[quote]anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?[/quote]
Well, we have had a cold winter. 
[quote]anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?[/quote]
Just like AIDS. Nobody cares about it anymore. It’s all about cancer now.
[quote]CantStop wrote:
anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?
Just like AIDS. Nobody cares about it anymore. It’s all about cancer now.[/quote]
Breast cancer, most importantly.
[quote]CantStop wrote:
anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?
Just like AIDS. Nobody cares about it anymore. It’s all about cancer now.[/quote]
Are you HIV Positive.
[quote]JoeG254 wrote:
CantStop wrote:
anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?
Just like AIDS. Nobody cares about it anymore. It’s all about cancer now.
Are you HIV Positive.[/quote]
I wasnt, but this thread has gonorrhea-ssured me.
[quote]JoeG254 wrote:
CantStop wrote:
anonym wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
I blame the Iraq war for his failure.
And American foreign policy.
And Chad Waterbury.
Is global warming now sooo last month?
Just like AIDS. Nobody cares about it anymore. It’s all about cancer now.
Are you HIV Positive.
[/quote]
Well played, sir. I didn’t catch that reference at first.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Well played, sir. I didn’t catch that reference at first.[/quote]
You should be ashamed of yourself. Especially with your Av.
last I checked CWs workouts were based on lifting heavy, lifting fast, and progression from every workout to the next, wether it be more reps, more weight, or less rest. And he has every exercise written down witch how much weight to use, how many reps and how much rest. Really fucking complicated.
Did you even read MR? He strait up says if you are a beginner my workouts arnt for you. go hit the weights for a year or two and then try them.
i think CW’s progarms are great but are geared more towards athletes on the field
I used CW TBT after about 9 months of lifting and it worked great. It added 20lbs to my bench and squat, and the antagonist training helped my recovery between sets. I also did his 10 X 3 for fat loss and kept my strength while losing 15lbs of fat. His programs worked well for me as a beginner/int.
But there is definitely something to say about keeping it simple and adding weight to the bar, this is what I did for my first 6 months of lifting and it worked well. Now, after about 2 years, I just have to add a little variety and do dynamic and isolation work to get gains on the big three (squat/bench/dead). But overall the concept is the same, keep it as simple as possible and add some weight to the bar every couple weeks or so. I hoping for my best gains yet this year by sticking to a variety of simple principles and a continually improving diet.
although questioning others methods isnt wrong, i dont agree with your argument. Chad Waterbury actually backs up his principles with full in depth muscle charts and research. no one said that you have to believe Chad Waterbury speaks the word of god. apply the principles that work for you.
for me, Chad’s ‘speed lifting’ to recruit more ft muscles has worked great for me. ive def seen improvement in physique and strength. but like yourself, im no pro, not even close to it, i dont even aspire to be one…
Poliquin bashes CW’s principles, a lot of you bash Poliquin, etc etc. use what you believe is right for you. but i digress.
CW has been out of the loop for awhile. he needs a new article.
[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
although questioning others methods isnt wrong, i dont agree with your argument. Chad Waterbury actually backs up his principles with full in depth muscle charts and research. no one said that you have to believe Chad Waterbury speaks the word of god. apply the principles that work for you.
for me, Chad’s ‘speed lifting’ to recruit more ft muscles has worked great for me. ive def seen improvement in physique and strength. but like yourself, im no pro, not even close to it, i dont even aspire to be one…
Poliquin bashes CW’s principles, a lot of you bash Poliquin, etc etc. use what you believe is right for you. but i digress.
CW has been out of the loop for awhile. he needs a new article.[/quote]
Muscle charts and research. Thats fine, but youre forgetting about the most important thing a coach can produce to back up his claims and that is RESULTS.
You say his training has worked for you, give us some more details…didnt you admit in another thread that you are “160 lbs and pretty fat”?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
although questioning others methods isnt wrong, i dont agree with your argument. Chad Waterbury actually backs up his principles with full in depth muscle charts and research. no one said that you have to believe Chad Waterbury speaks the word of god. apply the principles that work for you.
for me, Chad’s ‘speed lifting’ to recruit more ft muscles has worked great for me. ive def seen improvement in physique and strength. but like yourself, im no pro, not even close to it, i dont even aspire to be one…
Poliquin bashes CW’s principles, a lot of you bash Poliquin, etc etc. use what you believe is right for you. but i digress.
CW has been out of the loop for awhile. he needs a new article.
