[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Don’t forget you won’t be able to walk up a flight of stairs without getting winded.
Wait, you can walk up stairs? But walking up stairs means combining the activation of your quads, hamstrings, glutes and calves simulatneously.
There’s no way you can integrate all those muscles together at the same time if you do isolation exercises in your training!
[/quote]
LMFAO!
[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
The article served three purposes:
It was designed to keep us thinking about Chad Waterbury and discussing Chad Waterbury. Coincidentally he has a new book out. It’s marketing plain and simple. Doesn’t mean it’s bad, just realize it for what it is. Kind of like when a celebrity shows up for an event. You think they want to be there? No, but they have a movie to sell.
It was supposed to be entertaining. Was it? not really. I think they went a little overboard. Had he not tried to be funny though, it would have been a really boring article and basically just a copy-job to the MR book review. I’ve read worse.
It was basically just fill-in. I agree with Zap that there isn’t much new going on. When was the last new “major” training or diet article written? You know- the ones we talk about a lot and actually recommend to others. “Get Shredded Diet”, “V-Diet”, “T-Dawg” are diet examples and “HFT”, “10x3”, “ABBH”, etc. are training examples. You know- the staples?
Try not to read too much into each article published. This is an online magazine for both education and entertainment. Think of the last magazine you read- did you read every single article in it? Every single one? And did you like each one? Did you send in a letter to the editor about the one you didn’t like?[/quote]
You’re right. The majority of the time that I have ever read an article I might not agree with, I won’t even bother responding. In fact, I think I have only done so recently because in the past few weeks, I have been specifically called out in some of them which prompted the response.
I think what got to me more than anything was the style of the “article”…written in a way that basically showed he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is illogical and extremely stupid…with a bad sense of humor. All of this while making the claims he did about people who use split training and actually see results. If it had simply been yet another article about his training style, I probably wouldn’t have even read it.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I want my coach to be a trainer first, and a writer second. These days, it sees that here is what happens:
I agree with this part 150000%, but you kind of have to accept that it was a little bit of a fluff article. Not everything is going as in-depth as some of us may want it to be.
[quote]luburic wrote:
On a serious note,all that weight training stuff Chad is promoting,the good all Russians have figured 40 years ago.Maybe they didnt had todays scientific studies,but they used apply it,then figure why it works later! [/quote]
If you use that train of thought, people could just tape bosu balls to their feet and do hammer curls all day long. Stupid as hell, but I’m sure it would work for some people.
At the very least Waterbury has brought to the forefront an important discussion for people who consider themselves advanced trainees, and he has some logic and science behind his hft methodology.
I don’t know too many people that think you shouldn’t start a beginner on a fullbody program (I think Professor X may have alluded to starting his training with splits a while back, though) if only because the CNS will be taxed more the majority of the time on fullbody programs, and the beginner gains from all I’ve been taught are related to improved CNS performance.
I’ve always found upper/lower splits gave me the best bang for my buck, but I’ve been through hft before and it’s certainly challenging. I agree with whoever said the split/fullbody roundtable was probably more what you’re (CaliforniaLaw) looking for, though.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Don’t forget you won’t be able to walk up a flight of stairs without getting winded.
I would think that statement was meant to indicate that some pro-bodybuilders are actually in terrible shape physically - even though they look supremely strong and healthy.
Obviously this would not apply to all of them, or even the majority.
However, it can’t be denied that some of these guys are abusing themselves with so many drugs (oxycontin, nubain, dangerous use of diuretics - whatever) that it’s actually completely ironic that they represent a healthy, fit lifestyle.
[/quote]
bodybuilding isn’t about being in good cardiovascular shape. are you gonna start hating on strongmen and sumo wrestlers and heavyweight OLY lifters? you think those guys are in good cardiovascular shape? i wonder how well they’d do a 3k run.
their sport doesn’t REQUIRE it, and it’s contrary to their objectives. why are you being a hater?
what’s next? oh, that guy is so lame, he has a PhD in engineering but what does he know about PSYCHOLOGY? get a life, dude.
we all know bodybuilders are ridiculously huge. we all know their hearts can’t keep up. they make that sacrifice so their sport. conversely, i can make fun of a marathon runner, despite him/her performing an incredible physical feat, he/she can’t bench a lot. do you think i’m going to go out of my way to try and undermine his/her abilities by focusing on his shortcomings?
nobody ever said that competitive bodybuilding constituted a healthy lifestyle, anyways. if we wanted to be healthy and just that, we’d all be vegetarian, live stress-free lives, and walk for a couple of hours a day.
