CT or Waterbury? Frequency for Muscle Growth

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:
I hope no one misunderstood me, I am definitely not interested in just getting toned. I would like to look like Frank Zane some day.
I also do not plan on doing TBT the rest of my life. I think periodization works and you need change.
When I started I gained 22 lbs (mostly muscle) using TBT. Then I switched to Bodypart splits for the next 9 years and gained 27 more pounds. I am just trying something which worked in the past, if it doesn’t work this time, I won’t do it again.
I am not a fanatic, I don’t stick with routines that don’t work. But I must say, that after these 4 TB workouts, I am feeling pretty good and I believe that I will make some decent progress. I will keep you guys posted if I achieve mass gains.[/quote]

I would also add that you can’t compare newbie gains to anything really. When I first started I gained about 50lbs over a summer doing nothing but bench press and curls. That doesn’t make it a good program to follow. When you first start just about any program will produce gains as long as you apply yourself to it. If TBT fits your goals and schedule then use it. Will it hurt you? No. Will it do you some good? Probably. Is it the best use of time? Most bodybuilders would say no.

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:

I would also add that you can’t compare newbie gains to anything really.
[/quote]

Agreed, that is why I will measure my results and make my decision after the program is complete.

I feel like I partially hi-jacked the thread…so in regards to the original post topic, how high a frequency do you guys find efficient?

On TBT I am hitting major bodyparts 4 times in 8 days.
With Bodypart splits, I never hit a bodypart more than once in 5 days. Anyone higher or lower?

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:

I would also add that you can’t compare newbie gains to anything really.

Agreed, that is why I will measure my results and make my decision after the program is complete.

[/quote]

What he’s saying is that your measurements don’t matter. You should be able to make gains on damn near ANY program that actually involves lifting several times a week and using weights that are challenging. That doesn’t mean a damn thing as far as what system would be more effective.

You only have one chance for “newbie gains” making any measurements you post useless to this discussion.

I guess my measurements won’t matter to this discussion because not everyone responds to the same programs.
But measurements still matter to the individual. If I do 6 weeks of TB and 6 weeks of BP splits and then compare gains during each phase, I would emphasize which program I gained more on while still utilizing both. That emphasis may shift over time if the gains slow down from one particular program.

Again this is just a personal thing, but I have hit a plateau lately from BP splits and I am up for something new to try and break the plateau.
Waterbury put forth, what I thought to be, some compelling evidence for TB which made it worth trying. For example, as CT wrote in the beginning of this thread, doing an activity more often will help train the CNS to be more effective, and an effective CNS usually means strength gains. If I can increase my strength faster than I typically would on a BP split, not only would I have a chance of inducing hypertrophy from the increased poundages, but when I switch back to a BP split, I will be pushing more weight.

He also suggested that the increased frequency will help the body learn to recovery faster, which is great no matter what split you are using.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
timmcbride00 wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:

I would also add that you can’t compare newbie gains to anything really.

Agreed, that is why I will measure my results and make my decision after the program is complete.

What he’s saying is that your measurements don’t matter. You should be able to make gains on damn near ANY program that actually involves lifting several times a week and using weights that are challenging. That doesn’t mean a damn thing as far as what system would be more effective.

You only have one chance for “newbie gains” making any measurements you post useless to this discussion.[/quote]

I think you might have missed some of his post. He already had his newbie gains 9 years ago using TBT and has since been doing splits. Part of his decision to go back to it was based on his gains he made back then. I took it that you thought he was just starting out now.

[quote]timmcbride00 wrote:
I guess my measurements won’t matter to this discussion because not everyone responds to the same programs.[/quote]

No one is saying you can’t see gains on ANY program. They are saying that to achieve the GREATEST gains in muscle mass in a proportionate fashion without it takiung 60 years, it would be retarded to ignore what has worked for the most people for the longest period of time.

I don’t even think in terms of “plateaus”. Unless you are already extremely developed, your “plateaus” are usually a direct result of your food intake or your own inability to increase the weight used. For most, the problem is the former. Not only that, but gains are not linear. The more progress you make, the LESS progress is expected over a given amount of time.

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
timmcbride00 wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:

I would also add that you can’t compare newbie gains to anything really.

Agreed, that is why I will measure my results and make my decision after the program is complete.