Muscle charts and research. Thats fine, but youre forgetting about the most important thing a coach can produce to back up his claims and that is RESULTS.
You say his training has worked for you, give us some more details…didnt you admit in another thread that you are “160 lbs and pretty fat”?[/quote]
I asked for pictures PAGES ago.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
This is interesting. I go away for six months and come back to finally have some legitimate questions and lively debate about this guy and his methods. I’ve been waiting for a while to hear some dissent to these obscure theories.
There is a funny thing about training knowledge; effective training is ridiculously simple. People new to the game want to gain size, and believe there must be something inherently complicated about it. So they listen to theories about tempo training, mixed fiber types, concentric/eccentric, bla bla bla. Meanwhile, large guys who have already been there are telling the new guys over and over and over its only progressive resistance, compound movements, hard work and eating a surplus. But the knowledge is not taken truly seriously because perhaps its viewed by the newbie as impossibly simple, and the other gus have “charts and graphs” to prove so. Well, the large guys have “backs and bis” to prove that it IS that simple. YOu want the essence of getting big? Lift till you can’t lift anymore, go home and eat, go to bed, and do that 4 times a week. Train each bodypart again when its not too sore to train. Thats it. That’ll be 49.95 please.
[/quote]
no, no ,no! That can’t be right, it just makes way too much sense!
[quote]MODOK wrote:
This is interesting. I go away for six months and come back to finally have some legitimate questions and lively debate about this guy and his methods. I’ve been waiting for a while to hear some dissent to these obscure theories.
There is a funny thing about training knowledge; effective training is ridiculously simple. People new to the game want to gain size, and believe there must be something inherently complicated about it. So they listen to theories about tempo training, mixed fiber types, concentric/eccentric, bla bla bla. Meanwhile, large guys who have already been there are telling the new guys over and over and over its only progressive resistance, compound movements, hard work and eating a surplus. But the knowledge is not taken truly seriously because perhaps its viewed by the newbie as impossibly simple, and the other gus have “charts and graphs” to prove so. Well, the large guys have “backs and bis” to prove that it IS that simple. YOu want the essence of getting big? Lift till you can’t lift anymore, go home and eat, go to bed, and do that 4 times a week. Train each bodypart again when its not too sore to train. Thats it. That’ll be 49.95 please.
[/quote]
Great post.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
although questioning others methods isnt wrong, i dont agree with your argument. Chad Waterbury actually backs up his principles with full in depth muscle charts and research. no one said that you have to believe Chad Waterbury speaks the word of god. apply the principles that work for you.
for me, Chad’s ‘speed lifting’ to recruit more ft muscles has worked great for me. ive def seen improvement in physique and strength. but like yourself, im no pro, not even close to it, i dont even aspire to be one…
Poliquin bashes CW’s principles, a lot of you bash Poliquin, etc etc. use what you believe is right for you. but i digress.
CW has been out of the loop for awhile. he needs a new article.
Muscle charts and research. Thats fine, but youre forgetting about the most important thing a coach can produce to back up his claims and that is RESULTS.
You say his training has worked for you, give us some more details…didnt you admit in another thread that you are “160 lbs and pretty fat”?
I asked for pictures PAGES ago.
[/quote]
I think you actually asked for pictures MONTHS (if not years) ago. 
IamMarqaos (sorry if I spelled that wrong) posted some pictures of his results that he attributed to doing CW’s routines a while back. And to date, those are the only impressive progress pics (or physical proof of any kind) that I have seen of the effectiveness of his routines.
I’m not saying that they don’t work, just saying that if they work so well (for building muscle), I would think you’d have lots of people who would be happy to show some progress pics when someone asks for them. Instead very few (if any) seem to be able to back up their words with results.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
This is interesting. I go away for six months and come back to finally have some legitimate questions and lively debate about this guy and his methods. I’ve been waiting for a while to hear some dissent to these obscure theories.
There is a funny thing about training knowledge; effective training is ridiculously simple. People new to the game want to gain size, and believe there must be something inherently complicated about it. So they listen to theories about tempo training, mixed fiber types, concentric/eccentric, bla bla bla. Meanwhile, large guys who have already been there are telling the new guys over and over and over its only progressive resistance, compound movements, hard work and eating a surplus. But the knowledge is not taken truly seriously because perhaps its viewed by the newbie as impossibly simple, and the other gus have “charts and graphs” to prove so. Well, the large guys have “backs and bis” to prove that it IS that simple. YOu want the essence of getting big? Lift till you can’t lift anymore, go home and eat, go to bed, and do that 4 times a week. Train each bodypart again when its not too sore to train. Thats it. That’ll be 49.95 please.