I mentioned this in another post, but I will be using Chad’s HFT in prep for my BB comp in April. I hope this help in seeing any comparasions between the two.
I should mention that I just finished CT’s HSS-100 program. I think the combination of the two during a longterm training regime can produce quality gains.
[quote]BENXPX wrote:
The Critic was designed to emulate the common everyday 135 pound 15 year old “bodybuilder” that commonly argues without facts and evidence to support their argument. Basically the entire article was written to show how ridiculous some of these people can be in comparison to how knowledgeable one of the T-Nation contributors can be.
[/quote]
I thought the Critic was designed to emulate the average T-Nation member. Every single question/quote the Critic had was something that members had said at one point or another over the last few weeks.
I’d say that the older age members are far more stubborn and set in their ways compared to the 15 year old 135lb bodybuilder. Chad seems to be pissing off older members rather than the younger.
I know we can’t expect much NEW information. But the article in question, in my opinion wasnt something i would of put on the front page is all. Its quality was questionable. Regardless of how you view the authors attempt. Its not so much chriss as it is how the article was done.
Meh… why are we talking about what happened yesterday?
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?
But I would also like to say I wasn’t crazy about “the critic” format. I like it better when the articles are less entertainment and more learning.
The following is the response I wrote to CW after his article. The mods have yet to post it though.
…
[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
I’ve heard this same rant about 100 times in the last month. Maybe we should do another body part split vs. total body roundtable? Maybe we can devote an entire section of T-Nation to the cause?[/quote]
Or maybe individuals should stop blatantly degrading certain modes of training that have produced some of the greatest physiques in the world. Or, maybe you could have simply answered the questions without getting all snippy.
[quote]
What do you want me to say?[/quote]
Perhaps something that didn’t include some relation of body split training to not being able to breath while walking up stairs.
[quote]
Do want me to acknowledge that body part splits have built big muscles? Well, I have acknowledged that fact, many times.[/quote]
Yes, while claiming that the only way this is possible is by either the existence of a genetic freak or extreme drug use.
[quote]
Do you want me to say that body part splits aren’t “non functional?” As I’ve said ad nauseam, if you want bigger biceps then you better understand that your traps, upper back and posterior chain are going to be limiting factors if they’re weak. So since I like to train with a higher frequency, I train those muscles at every session when someone wants bigger biceps - an approach that’s not possible with a body part split. [/quote]
…an approach that isn’t NECESSARY to train those same muscle groups and receive the greatest benefit. Do you really want to know what I want? I want individuals to stop acting as if the goal should NOT be for each individual to find what works best for them. I want entire training styles that have produced millions of competing bodybuilders to NOT be degraded as being near useless unless it is used by a genetic freak on large amounts of drugs.
[quote]
Seriously, I don’t get what you’re after. Do want me to just simply say that you’re right? [/quote]
No. I want you to say that you might not be.
[quote]
Have I ever said that total body training is the ONLY way to train, and the ONLY way to get big, strong muscles? Of course not. And if someone like CT says he’s achieved good results with a body part split, then I respect that statement. I don’t run around the forums saying CT doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]
CT also hasn’t said that the most likely explanation for anyone seeing results with “full body training” is if they are genetic specimens far above average on drugs.
[quote]
Look, we’re all after results. And since none of us are genetically engineered in exactly the same way, it stands to reason that we’re all going to get different results from different methodologies.[/quote]
Could this explain why I was able to climb stairs today without passing out?
[quote]
I discuss the approaches that have worked for my clients. If you haven’t achieved the same results with the approaches I mention, don’t let your insecurities take over. [/quote]
My insecurities?
