s Strongest Man combined.
They’re so unbelievably confident in their own ‘training philosophies’ (most likely gleaned from the internet), not to mention their own ‘physiques’, that they could care less how the people ahead of them got there.
As you said, you would think common sense would eventually kick in. However, I’ve given up on common sense long ago. Along with the internet and MySpace came egos that far outweigh the desire for hard work.
HFT backed up by scientific facts?? Really… I distinctly remember a T-Nation article named “things we know but can’t prove” or something like that in which Waterbury stated that he thinks, BUT CAN’T PROVE, that HFT is best for hypertrophy.
[quote]wressler125 wrote:
<<< just because some bodybuilder did it and it worked, doesn’t mean it’s scientifically sound. >>>
[/quote]
Could I prevail upon you to think with me for a second about this statement?
Just because somebody did it and it worked doesn’t mean… it works??? For at least some people, even if there weren’t a long empirical history to draw from?
What does it mean then? Or are “scientifically sound” and “works” entirely different propositions? Can something that “works” be “scientifically unsound” in your mind?
You may be a great guy, but you may want to start including some logic exercises in your routine.
Instead of being forced to choose sides, i have tweaked the frequency and intensity to a level in between that allows me feel better, still make progress and more importantly fit my schedule. I don’t think most of us have the time to go to the gym as frequently as we like. In truth, I think everyone would benefit from more exposure to training. I am confident that if everyone adds another session a week, America will be able to reduce obesity rates and most trainees can actually become fitter. I speculate the localized muscle(s) group recover much faster than CNS, so what we have with extreme forms of HIT is a case where muscles don’t get enough stimulation because one is still unable to train due to CNS fatigue. This is exacerbated because long breaks between sessions do not support adaptation for better work capacity and conditioning. Some russian text have argued more frequency was better for long term progress because the consistency give the body a reason to grow. Training infrequently but intensely would be taken by the body to mean a pseudo stimulus and hence little reason to supercompensate. Still, variety is key. If you expect a busy schedule ahead and little time to go to the gym, some derivative of HIT would suit you well.
To take sides just for the sake of taking sides is tragic.
It depends on your point of view with this topic. Scientifically, I believe the idea is that you should be able to see a very comparable supercompensation effect from training more often with a lower intensity and training less often with a higher intensity. I must say however, It seems to me that trying to hold yourself back gets tricky with the full body style. Because you really cannot give 100% on extremely hard lifts and be able to come back a day later and go extremely hard again doing an exercise that uses that muscle again without hurting the recovery of the previous day. That is the main problem with Waterbury’s method. Me I do a Push/Pull Split over the week, I think it works good, doing bodypart days seemed too long of a rest and whole body seemed to short…
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t hate either author.
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.)
Disagreement is not disdain.[/quote]
I just saw this post.
CL, I bet you’d like Poliquin personally. One on one or in a small crowd, he’s extremely personable and funny.
I really enjoy Darden’s stories, and I definitely want to know more about how the older era trained. I was a fan of Dr. John McCallum’s archives. I don’t doubt that Darden’s methods work, I just can’t practice them as conveniently and I’m not really interested in bodybuilding as much as I want to get stronger. It also seems like Darden is shilling his book a lot more than he wants to give training advice for free.
Waterbury has a book out but he’s got a plethora of training secrets up here for free and he doesn’t hold back. My training regimen now is Waterbury inspired, and I can’t believe how much stronger I’ve gotten, and bigger. Chad can do no wrong in my eyes b/c his ideas work so well for me.
I could care less about science, I like results better. I used to buy all the staple, “money” supplements year round, and then due to some circumstances I could no longer afford supplements. Waterbury’s training philosiphies have been so effective, that I’m in the best shape of my life and I don’t even measure my protein intake. Dave Barr would be disgusted with me.
I agree that on T-Nation some guys get their balls licked while others are somehow down to the general readers’ level even though their resumes are as formidable as anybodys. It’s like the authors are Pro Wrestlers and the readers are the marks.
[quote]Lou Garu wrote:
I really enjoy Darden’s stories, and I definitely want to know more about how the older era trained. I was a fan of Dr. John McCallum’s archives. I don’t doubt that Darden’s methods work, I just can’t practice them as conveniently and I’m not really interested in bodybuilding as much as I want to get stronger. It also seems like Darden is shilling his book a lot more than he wants to give training advice for free.
.[/quote]
You know, Darden has his own site (DrDarden.com) where he dispenses free information all day long.
I’m sure he’d hang out here more often if he felt welcome.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Personally I think it’s because a lot people on here aren’t making progress with bodypart splits. CW seems to dog bodypart splits any chance he gets, instead advocating total body training, which wins over these people.[/quote]
So does Darden. This is one point they agree upon.
[quote]TC wrote:
You know, Darden has his own site (DrDarden.com) where he dispenses free information all day long.
I’m sure he’d hang out here more often if he felt welcome.
[/quote]
Regardless of what anybody thinks of his methods the man has been in this game since Johnson was president and deserves a little more common respect than he gets from some guys here in my opinion.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
IrishMarc wrote:
I don’t particularly like either of them I personally think they are both gimmicky.
If you’ve never met them, you can’t know this. People are much different in person. I am way chill in person. Online, I come off - ahem - differently.[/quote]
I’m not saying I don’t like them in the literal term as in I talk behind their back and wouldn’t have a drink with them! As you say I don’t know them I am not making a judgment of character far from it!
I am just saying in relation to what I have read of theirs they seem to push their own “thing” be that HIT or TBT.
I prefer to read about general principals and trends in research and the like. As everything works its all down to specificity no one training methodology is truly better than another its all relative.
I’ve never liked reading about programs etc for some guys thats all they like each to their own.