The Basics of Muscle Building

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]derek wrote:
I hate to go and throw another T-Nation contributors’s name out there but my Westside videos with Dave Tate as the subject sure seems to be hitting the triceps pressdowns and side raises pretty regularly.

I’m sure he even went so far as to hit his rear delts as well.

Funny thing is, the reason he adds those exercises in his routines is to increase hypertrophy so as to assist in powerlifting.

I’d like to rename “isolation” exercises. Maybe we should just call them “assistance” exercises, as in they “assist” in achieving your goals like hypertrophy, strength, aesthetic improvments etc. Would that help any?[/quote]

…by George!..i think he’s got it!..

22

I’m not trying to attack anyone here but I really can’t understand the way some people seem to believe that this is an “either or” argument.

If someone has military presses followed by lateral raises or weighted chins followed by lat pulldowns what detrimental effect do you think this will have when compared to only military presses and weighted chins? As someone who has tried both compound only and compound plus isolation, my opinion is that compound plus isolation is superior.

What I find interesting is that I don’t often see those that use splits feeling it necessary to go out of their way to tell the world that everyone should be using splits and anyone who isn’t is wasting their time. On the other hand I have noticed some people that believe that full body training is the only way to train and even when faced with undeniable progress will still tell people they are training wrong.

I believe that there is more than one way to achieve most tasks and as such I can take what I find useful from many. Once you close your mind to improvement/change you are simply moving closer to ignorance and ultimately limiting yourself.

23

[quote]IQ wrote:
I’m not trying to attack anyone here but I really can’t understand the way some people seem to believe that this is an “either or” argument.

If someone has military presses followed by lateral raises or weighted chins followed by lat pulldowns what detrimental effect do you think this will have when compared to only military presses and weighted chins? As someone who has tried both compound only and compound plus isolation, my opinion is that compound plus isolation is superior.

What I find interesting is that I don’t often see those that use splits feeling it necessary to go out of their way to tell the world that everyone should be using splits and anyone who isn’t is wasting their time. On the other hand I have noticed some people that believe that full body training is the only way to train and even when faced with undeniable progress will still tell people they are training wrong.

I believe that there is more than one way to achieve most tasks and as such I can take what I find useful from many. Once you close your mind to improvement/change you are simply moving closer to ignorance and ultimately limiting yourself.[/quote]

It’s because a lot of TBT advocates were told this way was superior to all others and they are ready to blindly follow their master. Now not all are like this IQ but it SEEMS like a good amount of them are like this.

24

I think the contributors to the site underestimate how literally their every word is being accepted here. Some people just like to cling on to shit that makes their life easier instead of figuring out what it takes to get the desired result. For a novice it’s probably best to avoid reading articles altogether and go straight to the forum.

25

[quote]Majin wrote:
I think the contributors to the site underestimate how literally their every word is being accepted here. Some people just like to cling on to shit that makes their life easier instead of figuring out what it takes to get the desired result. For a novice it’s probably best to avoid reading articles altogether and go straight to the forum.[/quote]

Amazingly, they skip over this fact quite a bit. I have brought it up before and their response was that reading comprehension was the problem. It IS the problem…however, if it is happening THIS MUCH (exactly what I got into an argument with Waterbury about that he never acknowledged), then the approach may need to change in the articles.

You have authors who write things mostly to get a larger viewing response…which is fine in and of itself. ANY writer has done the same if they have any sense at all. Yet, when what you write starts getting “cult-like” followers who believe your every word no matter whether what you wrote was just to get a reaction, there is a large problem.

There are idiots on this forum in large numbers who take everything written in articles here as undeniable law word for word. We see it on these forums all of the time. So why are they ignoring the effect some of what they write is actually having?

26

Yeah, the authors should be careful with the hordes of blank statements they make for shock value. So should the editors who give articles controversial names(‘the truth about bulking’ comes to mind).

X, where did you have the Waterbury argument, I’d like to read?

27

However, can it not be agreed upon that TBT style training is optimal for beginners as opposed to a split?

For example, I have been using an Upper/Lower split for the past few months, while a friend of mine has been doing TBT. While I have been eating better and more than he has, he has made much better gains than me.
(Did that sound like a poem?)

28

Look at it like this- An x is a good x if it performs the function of an x well.

Same with an exercise. An exercise is a good exercise if it performs the function of an exercise well.

So, the target is the triceps. The tricep exercise is the pressdown. The tricep pressdown does work the triceps well. Therefore- The tricep pressdown is a good exercise to target the tricep.

See? It is a tool to be used to serve a function, as are all exercises.

“when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail” -I don’t know

This applies to compounds and isolation.

29

[quote]Majin wrote:
Yeah, the authors should be careful with the hordes of blank statements they make for shock value. So should the editors who give articles controversial names(‘the truth about bulking’ comes to mind).

X, where did you have the Waterbury argument, I’d like to read?[/quote]

I don’t know the name of the article because I only jumped into it because someone called me out in the discussion afterwards. I rarely read his articles (make that, never read until that one). It was in Fall, I believe.