In all honesty, I was going to respond much differently than I just did…however, I read your post first and came upon that last sentence before I responded. Wouldn’t the insecure one be the one who tries to downplay the achievements of others by claiming it is simply genetics or drugs…or that it leads to mass hypoxia on stairwells?
[quote]Man O’ War wrote:
BENXPX wrote:
The Critic was designed to emulate the common everyday 135 pound 15 year old “bodybuilder” that commonly argues without facts and evidence to support their argument. Basically the entire article was written to show how ridiculous some of these people can be in comparison to how knowledgeable one of the T-Nation contributors can be.
I thought the Critic was designed to emulate the average T-Nation member. Every single question/quote the Critic had was something that members had said at one point or another over the last few weeks.
I’d say that the older age members are far more stubborn and set in their ways compared to the 15 year old 135lb bodybuilder. Chad seems to be pissing off older members rather than the younger.
[/quote]
“The Critic” was designed to make it seem as if Chad has no significant arguments against what he is saying. This couldn’t farther from the truth.
[quote]Prince Vegeta wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?[/quote]
For one, that is NOT all that is being said.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?
For one, that is NOT all that is being said.[/quote]
Ok yeah I agree there is some other funny sounding stuff in there. I think full body splits are a little more taxing than bodypart splits,but saying people can’t breathe from going up stairs from bodypart splits is a strange thing to say. I think there is alot we can learn from Waterbury though.
Normally I let people be, but hey, this is the interwebz: Professor X,why do you take such a stance against the full body routine, or the assault on bodypart routines? I presume you built your physique using bodypart splits primarily, do you think that full body programs wouldn’t help you as well as bodypart splits?
[quote]Prince Vegeta wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?
For one, that is NOT all that is being said.
Ok yeah I agree there is some other funny sounding stuff in there. I think full body splits are a little more taxing than bodypart splits,but saying people can’t breathe from going up stairs from bodypart splits is a strange thing to say. I think there is alot we can learn from Waterbury though.
Normally I let people be, but hey, this is the interwebz: Professor X,why do you take such a stance against the full body routine, or the assault on bodypart routines? I presume you built your physique using bodypart splits primarily, do you think that full body programs wouldn’t help you as well as bodypart splits?
[/quote]
My personal opinion is that there may be times in someone’s training where simply changing things up may help them. I do NOT believe that this needs to be some blanket prescription for newbies regardless of how many books it helps to sell. Simply put, what is being argued is his DEGREDATION of body part splits. It is plain as day.
I am sure fanboys would have a hard time seeing it though.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Don’t forget you won’t be able to walk up a flight of stairs without getting winded.
I would think that statement was meant to indicate that some pro-bodybuilders are actually in terrible shape physically - even though they look supremely strong and healthy.
Obviously this would not apply to all of them, or even the majority.
However, it can’t be denied that some of these guys are abusing themselves with so many drugs (oxycontin, nubain, dangerous use of diuretics - whatever) that it’s actually completely ironic that they represent a healthy, fit lifestyle.
bodybuilding isn’t about being in good cardiovascular shape. are you gonna start hating on strongmen and sumo wrestlers and heavyweight OLY lifters? you think those guys are in good cardiovascular shape? i wonder how well they’d do a 3k run.
their sport doesn’t REQUIRE it, and it’s contrary to their objectives. why are you being a hater?
what’s next? oh, that guy is so lame, he has a PhD in engineering but what does he know about PSYCHOLOGY? get a life, dude.
we all know bodybuilders are ridiculously huge. we all know their hearts can’t keep up. they make that sacrifice so their sport. conversely, i can make fun of a marathon runner, despite him/her performing an incredible physical feat, he/she can’t bench a lot. do you think i’m going to go out of my way to try and undermine his/her abilities by focusing on his shortcomings?
nobody ever said that competitive bodybuilding constituted a healthy lifestyle, anyways. if we wanted to be healthy and just that, we’d all be vegetarian, live stress-free lives, and walk for a couple of hours a day.
[/quote]
I always thought body building was about making Joe Weider rich…buying protein powders and shit…ah,well,it doesnt matter—JOE MADE IT!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?
