[quote]mr popular wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
All you need to concentrate on is the big 5, namely:
Squat
Deadlift (or variants)
Pullup/down/Chinup
Military press
Bench press
UGH
I am SO sick of hearing this bullshit spouted off everywhere as though it has actually EVER panned out for anyone.
Do you know what people look like who follow that philosophy and only care about those 5 lifts? They look like fucking spiders with big butts.
THIS IS THE BODYBUILDING FORUM
WE DON’T ONLY CARE ABOUT SOME OF OUR MUSCLE GROUPS HERE, WE CARE ABOUT ALL OF THEM.[/quote]
Well said. If you start this ignoring every individual muscle group, you will be BEHIND those who realized that you have to train everything from the start.
I mean, honestly, we’ve had this site up for a fucking decade and are ANY of those guys who only do those big lifts passing up the guys on this board with decent genetics who work everything?
If you guys are out there, posts pics for comparison. Numbers alone don’t mean shit.
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT.
[quote]houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT. [/quote]
If by “highly respected” you mean, “not relevant to bodybuilding”.
[quote]houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT. [/quote]
They are also ignoring all the pre-steroid era bodybuilders also. But those guys are small anyway and their measurements and accomplishments are super easy to surpass
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT.
They are also ignoring all the pre-steroid era bodybuilders also. But those guys are small anyway and their measurements and accomplishments are super easy to surpass
[/quote]
I know quite a few large, natural trainees that use splits, and have done so since day one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
mr popular wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
All you need to concentrate on is the big 5, namely:
Squat
Deadlift (or variants)
Pullup/down/Chinup
Military press
Bench press
UGH
I am SO sick of hearing this bullshit spouted off everywhere as though it has actually EVER panned out for anyone.
Do you know what people look like who follow that philosophy and only care about those 5 lifts? They look like fucking spiders with big butts.
THIS IS THE BODYBUILDING FORUM
WE DON’T ONLY CARE ABOUT SOME OF OUR MUSCLE GROUPS HERE, WE CARE ABOUT ALL OF THEM.
Well said. If you start this ignoring every individual muscle group, you will be BEHIND those who realized that you have to train everything from the start.
I mean, honestly, we’ve had this site up for a fucking decade and are ANY of those guys who only do those big lifts passing up the guys on this board with decent genetics who work everything?
If you guys are out there, posts pics for comparison. Numbers alone don’t mean shit.[/quote]
One of the oddest things about that trend is that even big time PLers and whatnot will advise things like curls/pulldowns/all sorts of direct tri work for bench assistance, GHRs/Reverse Hypers/etc/etc/etc for posterior chain development for squatting/benching, I’m sure people who care a lot more about dedicated PL training could go even more in depth on that list too. Sure we may take it a little further than they do for our BBing purposes, but who the fuck amongst elite strength athletes are actively ignoring bodyparts?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT.
They are also ignoring all the pre-steroid era bodybuilders also. But those guys are small anyway and their measurements and accomplishments are super easy to surpass
I know quite a few large, natural trainees that use splits, and have done so since day one.
Shitty logic and assumptive argument, is shitty.[/quote]
Were in my post did I ever say splits didn’t work? Don’t be so defensive
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT.
They are also ignoring all the pre-steroid era bodybuilders also. But those guys are small anyway and their measurements and accomplishments are super easy to surpass
I know quite a few large, natural trainees that use splits, and have done so since day one.
Shitty logic and assumptive argument, is shitty.
Were in my post did I ever say splits didn’t work? Don’t be so defensive
[/quote]
My bad man… I have bed ridden for a week now. I hate life, and am supper grumpy.
One of the oddest things about that trend is that even big time PLers and whatnot will advise things like curls/pulldowns/all sorts of direct tri work for bench assistance, GHRs/Reverse Hypers/etc/etc/etc for posterior chain development for squatting/benching, I’m sure people who care a lot more about dedicated PL training could go even more in depth on that list too. Sure we may take it a little further than they do for our BBing purposes, but who the fuck amongst elite strength athletes are actively ignoring bodyparts?[/quote]
In my XP, PL’ers and BB’ers train very similarly. There is so much cross over, in their rota and everything.
