You must be out of your mind mate. Every Chad Waterbury programme I’ve ever read has been simple, concise, and very effective when put into practise in the gym.
If you messed it up, it’s your fault.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Professor X wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Obviously Waterbury himself hasn’t built an impressive physique through his own training principles, but we understand that the guy is busy… I guess… But who do we see that has built an impressive physique using Waterbury routines?
Besides, of course, complete beginners who will make progress on any routine. Although, as the OP pointed out - and I agree with him - it is probably bad for beginners to be exposed to most of the stuff Chad Waterbury is putting out there.
This needs to be highlighted.
Who has built a great physique by following these “amazing” programs? That is what truly matters.
Can those who have post pics in this thread?
Please follow this post with pictures of your progress.
While I believe that the specific program you are using is irrelevant for the most part (even though I will look to those who have succeeded and follow what they do instead of what those who haven’t are doing), and that your progress is based on your effort, if people are going to claim “superiority”…which it seems quite a few do, I would love to see the superior results that top any other random routine (especially those that have built the best in the world).
In Waterbury’s defense, his programs and principles aren’t all bad for everyone. We can see people like IamMarqaos on this website who has built an incredible back through Waterbury principles like high-frequency training and 10x3. Another member, rasturai (some of you might remember as the kid everybody thought was a 30 year old man) was I believe using a Waterbury program with success when he first put his progress pictures up in these forums.
And lets not forget Nate Green who said he used “mostly Waterbury programs” when his pictures first showed up on this site.
But like you are saying ProfessorX, none of the results we’ve seen from people using his programs are superior to any other program. But these people had the drive and the experience to go balls out with the programs they do, and that is why they saw results.[/quote]
I don’t know how anyody can really be silly enough to say Waterbury’s programs are the ONLY programs that work, or the total body training is unconditionally the BEST way. If so, such people are clearly ridiculous. And you can’t prove a negative.
Others have obviously had great success and built quality physiques using splits and very different approaches. Some I’ve seen on this site. Others I haven’t but I know they know what they’re talking about. Like Professor X. I’ve never seen a picture of Professor X and don’t really have any interest. It wouldn’t add anything to my life.
But I have a good bullshit detector and can tell he knows what he’s talking about and has gotten some good results for himself. But generally the debate was ludicrous in the first place to the extent that you had people asying you can’t succeed without a total body approach when it is a FACT that this is not the case. Verified by the results of others who have publicly posted pictures on this site.
[quote]Sagat wrote:
I really dont understand why someone has to classified as doing Waterbury style training, or any other style of training… Couldnt you simply read his articles and aply whatever you found useful to your training? For example i found that TBT, varying rep ranges, focusing on high speed works well for me… but i prefer to use less sets than Waterbury usually recomends and dont stop a set when it slows down, going to failure often. You dont have to agree with everything an author says, its like the “absorb what is useful…” Bruce Lee thing.
On the pre-written programs, i never follow one but it often gives me some good ideas on workout design, splits, etc… I think seeing the whole program helps to understand the aplication of the ideas.[/quote]
Following pre-written programs to the T is only good for beginners. Soon enough, you should learn your body and what works for you as well as absorbing information from different places and approaches to apply in your own training. I don’t know why more don’t realize this and remain so beholden to every hot new program.
So, you fucked up and did not succeed, so it is CW’s fault? What are you, 12? If you did not succeed it is your own fucking fault. Nobody forced you to follow his routines.
Smarten up…
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I dont think he is saying “pre written routines wont work” but rather that in order to make any routine, be it just what you feel like doing that day or something that is laid out to the tee, the understanding of your own body is what is most important and that doing exactly what someone else is saying without some personal physiological feedback is a bad idea for anyone beyond the stage of “lift heavier than yesterday”.
[/quote]
Well said.
For some anecdotal evidence. My shoulders have always been a weak point. When i am doing a lot of bench and shoulder presses, my bursa sacks will flair up. Its painful. But i found out that push presses don’t agitate them and work really well to add strength and size. Also, thanks to whichever author first presented db snatches here. Brilliant!
The routines have a lot of good ideas hidden in them. The excersizes, however, are merely examples of how to put the routine to use. Learn your exercises and you will be able to make a million different routines out of 1. The problem then becomes, “how do i narrow it down to give ME the greatest benefit”.
Point is: learn the general concept behind the routine. Make substitutions for what suits you best, then abuse it for your own evil whims.
[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I dont think he is saying “pre written routines wont work” but rather that in order to make any routine, be it just what you feel like doing that day or something that is laid out to the tee, the understanding of your own body is what is most important and that doing exactly what someone else is saying without some personal physiological feedback is a bad idea for anyone beyond the stage of “lift heavier than yesterday”.
