Opinions of Chad Waterbury Programs?

Training Bodybuilding
241

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
theceka wrote:

quoting Chad Waterbury here…
"After a recent seminar, a famous strength trainer told me I should market myself as the guy who could revolutionize bodybuilding. There’s only one small problem with that ? I don’t like bodybuilding.

Yep, you heard me right, never have liked it, probably never will. I see most competitive bodybuilders as overly tanned, overly shaved, waddling pieces of uneducated flesh and I have no interest in that market."

I’d appreciate it if you could source that quote to some concrete origin. That’s a very damning quote to sling around w/o any source.[/quote]

I remember it too, from one of his articles… If only I knew which one.

Maybe the abbh article?

It’s been a while since I’ve bothered reading the articles with any kind of consistency.

Edit: Ah yes, I’m a tad late here.

242

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
theceka wrote:

quoting Chad Waterbury here…
"After a recent seminar, a famous strength trainer told me I should market myself as the guy who could revolutionize bodybuilding. There’s only one small problem with that ? I don’t like bodybuilding.

Yep, you heard me right, never have liked it, probably never will. I see most competitive bodybuilders as overly tanned, overly shaved, waddling pieces of uneducated flesh and I have no interest in that market."

I’d appreciate it if you could source that quote to some concrete origin. That’s a very damning quote to sling around w/o any source.

I remember it too, from one of his articles… If only I knew which one.

Maybe the abbh article?

It’s been a while since I’ve bothered reading the articles with any kind of consistency.

Edit: Ah yes, I’m a tad late here.
[/quote]

Which of course brings up the question of why a bodybuilding website seems to cater to authors who literally HATE bodybuilding yet keep writing articles as if they are the most knowledgeable on the subject.

The constant insults from them just BEG for someone to throw some back…but then they throw hissy fits and have entire threads removed when someone calls them on it.

243

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’d appreciate it if you could source that quote to some concrete origin. That’s a very damning quote to sling around w/o any source.[/quote]

Try google next time. It would have told you fast. Are you guys 70 years old or what? Not too keen on using those “new fangled compooters?”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Which of course brings up the question of why a bodybuilding website seems to cater to authors who literally HATE bodybuilding yet keep writing articles as if they are the most knowledgeable on the subject.

The constant insults from them just BEG for someone to throw some back…but then they throw hissy fits and have entire threads removed when someone calls them on it.[/quote]

As I said, it’s just marketing, plain and simple.

An easy way to make a quick buck is to take an established school of thought and start proclaiming, “Everything you know about this is wrong! We have the real answers!”

Then, you establish your own doctrine by simply telling people to do the opposite of everything that has been shown to work. If you choose a field that is complicated or ambiguous enough, like the science behind hypertrophy, you will make lots of converts out of ignorant people (enough to make bank, at least).

The problem with this industry is that there nothing new under the sun. Everything that works was already tried by someone lifting in a basement in 1960. And that’s also true of the stuff that doesn’t work.

However - that was then. This site has since switched gears in a big way, which is a victory for anyone who takes training seriously.

244

I’m not taking sides, but this isn’t “a bodybuilding website”. I’m kind of tired of all of the crying about that around here. There is a bodybuilding forum on a website that is about much more. Generally, it’s about the pursuit of muscle, but the context and goals of that pursuit are variable. So, continuous complaints about articles which touch on other areas or target different goals are bullshit.

From the ABBH article (a few lines down from the “insult” to bodybuilders):

“Let me tell you a little secret ? hypertrophy training and strength training don’t have to be two separate entities. I’ve never designed a program that was based solely on “hypertrophy” training, but my clients have gained a ton of muscle over the years (if that was the goal). Let me repeat a statement from one of my previous articles: muscle growth is mainly controlled through caloric intake. Assuming all is normal with a trainee’s physiology, even the best hypertrophy program won’t build appreciable amounts of muscle if there are insufficient calories. Got it?”

Here, CW seems to agree with what Professor was saying earlier (maybe in another thread, I can’t keep all of this shit straight) about calories being key. He then goes on to suggest that a higher frequency of muscle stimulation with big compound movements is better for most natural guys who are recreational (this is always implied if not stated expressly in the articles)… the whole 104 muscle stimulating sessions per year is better than 52 sessions per year. This point of view has some merit in the context.

