Chad Waterbury and Ellington Darden

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what I wanted to put in this post, but one of the things I thought about including was my own experience that both styles have worked great for me. I did read about the hard work, and I was going to comment that I agreed.

Also, like what you said, after a few years of wasted training, I learned how to listen to my body, and have finally started making good gains. This came through my own intuitive split that let me gain 20 lbs in about 4 months, and also through CW’s TBT programs.

Really, my questions were actually about bodybuilder history, not taking what they do and extrapolating. I’m just trying to gain a little bodybuilding knowledge. I know you follow the pro’s, so I was wondering if you, or anyone else, happened to know about my original questions. Not like it’s that important, but this topic comes up so often that I decided to ask.

62

[quote]veruvius wrote:

Really, my questions were actually about bodybuilder history, not taking what they do and extrapolating. I’m just trying to gain a little bodybuilding knowledge. I know you follow the pro’s, so I was wondering if you, or anyone else, happened to know about my original questions. Not like it’s that important, but this topic comes up so often that I decided to ask.[/quote]

Your original questions was this:

Of course they are “following convention”. Bodybuilding was an underground cult activity for decades. Some could argue it still is as far as those who actually stand out in clothes fully dressed as being more muscular than average. The only people to go to for info in the past were guys who had already figured out how to get big…

therefore, they followed what other guys did to get big and built on it. That is why these core exercises and routines are now considered standard, because they were proven in gyms for so long. The only reason there is any confusion about this is because of the nature of those who fail to push as hard or see similar results.

We can call them “Pocket Protectors”. These are guys who assume that because they didn’t grow like the guy next to them, obviously the only reason he is growing is because of drugs. These are often the types of people who will attempt to assert their authority in the gym by turning this into a constant debate about the latest study as if experience means nothing at all.

They call everyone who does see progress “genetically gifted” as they settle into calling them out for training wrong and only growing because they are different than everyone else. These are the guys who watch Ronnie Coleman train and claim he just isn’t doing it right…at least not like they would do it…which is why they are so freaking HUGE!..with 14" arms.

To me, it sounds like sour grapes. We know what works. We see it in the gym all of the time. Very often, it is the very thing Pocket Protectors claim just can’t work or shouldn’t work…like direct arm work to get big arms.

So, yes, they were and are following convention…because convention works for many many people. If it doesn’t work, you tweak it until it does. I think the desire to get there and the intelligence to figure out the best way to do it is most important.

63

whats up i dont really post alot because the i feel like every thread is the same people talking about the same topics and arguing. but Chad Waterbury’s programs work. they are probably the best all around program out, meaning that you build muscle, gain strength, keep your fitness levels good and all that.

i usually do 3 months full body then 2 months body part split. i like both and think both are worth my time doing and i always make the best size and strength gains when i SWITCH programs. just wanted to drop my opinion on the situation peace

64

I read and take in everything I can with regards to getting huge but I do what works for me.

Chad’s stuff makes sense for athletes and performance. Me personally doing heavy back squats and heavy bent over rows within the same session doesn’t make sense to me…kinda like wiping your ass from back to front, but that’s just my opinion.

Darden is one my favorite reads for entertainment purposes but one can get tired of hearing about how Casey Viator was the shit (and he definitely was a specimen, no doubt) and how Arnold couldn’t handle the system. I couldn’t handle training only twice a week, it would drive me nutz but again that’s just my opinion.

Having an ever expanding knowledge base is most important but in a game that involves some many body types and genetic make-ups you must be able to decipher and use what works for you and discard the rest.

65

I don’t see anything wrong with somebody taking their experience and insight and marketing it for profit. I don’t even REALLY have a problem with somebody touting their views as the best, as long as they don’t go way out of their way to convince less experienced people that theirs is the only way.

What are they supposed to say? [quote] Author XYZ says:
“Here’s how I see it, but you have no reason to think this is any better or different than anything else you’ve seen?”[/quote]

The fanboy wars are, I believe, more a product of the fanboys themselves. I don’t fault anybody for trying to make a living and I honestly hope their labors do well for them. It’s mainly the consumers who lose the perspective that the authors themselves have stated you have to keep.

Thibaudeau and Waterbury have been at the center of the worst of it in recent months, but both of them have said themselves that there is no one way to train that works as well for everybody all the time. OK, with the possible exception of some literary hyperbole that is best viewed as such.

As for Darden? Well he’ll always be Darden and if you just can’t stand the guy or his methods then fine, but that doesn’t make them invalid for everybody all the time. I really have in the past and still do find benefit in the old blitzkrieg/hit n run methods that his school preaches if kept in perspective. Even he said recently in one of his posts that if you don’t have success with what he says then just don’t do it.

This biggest component is, as I’ve said in the past, an inevitable symptom of the digital age where every conceivable shred of information is available at the click of a mouse. Not good or bad, or maybe it’s both, but any way you look at it this is the way it is now and will be from now on.

It’s up to the individual to be mature and sophisticated enough to use it to their best advantage, but don’t hold your breath.

66

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thibaudeau and Waterbury have been at the center of the worst of it in recent months, but both of them have said themselves that there is no one way to train that works as well for everybody all the time. OK, with the possible exception of some literary hyperbole that is best viewed as such.
[/quote]

I agree pretty much with what you said, most of the dogmatic nonsense is the work of the fanboys rather than the authors; but in fairness there was the claim by one author in recent months that whole body training works better every time. This then led to the whole fake argument article thing and then it seemingly died down.

EDIT: My apologies, you picked up on that whole thing with the hyperbole remark. I was too quick to comment there.

67

holy f’in freakiness. coincidence?

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1454124

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What do you win if you are biased against both?

I hope it’s one of those stuffed Snoopy dolls. I had one when I was little but he got shot in a drive by. [/quote]

I think a good thing to award would be something that isnt on the market yet but would be very sucessful and that is a “Set me on fire and beat me wiff a bat Elmo”
Yep that would be good