What he’s saying is that your measurements don’t matter. You should be able to make gains on damn near ANY program that actually involves lifting several times a week and using weights that are challenging. That doesn’t mean a damn thing as far as what system would be more effective.

You only have one chance for “newbie gains” making any measurements you post useless to this discussion.

I think you might have missed some of his post. He already had his newbie gains 9 years ago using TBT and has since been doing splits. Part of his decision to go back to it was based on his gains he made back then. I took it that you thought he was just starting out now.
[/quote]

I was. My mistake.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t even think in terms of “plateaus”. Unless you are already extremely developed, your “plateaus” are usually a direct result of your food intake or your own inability to increase the weight used. For most, the problem is the former. Not only that, but gains are not linear. The more progress you make, the LESS progress is expected over a given amount of time. Many of us are not expecting huge leaps in strength and size every month.[/quote]

I am definitely not extremely developed…so I guess I can’t call it a plateau. My slower gains now are most likely related to the food intake, although I must say that I am not scared to throw down the food, it’s more of a cost thing, protein adds up. But I’m still able to eat enough to keep the scale creeping up slowly. I just gotta be patient.
It is funny how 49 pounds spread over you body just kind of disappears. I was a frickin’ bean pole when I started…and 49 pounds later I still look thin, but not sickly, thank God.

Not to belabor my points made before and although I do love this site for the information and entertainment it has given me throughout the years, I do find it funny that writers on here are constantly poking fun at men who “have thighs so big that they start a fire when they rub together while running”, or something to that effect. If it is so humorous and that look is so undesirable according to them, women, or society in general, then why post pictures of men with tree trunk legs and various overall freakish bodies in the Shocking Images section. I am speaking of freaks like Rusty Jeffers, Branch Warren, Mark Erpelding, Frank McGrath, Kevin Levrone, Desmond Miller, and some other unnamed ones. Why interview Justin Harris? Why interview Dorian Yates, a freak’s freak? Why make fun of bodybuilders and then advertise to the bodybuilding community? Why have booths at tradeshows and Expos at bodybuilding venues? Why do all this when the bodybuilding world is so “dysfunctional” and deviant, sexually (Sex Cult of Venice Beach, Sex, Lies, and Muscle), intellectually, athletically, and socially?

As a sidenote, I always find it funny when one says “I do not want to get ‘too big.’ Women do not like guys who are ‘too big.’” This is quite humorous since nearly every guy who is “too big” nearly always has a woman. Ever been to a bodybuilding show? Look around. TC once stated in an article that dealt with the changing aesthetics of bodybuilding that most of the freaks we see today took up physique enhancement to attract women, yet these same men never had a pair of panties thrown at them, or something to this effect. I am sorry to break it to some people, but quite a few jacked men have had this happen to them. Dennis Newman, Shawn Ray, Craig Titus, Mike O’hearn, Frank Sepe, and even Frankenstein Paul Dilet have NEVER had trouble getting enough, if not MORE than enough women. Instead what they do is poke fun at their wild sex lives, wishing that they too probably could have two or three women in the same bed as them.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Not to belabor my points made before and although I do love this site for the information and entertainment it has given me throughout the years, I do find it funny that writers on here are constantly poking fun at men who “have thighs so big that they start a fire when they rub together while running”, or something to that effect. If it is so humorous and that look is so undesirable according to them, women, or society in general, then why post pictures of men with tree trunk legs and various overall freakish bodies in the Shocking Images section. I am speaking of freaks like Rusty Jeffers, Branch Warren, Mark Erpelding, Frank McGrath, Kevin Levrone, Desmond Miller, and some other unnamed ones. Why interview Justin Harris? Why interview Dorian Yates, a freak’s freak? Why make fun of bodybuilders and then advertise to the bodybuilding community? Why have booths at tradeshows and Expos at bodybuilding venues? Why do all this when the bodybuilding world is so “dysfunctional” and deviant, sexually (Sex Cult of Venice Beach, Sex, Lies, and Muscle), intellectually, athletically, and socially?