While CW may have few salty quotes from time to time, he is targeting performance folks with limited time who want to build some muscle and strength. A higher frequency program based on compound movements and the basics makes a lot of sense for those people.

On another note, we have Scott Abel’s new leg training article where he basically says strength and load are more or less irrelevant, and offers a leg program with what amounts to body weight exercises with some sets of 30 reps and exercises that are almost impossible to say, much less execute. If CW had written that article, the discussion thread would be 10 pages already, but because Abel “is a bodybuilder” with a 5 year old photo of him looking the part at the end of the article we hear nary a peep.

245

[quote]trextacy wrote:
I’m not taking sides, but this isn’t “a bodybuilding website”. I’m kind of tired of all of the crying about that around here. There is a bodybuilding forum on a website that is about much more. Generally, it’s about the pursuit of muscle, but the context and goals of that pursuit are variable. So, continuous complaints about articles which touch on other areas or target different goals are bullshit.

From the ABBH article (a few lines down from the “insult” to bodybuilders):

“Let me tell you a little secret ? hypertrophy training and strength training don’t have to be two separate entities. I’ve never designed a program that was based solely on “hypertrophy” training, but my clients have gained a ton of muscle over the years (if that was the goal). Let me repeat a statement from one of my previous articles: muscle growth is mainly controlled through caloric intake. Assuming all is normal with a trainee’s physiology, even the best hypertrophy program won’t build appreciable amounts of muscle if there are insufficient calories. Got it?”

Here, CW seems to agree with what Professor was saying earlier (maybe in another thread, I can’t keep all of this shit straight) about calories being key. He then goes on to suggest that a higher frequency of muscle stimulation with big compound movements is better for most natural guys who are recreational (this is always implied if not stated expressly in the articles)… the whole 104 muscle stimulating sessions per year is better than 52 sessions per year. This point of view has some merit in the context.

While CW may have few salty quotes from time to time, he is targeting performance folks with limited time who want to build some muscle and strength. A higher frequency program based on compound movements and the basics makes a lot of sense for those people.

On another note, we have Scott Abel’s new leg training article where he basically says strength and load are more or less irrelevant, and offers a leg program with what amounts to body weight exercises with some sets of 30 reps and exercises that are almost impossible to say, much less execute. If CW had written that article, the discussion thread would be 10 pages already, but because Abel “is a bodybuilder” with a 5 year old photo of him looking the part at the end of the article we hear nary a peep.[/quote]

Not many here like Abel either, believe me.
And yeah. I’m sure he built his legs with a program like that, don’t you believe that too? ;D

I personally prefer to stay away from the article discussions subforum.
Said it before and will say it again: That subforum reminds me too much of the youtube comments section…

246

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
trextacy wrote:
I’m not taking sides, but this isn’t “a bodybuilding website”. I’m kind of tired of all of the crying about that around here. There is a bodybuilding forum on a website that is about much more. Generally, it’s about the pursuit of muscle, but the context and goals of that pursuit are variable. So, continuous complaints about articles which touch on other areas or target different goals are bullshit.

From the ABBH article (a few lines down from the “insult” to bodybuilders):

“Let me tell you a little secret ? hypertrophy training and strength training don’t have to be two separate entities. I’ve never designed a program that was based solely on “hypertrophy” training, but my clients have gained a ton of muscle over the years (if that was the goal). Let me repeat a statement from one of my previous articles: muscle growth is mainly controlled through caloric intake. Assuming all is normal with a trainee’s physiology, even the best hypertrophy program won’t build appreciable amounts of muscle if there are insufficient calories. Got it?”

Here, CW seems to agree with what Professor was saying earlier (maybe in another thread, I can’t keep all of this shit straight) about calories being key. He then goes on to suggest that a higher frequency of muscle stimulation with big compound movements is better for most natural guys who are recreational (this is always implied if not stated expressly in the articles)… the whole 104 muscle stimulating sessions per year is better than 52 sessions per year. This point of view has some merit in the context.

While CW may have few salty quotes from time to time, he is targeting performance folks with limited time who want to build some muscle and strength. A higher frequency program based on compound movements and the basics makes a lot of sense for those people.

On another note, we have Scott Abel’s new leg training article where he basically says strength and load are more or less irrelevant, and offers a leg program with what amounts to body weight exercises with some sets of 30 reps and exercises that are almost impossible to say, much less execute. If CW had written that article, the discussion thread would be 10 pages already, but because Abel “is a bodybuilder” with a 5 year old photo of him looking the part at the end of the article we hear nary a peep.