Well said.
For some anecdotal evidence. My shoulders have always been a weak point. When i am doing a lot of bench and shoulder presses, my bursa sacks will flair up. Its painful. But i found out that push presses don’t agitate them and work really well to add strength and size. Also, thanks to whichever author first presented db snatches here. Brilliant!
The routines have a lot of good ideas hidden in them. The excersizes, however, are merely examples of how to put the routine to use. Learn your exercises and you will be able to make a million different routines out of 1. The problem then becomes, “how do i narrow it down to give ME the greatest benefit”.
Point is: learn the general concept behind the routine. Make substitutions for what suits you best, then abuse it for your own evil whims.
[/quote]
The difference in results will always basically rely on the person and not the routine.
The type of person who actually needs to be told to work hard…or worse yet, tries to “calculate” how hard he is working as if you get points for making this as complicated as possible will never beat a guy who is driven internally and who won’t stop until they reach a goal.
This is not a middle school science experiment. You do not get extra credit points for seeing how you can throw what you learned in Calculus II into some overly complicated program.
The skinny guy determined to get bigger and the overweight guy determined to get in shape and who understand it will be hard work will always make better results than those who seem to think what they read takes the place of all of that effort.
That is why some of the people who have paid the least attention to what gurus preach have made some of the most progress in bodybuilding and always will.
That fact alone should make a lot of people who really believe they are so well read feel a lot more stupid in the gym.
[quote]anonym wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Claiming that the O.P trains like a pussy is totally unsubstantiated.
[quote]
Lol, no, it was just a joke. 
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
anonym wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Claiming that the O.P trains like a pussy is totally unsubstantiated.
Lol, no, it was just a joke. :P[/quote]
Aah, sorry 'bout that, man.
Id much rather do a strength based full body routine over the bullcrap body part splits. Train movements, not muscles.
[quote]gainera2582 wrote:
Id much rather do a strength based full body routine over the bullcrap body part splits. Train movements, not muscles. [/quote]
This seems to be the cheer yelled out by the “Least development Cheerleaders”.
You all should really work on your routine.
This thread is just…um…yeah…pathetic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The skinny guy determined to get bigger and the overweight guy determined to get in shape and who understand it will be hard work will always make better results than those who seem to think what they read takes the place of all of that effort.
That fact alone should make a lot of people who really believe they are so well read feel a lot more stupid in the gym.[/quote]
Yep, I mentionned this numerous times… even in some of my articles: the worst program performed all-out will give more results than the best program performed half-assed.
The main advantage of the programs ‘‘we’’ publish is the confidence factor: when somebody trusts a program and is convinced that he’ll get results then he will subconsciously be more disciplined and train harder thus he’ll get better results.
But most of these ‘‘better results’’ are due to the increase in effort and discipline not something written on a piece of paper.
My favorite bodybuilder of all time is Dorian Yates. Although it is debatable whether he should have won all 6 of his Olympia titles one thing that is not open to debate is how hard he trained. I was just watching his ‘‘Blood and Guts’’ video and one comment that he made really told the whole story: ‘‘Here it is, this is the real s**t, it’s not pretty but it works’’.
Some people seem to focus more on ‘‘pretty’’ than ‘‘work’’ (although you CAN have both).
[quote]gainera2582 wrote:
<<< Train movements, not muscles. [/quote]
I’ll even go so far as to say that the opposite is true if size is the ultimate goal. Performing a movement, even in technically good form, does not necessarily translate into the intended muscles getting the most effective work.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
gainera2582 wrote:
<<< Train movements, not muscles.
I’ll even go so far as to say that the opposite is true if size is the ultimate goal. Performing a movement, even in technically good form, does not necessarily translate into the intended muscles getting the most effective work.[/quote]
Isn’t there some saying like Powerlifters train movements, bodybuilders train muscles?
Anyhow, I agree with ya on that.
Just to steer this conversation away from “the determined hard worker vs. the lazy smarty pants nerd”. The results are obvious.
I have a feeling that Dorian Yates probably didn’t have a “routine” per se. I also think that anyone in the game long enough probably has their muscles lead them around in the gym.
I for one don’t follow any sort of written guideline. I have a bunch of exercises I want to do weekly, such as squats and deadlifts, but i train whatever feels fresh(in mind and body). I am not going to train curls just because my routine says so, if i am jonesing for pullups. Whatever your mind is into at the moment is probably what you are going to get the best benefit from.
Of course beginners should follow a plan. But i think evolution dictates that eventually you drop the training wheels.
Your thoughts?
[quote]gainera2582 wrote:
Id much rather do a strength based full body routine over the bullcrap body part splits. Train movements, not muscles. [/quote]
Go on and keep not training your muscles. Ill be doing my own thing and keep getting bigger.