As a sidenote, I always find it funny when one says “I do not want to get ‘too big.’ Women do not like guys who are ‘too big.’” This is quite humorous since nearly every guy who is “too big” nearly always has a woman. Ever been to a bodybuilding show? Look around. TC once stated in an article that dealt with the changing aesthetics of bodybuilding that most of the freaks we see today took up physique enhancement to attract women, yet these same men never had a pair of panties thrown at them, or something to this effect. I am sorry to break it to some people, but quite a few jacked men have had this happen to them. Dennis Newman, Shawn Ray, Craig Titus, Mike O’hearn, Frank Sepe, and even Frankenstein Paul Dilet have NEVER had trouble getting enough, if not MORE than enough women. Instead what they do is poke fun at their wild sex lives, wishing that they too probably could have two or three women in the same bed as them. [/quote]

Great post.

I honestly believe it is the same reason fat co-workers have a tendency to act as if the fact that you don’t want that donut means there is something wrong with you.

On a site like this, all of the bodybuilding bashing done by some authors is hypocritical at best and at the worst some huge blatant attempt to misrepresent the sport as a whole all for the sake of profit.

It is no coincidence that the people who bash this the most are usually far south of impressing too many people with the amount of muscle mass they are carrying.

In the midst of this discussion, is another offshoot that I’ve often found interesting that usually gets overlooked or underappreciated. We all know that the forefathers of weight training subsisted on primarily TBT type programs.

And along with that came a mix of general conditioning, athleticism (often), and hypertrophy. And in all fairness, that was their intention for the most part.

Now today, the pendulum has moved to the other extreme. Everybody is ga-ga over hitting a bodypart once every week. Take notice that this is a relatively new phenomenon that directly coincides with the rise of AAS abuse. Note that last word.

What’s my point? Well, 10-20mg of D-Bol and maybe a dash or Primo was used in the 60’s and 70’s. And this was often only done for a 6-8 week spree just before a contest to keep the muscle they had gained while dieting.

While this is certainly a boost, it is like licking an aspirin in comparison to today’s 20+ drug list used by your favorite magazine oddity.

Truth is, we would do well to study this “Golden Era” and it’s estaablished training methods composed mainly of high frequency simple splits.

Anyone who knows me, also knows that I strongly support TBT type programs for 90% of all lifters wanting to gain mass. But I stronly advocate choosing the right exercises depending on natural body structure and bodyfat storage sites.

Someone who’s 6 ft tall with a 30" inseam shouldn’t he doing heavy squats if he wants to be a bodybuilder. So I advocate TBT style training with intelligent individualized exercise protocol/complexes. And there are all sorts of nuances to take into consideration. Starr hit’s some of these such as rotating emphases on the power moves with heavy,light,medium etc… but this is not the time or place, so…

From here, if you want to really get to some serious and aesthetic mass, and you aren’t blessed with the proportion of Francis Benfatto or Flex Wheeler, then you’ve got to alter your approach to bodybuilding. Many may be surprised to hear me say this.

For many a single split approach will yield much in the way of that extra mass and symmetry. For example an upper/lower split.

And eventually, a more elaborate split becomes almost mandatory. BUT NOT the once a week blitzkreig bullcrap espoused today. Gimme a break. Neither science nor my personal experience (minus syringes and tablets) supports this method as OPTIMAL for natural bodybuilders. Anything within reason will produce some results. But the idea is optimal.

Notice that guys like Pearl, Oliva, Scott, Draper and the like all advocated a higher frequency than what is utilized today. For example they might use a sigle split and hit it with 4-6 sessions a week.

Thus allowing at least two direct weekly sessions per muscle. And others would use a split that called for torso on monday and thurs, legs on tues and fri, and shoulders/arms on wed and sat. Again the frequency was greater far than the once a week “destruction” mentality of the 90’s and today.

I contend that because MPS (muscle protein synthesis, not to be confused with whole body protein synthesis)usually peters out after about 48 hours that nearly all the guys back in the Golden Era were discovering the 72 hour marker as the going rate for time between direct stimulation of any one muscle group.

It’s only after the use of mega-dose anabolics, ergogens, and lipolytics that we see the total destruction philosophy come to the fore. And of course AAS keep the body in a near constant anabolic state thus promoting protein synthesis INDEPENDENT of direct stimulation per se.

I don’t have such a luxury and neither do most of you I would assume.