Not many here like Abel either, believe me.
And yeah. I’m sure he built his legs with a program like that, don’t you believe that too? ;D

I personally prefer to stay away from the article discussions subforum.
Said it before and will say it again: That subforum reminds me too much of the youtube comments section…
[/quote]

i think all these articles made by Abel are just an attempt to make some money off of a NEW training style that he never really used in the first place, wouldnt u agree

247

I was digging through my quote collection and came across the following:

“What are your stats anyway? Do you even work out or are you one of those “all mouth, no muscle” types?”

Waterbury:

Just like the “who do you train?” question, I don’t think my aesthetic stats matter. I’m a performance coach and that’s my market, so my athletic stats might matter to some people. And no one has the ability to intuitively know how well I can perform by simply looking at me.

Second, whether I can deadlift 700 pounds or 400 pounds isn’t as important as knowing how much I improved my initial performance. Bill Kazmier said the first time he trained the deadlift he pulled something like 500 pounds. And this was as a teenager! Now imagine if he’d been strength training for the following six years and his deadlift performance went up to 600 pounds. If he told people on the street that he could deadlift 600 pounds, they’d think it’s outstanding. But it wouldn’t be outstanding because his theoretical six-year gain from baseline would’ve only been 20%.

Now, compare that to a guy who could only pull 185 his first time, and who improved his performance up to 400 pounds after 18 months of training. Which is more impressive?

Now, let me apply a similar thought process to my physique. Why are my aesthetics so important? What’s most important is how much I’ve improved over the 6’3", 165 pound weakling that I started with.

And what if I got sick and was bedridden for three months? Would I be a less effective coach after I got out of the hospital because I lost muscle and gained fat while sick?

The only measurements that are relevant to a coach is how big his brain is and what kind of results he gets with his clients. What’s not important is how big his biceps are.

If I positioned myself as a bodybuilding coach, my aesthetics might play a bigger role because a bodybuilder wins or loses based on how he looks, nothing more. Athletes don’t win fights, games, or medals based on how they look. Does Fedor look like a bodybuilder? Hell no, but he’s one of the baddest mothers to ever compete in mixed martial arts.

248

Originally Posted by Waterbury:

I despise questions like this for a myriad of reasons. First off, who I’m training, or have trained, really means nothing.

There are many coaches out there who found a golden goose, and it wasn’t because of anything other than pure luck. So these coaches often reference this golden goose in every conversation they have. But the fact of the matter is that these same coaches have rarely produced champions other than the goose. A commercial health club personal trainer with nothing more than a GED and a weekend fitness certification could’ve taken Arnold to the top because he was one such goose.

Second, imagine “Mr. X” comes to me and is considering hiring me as his coach. Now, if he asks me for my clientele resume, how relevant is it to what Mr. X needs? Just because I took Mr. Y to the top doesn’t mean that Mr. X is the same animal. That’s why many bodybuilding coaches have failed to successfully train strength athletes. And that’s why many strength coaches have failed to successfully train bodybuilders.

It’s important to hire coaches who understand the multi-faceted aspects of physiology and biomechanics, and who’ve worked with people like yourself. For a natural, skinny-fat 19 year old to hire a professional bodybuilding coach who only works with steroid-infused, genetic freaks would prove to be a lesson in futility. And that’s why it’s important to hire coaches with plenty of training experience in various realms.

I know many of the top coaches, and I can tell you that the ones who get the best results are the ones who’ve worked with the greatest variance of fitness levels. These coaches get the best results because they understand how to overcome the limitations that virtually everyone has. A coach who’s only worked with elite athletes is rarely the best coach.

My first highly-conditioned client was a Muay Thai fighter, but I spent most of my early years coaching people with average genetics. I had to pull out every trick in the book to get those average people to excel. So when the time came that I could work with elite people, I’d developed a deep bag of tricks. This never would’ve happened if I hadn’t worked with average non-athletes.

Third, I’ve never positioned myself as a bodybuilding coach. I’m a performance coach who discovered effective ways to build muscle by first seeking to improve a person’s strength performance. I take that knowledge and apply it to competitive bodybuilders whenever it’s necessary, but it’s not my market.

