After surfing T-mag for several years, I have come to a higher understanding that one should…
1>Train to failure (King)
2> DO not train to failure (waterbury)
1>Do sets of 8-10 reps for Hypertrophy (staley)
2> Do high sets of low reps on occasion (waterbury)
And that you can/can’t
1> You can’t gain muscle and lose fat at the same time (everyone)
2> Chrisitian seemed to prove that this is not only possible - but can be done in 12 weeks quite easily (CT- the man)
And that,
1> carbs are the devil (Poliquin)
2>Carbs are good at times (Lowery)
And that
1>Patricia is one hard core gal with a great gym that she works out at
2> Thunder has an excellent back
1>Calorie in = Calorie Out
2> A Calorie is not a calorie (Berardi)
1>TUT is important (King & Poliquin)
2> TUT - F-that (waterbury)
And that great ways to train are
1>High Volume
2>Low Volume
3>OVt
4>Edt
5> Anti Bodybuilding
6> 12 weeks to/Limping into
All things being equal, I believe it’s safe to say, try one, if not all of the above advice and find out what works for you. When all of the T-mag guru’s can’t agree on some of the basic tenets of strength and muscle gain, you should realize that the law of individual differences reigns supreme.
No disrespect to the fellows/ladies - I still anxiously await their articles weekly.
Not really T-Mag but just to show we’re not alone;
Anything works for 12 weeks. Perhaps change/variety is the key. But hang on didn’t Little & Mentzer say a muscle can’t tell the difference.
Obviously they know everything about muscular and neural physiology. God told them.
One, King doesn’t say to always train to failure as far as I remember. More like a once every 3-4 weeks thing. You approach failure more and more each week until by week 3 or 4 of that month’s work, you’re training to failure.
Second, yeah, Thunder does indeed have a great back.
That’s one thing I like about T-mag: the diversity.
But…
King doesn’t like training to failure either and only recomends it (very generally speaking here) one out of every three workouts for that muscle group.
Also, even Poliquin/Alessi agree carbs are good at times. T-mag really has no Atkins type of guys, unless you count the “Eat Like a Man” articles which were about test driving the Anabolic Diet - a diet written by DiPasquale, not a T-mag writer. And even it has you eating pizza and beer all weekend.
And Waterbury has used tempo numbers in his articles; he just thinks some people pay too much attention to them where it gets the point of minutia.
And a few sets of 8-12 reps is good for hypertrophy, but so is 10 sets of 3 reps. Cycles of both may be a good idea.
I’d bet most of these coaches would agree with each other on more things than not. It all depends on the person, his goals, and his training history. For example, King thinks more experienced trainees can grow better with low, heavy reps, a la Waterbury.
This is the kind of thing that screws up my routines.
I can’t be overtraining! Bulgarians squat seven days a week. But I haven’t hit the gym in 6 days! No problem, HIT Jedi’s do that all the time. Ate an entire pizza? Must have been time for a carb refeed! Only made 6 reps? Plenty enough for growth, says King. Blasted to 12? Awesome, that’s supposed to be the ‘optimal hypertrophy range’. Dropped a 45 pounder on your sac? Fantastic! Another excuse to rest.
True - I may have missed on the King and failure thing (whoops)- but I believe the point is still valid.
All of us who choose to fight this battle(body comp etc>) are an interesting group of individuals, who, spend the better part of their years looking for the “holy grail” of routines and diets etc.