[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
I have a feeling that Dorian Yates probably didn’t have a “routine” per se.
[/quote]
Not true, although I agree with most of your post. Dorian did have a routine and he is probably the guy who stuck to his routine the longest… according to his book (Dorian Yates: A warrior story) he only changed it 3 times while he was competing and everytime he changed it, it was for a specific reason.
Dorian was probably the most logical bodybuilder of his era (maybe of all time). He did record and analyze everything. He was the perfect example of the ‘‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’’ mantra. That’s part of his ‘‘working man persona’’: day in and day out ‘‘just another day at the office’’.
He had 3 major changes in routine over his competitive career, each one was due to him getting stronger and bigger. He reasoned that since he was getting a lot stronger, his muscles needed moe time to recover from a specific workout (heavier lifting = more stress on the muscle, tendonds, joints and CNS).
His first routine, which he used at the beginning of his competitive career (1983-1985) was a double split (splitting the whole body into 2 different workouts).
In workout 1 he trained chest, back, delts and abs (2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises per muscle group) and in workout 2 he did quads, hams, calves, biceps and triceps (again 2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises). He trained 3 times per week and alternated workouts 1 and 2.
His first change came in 1986 and it is the one he used to win his pro card. Since he got stronger and needed more recovery time between muscle groups AND needed to train less muscle groups per session to accomodate the heavier lifting he moved to a 3-ways split (3 different workouts).
Workout 1 was chest (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), biceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), triceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was quads (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), hams (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and calves (2-3 sets of 1 exercise).
Workout 3 was back (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), delts (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), traps (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and rear delts (2-3 sets of 1 exercise)
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off schedule.
While on a certain routine he rarely changed exercises (in part because his gym didn’t have that much fancy equipment at the time and also because he stuck to the exercises that gave him the best results).
The only time he made some minor changes was when he got injured (e.g. when he tore his quad he stopped doing squats; when he tore his biceps he switched from a suppinated to a pronated grip on his barbell rowing, etc.).
To everyone asking why I made a thread about myself failing, and blaming it on an author:
This thread was not made to blame Chad Waterbury. The point of this thread is an example of a beginner who over-complicated things.
I am not blaming Chad Waterbury. But I am saying that the programming I used derailed my mind.You may say that it is strange how easily my mind must have confused itself. yes, this is obviously how it worked at that time. Things have changed.
I think I worded my thread wrongly. The point of this thread was to make a point that beginners should stop over-analysing and just work hard with the basics.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
He had 3 major changes in routine over his competitive career, each one was due to him getting stronger and bigger. He reasoned that since he was getting a lot stronger, his muscles needed moe time to recover from a specific workout (heavier lifting = more stress on the muscle, tendonds, joints and CNS).
His first routine, which he used at the beginning of his competitive career (1983-1985) was a double split (splitting the whole body into 2 different workouts). In workout 1 he trained chest, back, delts and abs (2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises per muscle group) and in workout 2 he did quads, hams, calves, biceps and triceps (again 2-3 sets of 2-3 exercises). He trained 3 times per week and alternated workouts 1 and 2.
His first change came in 1986 and it is the one he used to win his pro card. Since he got stronger and needed more recovery time between muscle groups AND needed to train less muscle groups per session to accomodate the heavier lifting he moved to a 3-ways split (3 different workouts).
Workout 1 was chest (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), biceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), triceps (2-3 sets of 2 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was quads (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), hams (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and calves (2-3 sets of 1 exercise).
Workout 3 was back (2-3 sets of 3 exercises), delts (2-3 sets of 2 exercises), traps (2-3 sets of 1 exercise) and rear delts (2-3 sets of 1 exercise)
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
Finally he moved on to his ‘‘Olympia’’ routine in which he further split his body:
Workout 1 was Delts (1 work set of 3 exercises), traps (1 work set of 1 exercise), triceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 2 was back (1 work sets of 4 exercises), rear delts (1 work set of 2 exercises) and lower back (1 work set of 2 excercises).
Workout 3 was chest (1 work set of 4 exercises), biceps (1 work set of 3 exercises) and abs.
Workout 4 was quads (1 work set of 3 exercises), hams (1 work set of 3 exercises) and calves (1 work set of 2 exercises).
He trained on a 2 days on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off, 1 day on, 1 day off schedule.
While on a certain routine he rarely changed exercises (in part because his gym didn’t have that much fancy equipment at the time and also because he stuck to the exercises that gave him the best results).
The only time he made some minor changes was when he got injured (e.g. when he tore his quad he stopped doing squats; when he tore his biceps he switched from a suppinated to a pronated grip on his barbell rowing, etc.).[/quote]
Interesting read. Thanks for posting that.