It is my contention that once you’ve graduated from TBT to something such as a U/L split, and then perhaps (and most will never need it)to a more elaborate split, you still have to find a way to keep the frequency of stimulation greater than the the current vogue of once every week.

It’s a lot of wasted down time that isn’t capitalizing on what is known about muscle specific anabolic processes like MPS duration. ALSO, you’ll never get a real blast of T, IGF-1 and GH without using large compound movements as often as possible. You can curl and skull crush for an hour straight and never match what you’ll get from a few heavy sets of squats or deads.

Really THIS is the key concept Waterbury is pushing. Look at P10, and his latest TBT/ABBH hybrid. They focus on splits and bodyparts in an intelligent compromise. It’s jsut that TBT style training is the easiest and often most efficient route to greater frequency. It also is incredible for conditioning if done with the proper rest peroids.

So, when we combine experience with research I think it really leads to the style of training advocated by Gironda and the rest in the 60’s and 70’s overall. Research shows us the natural anabolic cycle of the body and it’s standard duration, which coincides nicely with what was done by some very big, strong men awhile back.

Before the extreme use of anabolics muddied the water and fostered erroneous conclusions leading to droves of skinny kids emulating today’s pros.

Jay Cutler et al., can afford to destroy a muscle once a week, they are taking supraphysiologic amounts of synthetic hormones to augment recovery by leaps and bounds. We aren’t.

They are in a constant state of indiscriminate protein synthesis, the very state we are using our training to try to induce naturally.

They walk around in a bath of hormones signaling DNA trascription and translation at ridiculous rates at all times. We aren’t.

So, while I’m all for experiential and observational knowledge trumping even good research, you’ve got to separate the baby and the bathwater.

Massive intake of AAS undergirds the whole foundational premise from which many of you are deriving your one bodypart per day once a week thrash-fest type methodologies. THAT is the thing I find it amazing that people miss here on these forums year after year.

Yeah, we all see that it “works”. Oh yeah, works really well when you often don’t have a full-time job and/or spend enough money to buy a modest car each year on your “supplements”.

Really well when you are such a destructive, insecure narcissist that your drug habit risks personal shame, a ruined reputation, and prison time all to show up on stage and look like a bloated, pathetic mess who can’t make it up the steps and pose for a few minutes without sucking wind like that fat kid in Jr. High phys ed class.

Sporting that sexy 42" waist. But I digress as this discussion is not to be a rant on the laughable state of the “sport” today. Forgive me. ;-0

So ulitmately if you’re going to espouse that we use a pool of subjects from which to draw some conclusions, then at least use real people who existed in a far more real environment both physiolocically and socially.

Long story short, almost all the golden era guys, both assisted and not came to the conclusion that hitting a bodypart about 2x per week or every 72 hours was best for the majority to employ for a majority of the time.

NOW, you have a realistic base from which to frame a proper debate for advanced bodybuilders concerning TBT vs splits and the connected issue of frequency from which to draw some realistic conclusions.

And if you aren’t advanced, then you’re best served with a TBT or U/L split to gain large amounts of mass. That’s the way I see it and that’s the way I’ve seen it.

Best,
DH

I’m not sure anyone was suggesting a split that only hits a muscle group once a week. And I think AAS would only warrant more frequency. I personally only use splits that hit everything twice a week.

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:
I’m not sure anyone was suggesting a split that only hits a muscle group once a week. And I think AAS would only warrant more frequency. I personally only use splits that hit everything twice a week.[/quote]

I try to train quite a few muscle groups more than once a week, shoulders being one of them.

Why is there such a disconnect on what we are talking about when we say “split”? People act like this means avoid compound exercises and only do triceps pull downs once a week.

Why is there such a disconnect on what we are talking about when we say “TBT”? People act like this means avoiding isolation exercises and only doing the same compound movements 3-4 times per week.

[quote]98V wrote:
Why is there such a disconnect on what we are talking about when we say “TBT”? People act like this means avoiding isolation exercises and only doing the same compound movements 3-4 times per week.[/quote]

Well gee, that is what many people who go around claiming everyone should be using TBT are claiming. These are the same ones telling people to not do biceps curls. You missed this?

Well, both camps have a tendency to pigeon hole one another. PX, look at Waterbury’s TBT/ABBH hybrid if you are so inclined. Both he and Cosgrove, if not directly prescribing certain types of isolation work, make room for personal choice at the end of the session. So it’s not really a this or that issue presently.