I trained with some older ( 25 and over ) PL’er when I was in HS off and on. They trained pretty much like BB’ers. At least the really big BB’ers.
There were some differences but not this great chasm.
People who think someone will look as close to Nubert as possible, just on those 5 Movements, are brainwashed? I don’t know…
They all sound like they heard this ‘big 5’ stuff from some High-Prophet-Grand-Vizier-Russian-Psychic of Weight Training.
Look I had a mentor, he taught me to Squat and DL, my balls off and shit, but BB’ing MUST GO BEYOND THE CARDINAL MOVEMENTS.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
All you need to concentrate on is the big 5, namely:
Squat
Deadlift (or variants)
Pullup/down/Chinup
Military press
Bench press
UGH
I am SO sick of hearing this bullshit spouted off everywhere as though it has actually EVER panned out for anyone.
Do you know what people look like who follow that philosophy and only care about those 5 lifts? They look like fucking spiders with big butts.
THIS IS THE BODYBUILDING FORUM
WE DON’T ONLY CARE ABOUT SOME OF OUR MUSCLE GROUPS HERE, WE CARE ABOUT ALL OF THEM.[/quote]
His post wasn’t going that badly, but when he wrote to just focus on those movements, as well as the fact that he thought that 170lb was his limit, I wonder where he is right now.
[quote]houseofprime wrote:
So all of you who are saying TBT is useless completely disregard what guys like Chad Waterbury and Nate Green have to say? These guys are highly respected and base their training methods on TBT. [/quote]
Useless? It may have a use…if your goal is to not get that big or not get that strong. It sure as hell would not be the way I would recommend someone train if their goal was to get really big. It leaves out too much and since when are Chad Waterbury and Nate Green go to guys for BODYBUILDING? Did I miss something?
When we speak in this forum, many of us are not talking about simply having 15" arms with abs. Our goals are far beyond that and the guys worrying that much about CW sure as hell don’t seem to be gaining that much muscle mass to convince me that all beginners need to be shuttled into that training strategy simply because they are beginners.
There seems to be some kind of misplaced pride attached to full body workouts, as if resisting those seductive splits makes you a better man. Isn’t this whole lifting weights thing supposed to be about finding what works best for each person, not clinging to some philosophy that sounds good but may not get you that far.
Even those who push full body workouts as the superior method for naturals largely acknowledge the success rate of splits, but dismiss them as for assisted lifters only. So for those of us naturals who tried full body workouts, hit a firm ceiling in both strength and muscular development, moved on to splits and found not only that we got stronger and better looking but that we felt fresher than with full body workouts, doesn’t that throw the “full body is better for naturals” argument right out the window?
And that’s another point: some of you fail to realize that many of us have tried full body workouts and found them to be all wrong for us. Meanwhile, it seems the most vocal proponents of full body workouts have never tried a split.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
All you need to concentrate on is the big 5, namely:
Squat
Deadlift (or variants)
Pullup/down/Chinup
Military press
Bench press
UGH
I am SO sick of hearing this bullshit spouted off everywhere as though it has actually EVER panned out for anyone.
Do you know what people look like who follow that philosophy and only care about those 5 lifts? They look like fucking spiders with big butts.
THIS IS THE BODYBUILDING FORUM
WE DON’T ONLY CARE ABOUT SOME OF OUR MUSCLE GROUPS HERE, WE CARE ABOUT ALL OF THEM.[/quote]
Haha, “spiders with big buts”…I’d like to see some pictures now LOL.
That was a bit of an exaggeration (my 5 big movements comment). Just trying to point out the importance of gaining strength in the compound movements (making sure that the pounds are going up)…as opposed to concentrating on the less productive isolation movements (for beginners). I didn’t mean that one should abbreviate their workout to that degree and leave out muscle groups. The above recommendation is purely the foundation for a beginner…of which one could add some exercises to, and most people likely WOULD do that anyway (people love to tweak)…as long as it’s not a lot of big ones that would interfere with recovery too much.
[quote]leon79 wrote:
Meanwhile, it seems the most vocal proponents of full body workouts have never tried a split.[/quote]
…or worse yet, they tried it but didn’t eat enough (because they were afraid of losing abs)…or tried it and used the exact same weight for all sets and reps which no one I have known who is into bodybuilding ever did before maybe a few years ago…or they tried it and ignored every major muscle group but “biceps and chest” and then blamed their lack of progress on everything but their own lack of a grasp on basic concepts.