[/quote]
This is indeed a great post. The only thing I would qualify is that it’s not necessary to AVOID isolation movements, even as noob, though I don’t think that’s what you were saying. People cannot get it in their heads that how you work is much more important than what you work in general and especially for new guys. I could put EVERYTHING any noob would need for their first year on one side of a piece of looseleaf. not because I’m a towering training genius, but because it doesn’t take one.
As for Waterbury, I think he would do himself a favor if he just forgot about bodybuilding for the most part and concentrated on other types of training. It’s when he starts talking about how to get people huge that I wind up thinking “if the premise of this article weren’t primarily about building a physique this would probably be useful information for other types of athletes”.
ive done the Waterbury method twice, and i dont think i put on any weight either time …but i did gain a fair amount of strength, like others have said Waterbury’s methods seem to do well for athletes, but no so well for bodybuilders…
The Training Split Roundtable I
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1333967
The Training Split Roundtable, Part II
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1335480
TBT vs. Splits: An Analysis
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1388191
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, you have to find what works best for you. Which is why it’s so important to keep a training log. How do you know what worked best if you can’t compare the results of what you’ve done in the past?
I think both full-body and splits are useful and each have their place. I’ve used them both with good results from both. I think the results you get have more to do with the effort you put into it than the program itself.
I tend to think in general, that full body may be more useful for beginners and athletes while splits may be more beneficial for bodybuilders (who aren’t beginners).
By the way, something CT said in the second roundtable article caught my eye. This is to the people who are saying you should look at what pro bodybuilders are doing. CT said this:
=========================================
"The genetic elite (I prefer to put more credence in genetics than drugs when it comes to bodybuilding because I’ve seen too many drug users hardly look like they train at all) often reach the highest level of success in spite of what they’re doing, not because of what they’re doing.
Body part splits are associated with more bodybuilding success than any other form of training organization. However, it’s also associated with more failure than any other form of split! That’s simply because more people are training this way.
I’d say that the rate of success of a program isn’t really dependent on the training split used, but rather to the means of training, exercise selection, level of effort, etc. That doesn’t mean that a body part split isn’t how a bodybuilder should train. However, the simple fact that “everybody is doing it” is in no way indicative of the superiority of the method."
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You are right. I had forgotten how even “compound vs. isolation” movements were a controversy on here. It boggles my mind. Bodybuilding with ONLY compound movements like an artist painting with only the primary colors. Why wouldn’t you want a complete palate at your disposal? It makes for a much more pleasing picture (physique). Of course, there is always the dufus doing 15 sets of kickbacks as a tri workout, but I would hope that that isn’t our audience in the first place.
[/quote]
I don’t understand why this is that big of a debate. For crying out loud, even powerlifters and olympic lifters use isolation work occasionally. PLer’s more so, but still. The bottom line is make up the majority of your program, both volume and time management-wise, with big movements that stimulate systemic growth, and work on weak points with additional isolation movements that address them. It’s that simple. It’s not like there are only two options in the training universe.
I think where it got convoluted was when people and contributers started trying to emphasize the idea that often times you need to lift with an emphasis on strength and systemic load to break plateaus in size, or to get the most out of short time schedules. I mean sure we’ve all seen the guys perpetually stuck at the same physique level. Sometimes its diet, sometimes its effort, but a lot of times its too much isolation work. So in an effort to refocus attention on lifting heavy with big money exercises, readers unintentionally polarized the debate by referring to isolation stuff as ‘bad’.
I know I’ve given the advice to chin and row heavier to get bigger arms–and its true, if you can’t support the weight, you can’t curl it (your body will shut down to avoid injury), and systemic overload from heavy pulling exercises helps a lot with indirect stimulation. But it only works to a point. And many times I haven’t been careful enough to add that to my advice. I just don’t understand why it has to be one or the other.
There has never been a single-factor theory that adequately explained ANY part of life, the universe, or anything. It’s NEVER black and white–not in biology, not in physics, not in philosophy, not in sociology, not in politics, not in economics. Not in anything. And certainly not in training. For some reason all people want to talk about are single-factor theories in these fields of study…and it never works.