And as far as picking on the once per week dogma, I do so because it is in fact the most popular split going in bodybuilding overall.

There are inherent problems with this medium of discussion and sometimes assumptions, absolute statements and the like are hard to avoid.

Now, not to draw on anyone in particular but Thib and Clay Hyght, Scott Abel, and many others who write for the mainstream rags use the 1x per week for focusing on “hypertrophy”.

Now, Thib has mentioned a different recommendation in his not-yet posted article, so I will allow him wiggle room on the issue. But suffice it to say, most of his hypertrophy programs all go this route.

Nothing personal as I really like Thib’s. He seems genuine, helpful, and generous with his expertise so this is not to attack him at all. But this whole dogma drives me nuts. Just like using 8-12 as “total hypertrophy” range. It doesn’t exist.

Hyptertrophy is primarily a function of rate of degradation x duration of degradation. ANY combination that capitalizes on this will stimulate growth. I prefer 10 sets of 5 than 5 sets of 10. One allows a superior load and the other might allow greater density.

BUT ONLY if you follow the standard ideology of allowing greater rest periods for heavier loads. Poliquin would suggest 90s rest between higher reps and up to 3min on heavy stuff. Waterbury reverses this and I find it to work better.

Avoiding failure with a heavy load for a significant volume and shortened rest periods are exactly what guys like Anthony Ditillo, Charles Staley, and Tudor Bompa (in principle) advocate for growth. Only when you lock yourself into distracting false constructs like a “hypertrophy range” and only looking at a single system (muscular, CNS,etc.) do you then get the same ol’ thing rehashed over and over.

Scott Abel has it right when he says that your oxygen debt should determine when your rest period ends. And if that is his assertion then that means that a set of 5 squats will allow me to resume the set far sooner than a set of 20 squats.

But the traditional bodybuilding dogma that many authors here still espouse would have you believe that since you used a smaller load for 20 reps that you should rest less. WHAT?! Now that’s idiotic.

Now, what’s most interesting too is that so much of traditional hypertrophy training still believes that at one approaches concentric failure that THEN is when additional reserve type II fibers are recruited. Now fi this were the case then we’d have a legitimate point in favor of always training to failure. But in reading only what the size principle does in fact say, then Waterbury is quite possibly onto something. Anyway, I’m attacking standard dogma.

DH

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well gee, that is what many people who go around claiming everyone should be using TBT are claiming. These are the same ones telling people to not do biceps curls. You missed this?[/quote]

Not quite true…

By definition, a TBT routine generally includes an upper body pressing, an upper body pulling, and a compopund lower body exercise. Isolation/Single-Joint work is, more often that not, included depending on time and goals.

[quote]98V wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Well gee, that is what many people who go around claiming everyone should be using TBT are claiming. These are the same ones telling people to not do biceps curls. You missed this?

Not quite true…

By definition, a TBT routine generally includes an upper body pressing, an upper body pulling, and a compopund lower body exercise. Isolation/Single-Joint work is, more often that not, included depending on time and goals.

[/quote]

Gee, maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. This is NOT what people are saying on this site since most of the debate has been surrounding how important isolation exercises even are, down to whether lateral raises are even necessary.

In fact, what has been argued is that ignoring body parts for the sake of doing compound exercises should be avoided.

Direct shoulder and arm work were absolutely necessary for me.

DH

[quote]Professor X wrote:
98V wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Well gee, that is what many people who go around claiming everyone should be using TBT are claiming. These are the same ones telling people to not do biceps curls. You missed this?

Not quite true…

By definition, a TBT routine generally includes an upper body pressing, an upper body pulling, and a compopund lower body exercise. Isolation/Single-Joint work is, more often that not, included depending on time and goals.

Gee, maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. This is NOT what people are saying on this site since most of the debate has been surrounding how important isolation exercises even are, down to whether lateral raises are even necessary.

In fact, what has been argued is that ignoring body parts for the sake of doing compound exercises should be avoided. [/quote]

[quote]DH wrote:
Direct shoulder and arm work were absolutely necessary for me.

DH
[/quote]

For me as well… also alot of additional calf work to bring them up.