For one, that is NOT all that is being said.
Ok yeah I agree there is some other funny sounding stuff in there. I think full body splits are a little more taxing than bodypart splits,but saying people can’t breathe from going up stairs from bodypart splits is a strange thing to say. I think there is alot we can learn from Waterbury though.
Normally I let people be, but hey, this is the interwebz: Professor X,why do you take such a stance against the full body routine, or the assault on bodypart routines? I presume you built your physique using bodypart splits primarily, do you think that full body programs wouldn’t help you as well as bodypart splits?
My personal opinion is that there may be times in someone’s training where simply changing things up may help them. I do NOT believe that this needs to be some blanket prescription for newbies regardless of how many books it helps to sell. Simply put, what is being argued is his DEGREDATION of body part splits. It is plain as day.
I am sure fanboys would have a hard time seeing it though.[/quote]
That would be*** Weiders principle of changing trianing parametars from time to time***!
[quote]luburic wrote:
That would be*** Weiders principle of changing trianing parametars from time to time***![/quote]
Go find another thread to troll in BALBOS.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Prince Vegeta wrote:
I’m not sure why everyone gets so hyped up on this subject. The way I see it is this: All the contributers here would agree that you have to change things up. So if you like bodypart splits, do them, but throw in some full body routines so you don’t stagnate. Same goes for full body people, a bodypart split might help them out once in awhile.
It does make sense to me to consistently do full body routines for beginners. Get good at squatting benching and deadlifting, with some chins in there, and you are going to be just fine. People who have been doing bodypart splits for a long time (there are tons of these people) would probably get very good results from the increased frequency, what is wrong with saying that?
For one, that is NOT all that is being said.
Ok yeah I agree there is some other funny sounding stuff in there. I think full body splits are a little more taxing than bodypart splits,but saying people can’t breathe from going up stairs from bodypart splits is a strange thing to say. I think there is alot we can learn from Waterbury though.
Normally I let people be, but hey, this is the interwebz: Professor X,why do you take such a stance against the full body routine, or the assault on bodypart routines? I presume you built your physique using bodypart splits primarily, do you think that full body programs wouldn’t help you as well as bodypart splits?
My personal opinion is that there may be times in someone’s training where simply changing things up may help them. I do NOT believe that this needs to be some blanket prescription for newbies regardless of how many books it helps to sell. Simply put, what is being argued is his DEGREDATION of body part splits. It is plain as day.
I am sure fanboys would have a hard time seeing it though.[/quote]
Fair enough, I can agree with that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do NOT believe that this needs to be some blanket prescription for newbies regardless of how many books it helps to sell. Simply put, what is being argued is his DEGREDATION of body part splits. It is plain as day.
[/quote]
Ah yes, but when you have a product to sell you must rubbish the competition.
In my opinion, the choice of splits or fullbody is immaterial for most trainers, as most of the people I see up the gym make no progressive effort, train too light or just plain don’t eat enough. The few guys that have made a lot of progress train heavy and eat a lot.
They also use splits, but then there must be another 18 people somewhere who are better suited to fullbody training.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I want my coach to be a trainer first, and a writer second. These days, it sees that here is what happens:
This new trend is certainly something worth criticizing! Of course, it’s not something I expect The “Critic” to address.[/quote]
CL, I gotta’ take issue with this.
My “super power” (other than being able to tell when meat is cooked just by lookin’ at it) is detecting ability in others.
I find coaches/trainers/writers based on their knowledge of training, and their ability to write has almost no bearing on whether there stuff appears on Testosterone.
We have editors. Good ones. They re-write stuff.
I remember when I first started getting “articles” from Poliquin. Some weren’t much more than notes scribbled on a cocktail napkin. (Okay, I exaggerate slightly, but not much).
My guys are all, without exception, brilliant.
I guarantee you, if you sat down with (or trained with) any of them, you’d be hugely impressed and become a devotee.
I spend a lot of time looking for talent, and it’s not easy. There aren’t that many really good guys out there, but I’m proud to have collected the best training minds in the universe.