30

[quote]Der Candy wrote:
However, can it not be agreed upon that TBT style training is optimal for beginners as opposed to a split?

For example, I have been using an Upper/Lower split for the past few months, while a friend of mine has been doing TBT. While I have been eating better and more than he has, he has made much better gains than me.
(Did that sound like a poem?)[/quote]

I wouldn’t even say that. I have ALWAYS used splits. How could you say my results were “inferior” when I made progress faster than most?

31

Here is the article. It ran in December.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1361916&pageNo=3

32

This is the forum thread that went along with that article.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1363119&pageNo=3

I started on this page because much of what came before was wasteful. Waterbury responded on this same page.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
However, can it not be agreed upon that TBT style training is optimal for beginners as opposed to a split?

For example, I have been using an Upper/Lower split for the past few months, while a friend of mine has been doing TBT. While I have been eating better and more than he has, he has made much better gains than me.
(Did that sound like a poem?)

I wouldn’t even say that. I have ALWAYS used splits. How could you say my results were “inferior” when I made progress faster than most?[/quote]

And beyond that, different routines work for different people. Nearly ANY routine will work well for beginners. As a beginner, if you train the “big” lifts well, with decent form and intensity, and with reasonable frequency (in addition to eating some damned food), you’ll make good gains.

As an advanced lifter, you don’t follow ANYBODY’s routine exactly, except to try it out. You start with something, and modify it to work for you. It’s been said (and ignored) before…

34

The best post in that thread, was probably this one by “t-ha”

[quote]This was an eye-opening thread. I have mostly kept out of this debate, having used both TBT methods & splits & I’m not sure exactly how you’ld characterise what I’m doing right now. I basically have no huge emotional attachment to one way or the other.

What I found eye-opening was that there were legitimate questions being asked of what an author had written, and that author refused point blank to answer anything that wasn’t congratulating him on a great job, or asking an inane, easy-to-put-down question. Ultimately he threw his teddy bear out of the pram and stamped his feet a bit.

Sometimes you’ve got to get your hands dirty? Dogmatism is a very bad quality in a researcher/author in any field, because quite simply no one person is right all of the time. Sometimes you’ve got to hold up your dirty hands and address legitimate points, or even entertain the idea that you may have written stuff that went over the top.[/quote]

That is pretty much how I feel about any work coming from that author from this point out.

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is the forum thread that went along with that article.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1363119&pageNo=3

I started on this page because much of what came before was wasteful. Waterbury responded on this same page. [/quote]

Read it, thanks. It’s screwed up. Apparently, at some point, either the editors say this to all the authors or something…but many contributors seem have the 00 licence to make edgy assertions.

They write blank statements and leave it at that. Then, five pages into the article discussion, under pressure they reveal that those were for shock-value or entertainment only.

But it’s too late, there are platoons of newbies for whom those controversial sentences are the essence of what they’ll remember from the entire article.

I remember Poliquin used to do that a lot in the old T-mag(still does it now). He would routinely comically and sarcastically insult some opposing practice. I think this method has been absorbed and used heavily here, being that Poliquin was a role-model success story.

I’ve said this in Shugart’s forum on Intensity. That we should have a manifesto signed by most contributors where it would be stated that methods may vary, but consitent effort and dedication to a goal are what count.

Because the phrase “A shitty program performed with determination is better than a great program done without” doesn’t get as much notice as “A newbie with 13% bodyfat should cut” or “TBT is better any day”. That seems to be the reality.

36

[quote]Majin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is the forum thread that went along with that article.

I started on this page because much of what came before was wasteful. Waterbury responded on this same page.

Read it, thanks. It’s screwed up. Apparently, at some point, either the editors say this to all the authors or something…but many contributors seem have the 00 licence to make edgy assertions.

They write blank statements and leave it at that. Then, five pages into the article discussion, under pressure they reveal that those were for shock-value or entertainment only.

But it’s too late, there are platoons of newbies for whom those controversial sentences are the essence of what they’ll remember from the entire article.

I remember Poliquin used to do that a lot in the old T-mag(still does it now). He would routinely comically and sarcastically insult some opposing practice. I think this method has been absorbed and used heavily here, being that Poliquin was a role-model success story.

I’ve said this in Shugart’s forum on Intensity. That we should have a manifesto signed by most contributors where it would be stated that methods may vary, but consitent effort and dedication to a goal are what count.

Because the phrase “A shitty program performed with determination is better than a great program done without” doesn’t get as much notice as “A newbie with 13% bodyfat should cut” or “TBT is better any day”. That seems to be the reality.[/quote]

Along with that, what seemed to be missed by Waterbury and others, perhaps even on purpose, is that these comments are not impotent in terms of the major effects they have on newbies or those so lost they turn to any “authority” for everything they believe in. I truly don’t believe they even acknowledge the effect in most cases.