Finally, if I listed every competitive bodybuilder or fitness professional that I’m currently working with or have worked with, what would that prove? Nothing. There are coaches who’ve paid high-level athletes to say they’ve been trained by these same coaches. How sad is that?

A coach who goes around bragging about who he trains is nothing more than an insecure person who knows he doesn’t have the knowledge to back up his contrived status. Focusing on people instead of principles is a sure sign that a coach only has one trick in his bag. Plus, a professional coach respects a client’s privacy, and I hold tight to that policy.

What impresses me most is when I see a trainer do extraordinary things with an ordinary person. What doesn’t impress me is seeing a coach do ordinary things with an extraordinary person.

249

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
OP, lets look at one thing: Every single person that has got a decent amount of muscle size.

Now lets look at another thing: How do they train?.

[u]SPLIT ROUTINES.[/u]

Here is three program’s you could follow:

3-day split (chest/biceps - legs/shoulders - back/triceps)

4-day split (chest/tri’s - back/bi’s - legs - shoulders)

5-day split (legs - chest - back - shoulders - arms)

Chest exercises:
flat bench variations (barbell, dumbbells)
incline bench variations (barbell, dumbbells)
Dips or decline bench variations or machine pressing.
Fly variations (pec deck, dumbbell flyes, cable crossover)

Back exercises:
Pull up/chin up variations
Lat pulldown variations
Barbell, dumbbell or T-bar rows.
Seated cable rows.

Leg exercises:
Squat variations (barbell, front squat, hack squat)
Deadlift variations (romanian, regular, sumo)
Leg press
Leg curls
Leg extensions

Shoulder exercises:
Military pressing
Seated pressing (barbell or dumbbells)
lateral raises (cables, dumbbells or machine)
rear delts (machines, bent over raises, bent over cable raises)
Traps (shrugs, shrugs, shrugs)

Arm exercises:
Barbell curls
close grip bench pressing
preacher bench (all variations)
tricep pushdowns

Sets/Reps? Pyramid up in weight to a top 1 or 2 sets. You can use up to 3 sets for lighter exercises (lateral raises etc.)

Example of what you could do for most exercises:
12-15 reps (easy)
10-12 reps (moderate)
8-10 reps (difficult)
6-8 reps (hard)
6-8 reps (harder)
4-6 reps (Fuck!)

On back/leg exercises it would be a good idea to stick to the higher rep ranges of the above. EXCEPT for deadlifts.
[/quote]

copy and paste - Thank you sir! Just what I needed.

BCR

250

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

An easy way to make a quick buck is to take an established school of thought and start proclaiming, “Everything you know about this is wrong! We have the real answers!”

Then, you establish your own doctrine by simply telling people to do the opposite of everything that has been shown to work. If you choose a field that is complicated or ambiguous enough, like the science behind hypertrophy, you will make lots of converts out of ignorant people (enough to make bank, at least).
[/quote]

Ah ha, that is what you have been doing all this time!

251

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Ah ha, that is what you have been doing all this time![/quote]

You are wrong. I advocate the training methods which have been shown to work in the real world, with real people.

252

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Ah ha, that is what you have been doing all this time![/quote]

Also, I have yet to make a penny from articulating my views online.

If you think I’m in this just to scam people and make a quick buck, then tell me, what am I selling? Where’s my website? Why am I not on the front page? Why don’t I have a ™ sign by my name?

And how come I spend so much time defending my views in such a hostile environment? Have you ever seen a marketer do that?

You can look for all the time-tested signs of a scammer, and in my case, you will find absolutely none.

Surely you could have figured that out on your own. Think more and speak less.

253

I’ve done various CW TBT programs on and off for about a year now, and have to say that I have always got some results out of them. Especially increases in strength.

I really enjoy his programs because they are always interesting.

Also TBT 3 times a week, (even just for maintenance), is great when you’re very busy and can’t get to the gym 5 or 6 days a week.

Personally, I believe everything works if the correct fundamentals are observed, it’s just that some things work better than others, depending on your goals.

I have to say honestly, that split programs work better for me when aiming for hypertrophy, but Waterbury’s programs are great fun to do, you should put on some size, and you’ll definitely get stronger.

254

For what its worth, I’m a real guy in the real world and I think Waterbury’s programs are gold! I’ve seen great success with many of his methods. Tailor your training to what your goals are, as well as to how much time you have. Chad’s focus is getting people in great ATHLETIC shape in a short period of time. It’s also to get people functional. If your goal is to simply look like a bodybuilder, then train in that manner. Don’t knock the system if it’s not working for you, change what you are doing. Remember, different strokes for different folks.