In my experience, when training splits didn’t work for me, it was because I wasn’t developed enough to use them. The stimulus (load) was far to little to merit the rest days for splits (e.g. 3 way). I was recovering, overcompensating, then going back to what I was before by the time training for a muscle group came around again.
In my opinion, people who still have a lot of strength gains to make (and so their recovery is fast), or people who don’t make their training intense, need more frequent muscle group training so that their muscles don’t return to homoeostasis.
Obviously, if we’re talking about advanced lifters using a specialised full body routine (where fatigue is managed)…the above statements don’t apply.
[quote]leon79 wrote:
There seems to be some kind of misplaced pride attached to full body workouts, as if resisting those seductive splits makes you a better man. Isn’t this whole lifting weights thing supposed to be about finding what works best for each person, not clinging to some philosophy that sounds good but may not get you that far.
Even those who push full body workouts as the superior method for naturals largely acknowledge the success rate of splits, but dismiss them as for assisted lifters only. So for those of us naturals who tried full body workouts, hit a firm ceiling in both strength and muscular development, moved on to splits and found not only that we got stronger and better looking but that we felt fresher than with full body workouts, doesn’t that throw the “full body is better for naturals” argument right out the window?
And that’s another point: some of you fail to realize that many of us have tried full body workouts and found them to be all wrong for us. Meanwhile, it seems the most vocal proponents of full body workouts have never tried a split.[/quote]
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
In my experience, when training splits didn’t work for me, it was because I wasn’t developed enough to use them. The stimulus (load) was far to little to merit the rest days for splits (e.g. 3 way). I was recovering, overcompensating, then going back to what I was before by the time training for a muscle group came around again.
In my opinion, people who still have a lot of strength gains to make (and so their recovery is fast), or people who don’t make their training intense, need more frequent muscle group training so that their muscles don’t return to homoeostasis.
Obviously, if we’re talking about advanced lifters using a specialised full body routine (where fatigue is managed)…the above statements don’t apply.[/quote]
They also don’t apply if a person knows what he is doing with his split routine.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
In my experience, when training splits didn’t work for me, it was because I wasn’t developed enough to use them. The stimulus (load) was far to little to merit the rest days for splits (e.g. 3 way). I was recovering, overcompensating, then going back to what I was before by the time training for a muscle group came around again.
In my opinion, people who still have a lot of strength gains to make (and so their recovery is fast), or people who don’t make their training intense, need more frequent muscle group training so that their muscles don’t return to homoeostasis.
Obviously, if we’re talking about advanced lifters using a specialised full body routine (where fatigue is managed)…the above statements don’t apply.[/quote]
WHY do you think like this? Why do people suddenly think muscle groups are worked INfrequently on split routines?
WHY do people think that split routines are only for advanced lifters?
Who is writing this bullshit and why do so many of you believe it?
If I am in the gym 6 days a week, you really think my muscles are being worked “INfrequently”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
In my experience, when training splits didn’t work for me, it was because I wasn’t developed enough to use them. The stimulus (load) was far to little to merit the rest days for splits (e.g. 3 way). I was recovering, overcompensating, then going back to what I was before by the time training for a muscle group came around again.
In my opinion, people who still have a lot of strength gains to make (and so their recovery is fast), or people who don’t make their training intense, need more frequent muscle group training so that their muscles don’t return to homoeostasis.
Obviously, if we’re talking about advanced lifters using a specialised full body routine (where fatigue is managed)…the above statements don’t apply.
WHY do you think like this? Why do people suddenly think muscle groups are worked INfrequently on split routines?
WHY do people think that split routines are only for advanced lifters?
Who is writing this bullshit and why do so many of you believe it?
If I am in the gym 6 days a week, you really think my muscles are being worked “INfrequently”?
WTF??[/quote]
I’m just going by what most people think of when you say split routine (it doesn’t usually mean doing, say chest, more than twice a week)? I was comparing training a muscle group 3 times a week (e.g. many full body routines) to a split routine which isn’t usually that frequent.
How often do you train muscle groups in general, just out of interest?