If this were truly a site filled with experienced trainers, none of this would need to be stated. Inflammatory statements wouldn’t even gain much attention. Unfortunately, the reality is that many, if not MOST, of the people logging in here are NOT making much progress and hang on these guys’ every word for which direction to go in.

I also find it hard to believe that the man takes every criticism as an affront to his character or that he views everyone else as inferior and every word of opposition to his sweeping statements moronic. Yet that is exactly how his responses read.

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
However, can it not be agreed upon that TBT style training is optimal for beginners as opposed to a split?

For example, I have been using an Upper/Lower split for the past few months, while a friend of mine has been doing TBT. While I have been eating better and more than he has, he has made much better gains than me.
(Did that sound like a poem?)

I wouldn’t even say that. I have ALWAYS used splits. How could you say my results were “inferior” when I made progress faster than most?[/quote]

Are you sure you replied to the right post?
I have never claimed that your gains have been ‘inferior’ (I’ve never even seen pictures of you). I’m just asking whether or not split training is sufficient (frequency wise) for newbies.

To be honest, as a beginner myself, after reading threads like this I get VERY confused. On the one hand I hear that TBT training is fantastic for beginners because newbies respond better to more frequent stimulation and compound lifts, on the other hand I hear people like you advocating splits and bashing TBT like there is and should be only one way to train.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against split training (I actually prefer training that way), but sometimes the information is so conflicting (especially when it appears that an author doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about after all) that I am left honestly not knowing which way to go.

I thought frequent, whole body workouts were ideal for beginners while splits were more befitting advanced trainers. Obviously this is another ‘misconception’ among a shitload of others that seems to be infecting the internet.

38

Are you making good gains while on the total body workouts? Do you have fun while doing them? If so, don’t sweat it. When the gains start slowing/stopping, try something new. Eventually you’ll find that your body responds well to certain exercises and training methodologies.

Seriously, I think there is way too much overthinking going on here.

39

[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
However, can it not be agreed upon that TBT style training is optimal for beginners as opposed to a split?

For example, I have been using an Upper/Lower split for the past few months, while a friend of mine has been doing TBT. While I have been eating better and more than he has, he has made much better gains than me.
(Did that sound like a poem?)

I wouldn’t even say that. I have ALWAYS used splits. How could you say my results were “inferior” when I made progress faster than most?

Are you sure you replied to the right post?
I have never claimed that your gains have been ‘inferior’ (I’ve never even seen pictures of you). I’m just asking whether or not split training is sufficient (frequency wise) for newbies.

To be honest, as a beginner myself, after reading threads like this I get VERY confused. On the one hand I hear that TBT training is fantastic for beginners because newbies respond better to more frequent stimulation and compound lifts, on the other hand I hear people like you advocating splits and bashing TBT like there is and should be only one way to train.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against split training (I actually prefer training that way), but sometimes the information is so conflicting (especially when it appears that an author doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about after all) that I am left honestly not knowing which way to go.

I thought frequent, whole body workouts were ideal for beginners while splits were more befitting advanced trainers. Obviously this is another ‘misconception’ among a shitload of others that seems to be infecting the internet.
[/quote]

You have seen me “bash” the idea of that a newbie needs to avoid ALL isolation movements. The entire idea makes no sense. If you want to train “TBT”, do so all you want to. Just don’t think that by avoiding working certain muscle groups directly this will somehow lead to optimal growth and development. The only reason the acronym exists is so that people can sell things. No one is against “compound exercises”.

You are confused because for an author to stand out and make his product seem greater than all others, he MUST put down something in the process. Consider yourself a victim of business. Sadly, it may be years before some people figure that out.

You wrote:

This implies that any beginner not doing “TBT” is training SUB-optimally. Do you understand now? No one misunderstood your previous post. It was understood and moved past.

40

[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Are you sure you replied to the right post?
I have never claimed that your gains have been ‘inferior’ (I’ve never even seen pictures of you). I’m just asking whether or not split training is sufficient (frequency wise) for newbies.

To be honest, as a beginner myself, after reading threads like this I get VERY confused. On the one hand I hear that TBT training is fantastic for beginners because newbies respond better to more frequent stimulation and compound lifts, on the other hand I hear people like you advocating splits and bashing TBT like there is and should be only one way to train.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against split training (I actually prefer training that way), but sometimes the information is so conflicting (especially when it appears that an author doesn’t seem to know what he is talking about after all) that I am left honestly not knowing which way to go.

I thought frequent, whole body workouts were ideal for beginners while splits were more befitting advanced trainers. Obviously this is another ‘misconception’ among a shitload of others that seems to be infecting the internet.
[/quote]

I’m sure others are more qualified to answer this but I have found the only way to settle this kind of confusion is to try them both. Try TBT for 2 months followed by splits for 2 months while keeping your diet fairly consistent (of course calories may need to increase if you gain weight).

Once you have finished the experiment stick with the one which has produced better results (strength, size etc.). Also bear in mind that splits doesn’t mean that you only do isolation movements, it simply means you are focusing on certain muscle groups, we may use splits but we can still squat, bench press, deadlift etc.