255

Yep. Got to agree Maglite.

Someone said earlier in this thread that doing splits and then a TBT every few months works well, and I must say that it works for me too.

If it doesn’t work for you, then heck, change the damn program and do something else!!

For me personally, split programs have given me better muscle gains than TBT, but I have thoroughly enjoyed every Waterbury program I have ever done, and still saw good results in strength.

Watching this thread turn, at one stage, into a Waterbury-bashing contest, was pretty sad.

It seems obvious that he doesn’t cut it with the hardcore bodybuilding guys, which I can understand I suppose. He does however have a hellva lot to offer this web site in general.

256

It all depends on your goals for sure, but not really too good for bodybuilding. Like getting very big.

Lets say under 5ft 10in and over 220 at 10-15% body fat.

Over 6ft and over 250 at 10-15% body fat.

TBT is probably not going to get most people there.

257

[quote]shaun1rsa wrote:
Yep. Got to agree Maglite.

Someone said earlier in this thread that doing splits and then a TBT every few months works well, and I must say that it works for me too.

If it doesn’t work for you, then heck, change the damn program and do something else!!

For me personally, split programs have given me better muscle gains than TBT, but I have thoroughly enjoyed every Waterbury program I have ever done, and still saw good results in strength.

Watching this thread turn, at one stage, into a Waterbury-bashing contest, was pretty sad.

It seems obvious that he doesn’t cut it with the hardcore bodybuilding guys, which I can understand I suppose. He does however have a hellva lot to offer this web site in general.[/quote]

This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM you are posting in. I am a “real guy” in the “real world” also who works a “real job” and there is no way I would reach my physical goals only training 3 times a week or less.

It is like some of you get lost.

Talk of “the real world” as if the rest of us don’t live there not only make you sound like an un-dedicated douche, but it implies that the only way you can get big muscles is by living some fantasy life free of work and responsibility.

258

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM you are posting in. I am a “real guy” in the “real world” also who works a “real job” and there is no way I would reach my physical goals only training 3 times a week or less.

It is like some of you get lost.

Talk of “the real world” as if the rest of us don’t live there not only make you sound like an un-dedicated douche, but it implies that the only way you can get big muscles is by living some fantasy life free of work and responsibility.

[/quote]

But X, if they admitted that, they wouldn’t have any excuses anymore!

Then where would they be!?

259

[quote]mr popular wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM you are posting in. I am a “real guy” in the “real world” also who works a “real job” and there is no way I would reach my physical goals only training 3 times a week or less.

It is like some of you get lost.

Talk of “the real world” as if the rest of us don’t live there not only make you sound like an un-dedicated douche, but it implies that the only way you can get big muscles is by living some fantasy life free of work and responsibility.

But X, if they admitted that, they wouldn’t have any excuses anymore!

Then where would they be!?[/quote]

It just pisses me off…as if they see someone big walking around and assume that they couldn’t possibly be working just as hard as they are, be just as educated or more and STILL make time to hit the gym regularly.

Chances are, unless the big guy you see is a pro bodybuilder who ONLY trains and is well sponsored or one of those guys who works as a personal trainer just so they can stay in the gym, that person is working HARDER than the jackass who thinks his “real world” keeps him from training more than 2 or 3 times a week for some random undefined goal like “functionality”.

260

The people in this world plain piss me off X, but this board in particular, they show a total disdain for belief in what can be accomplished.

Most of these people spend at least an hour in front of the television and most much more than that, to “unwind.” I unwind in the gym and I fall to sleep listening to a meditation cd. Granted I’ve been over seas for 3+ years where life is easy but when I was home with kids and a wife I still spent quality time with them and in the gym. Did I make sacrifices? Hell yeah. I’d have people tell me all the time that they didn’t have time to go to the gym, but then hear them talking about all kinds of tv shows. Hell I didn’t even buy cable and still don’t. Fucking crazy, lazy, wimpy bastards.

Like I said before, people thought I was huge at 250, always asked if I juiced as if 250 was unattainable. What a freaking joke. I’ll be at 250 and well beyond now that I’m healthy and I am going to go through the same bullshit, but who cares what underachievers think. Let them live miserable non-existent lives. Let them be sheep and cowardly human beings.