Given your recent frequency article I’m curious what your thoughts are on fitness training (excluding max strength and flexibility for now).
Say calisthenics, high rep snatches, mile runs, sprints…things of that nature. Do you think a “Crossfit” approach is best or would you advise training in a more rested state with greater overall volume and frequency?
Thanks :)[/quote]
For overall cardiovascular conditioning and increased work capacity, I think the frequency philosophy would work very well. Unless a trainee needs to perform for extended periods of time, I almost always favor greater frequency over longer session duration. The reason? Shorter, more frequent sessions allow for better recovery.
[quote]brotzfrog10 wrote:
Are any of your tbt routines geared more towards beginners here on T-Nation, or could i take one our your programs and just lower the volume. my goal would be mostly to lose body fat but also to correct posture issues and imbalances. could i add these things at the end of one of your routines such as pull throughs ab training acessory pulling and rotators[/quote]
Beginners respond well to TBT programs. The only element that should be closely observed is intensity. Most beginners would do well to avoid failure training on TBT programs. As long as you keep the intensity under control, you’ll reap the benefits.
Feel free to add in those assistance movements, they’re good ones. Just make sure that 4 of 6 exercises are multi joint compound movements. BTW, pullthroughs are a compound movement.
Is there any reason why an individual could not use full body workouts for the entire span of their lifting life, assuming they utilize different set/rep schemes and know when to back off the volume for a week or so?
Is their an appreciable difference between using a different lift/angle from one workout to the next for a specific muscle group(i.e. Waterbury Method) and using the same lift but with different percentages, such as in some Bill Starr routines I’ve seen?
Thanks for your help.[/quote]
If every trainee performed nothing but TBT sessions for the rest of their training days, we’d have a lot more muscle in this world! Does that answer your question?
For hypertrophy, I tend to favor angle changes over loading changes with the same exercise. But for those who need to improve their technical skills (PLer, OLers), the law of repeated efforts stands tall.
forgive me for my ignorance, but can you pls clear up the movement plane with strength training methods for ABBH and ABBHII.
here is what i understand, i am now doing ABBHII but after two more wks, (i have completed the first) my switch should be for day1 is: 5sets per muscle group, with 3reps?
[quote] wrote:
I’ve noticed some people seem to be naturally strong, while others are not - I know a guy that has never done anything active during school or anything but is still stronger than most of the other people I know - and seemingly for no good reason.
So my rather weird and stupid question is, are the weaker guys more limited in how strong they can become in the long run? do these naturally strong guys who also work out end up much much stronger than the naturally weaker guys who decide to work out?
And how does initial strength impact hypertrophy gains?
I hope what I’m asking makes some sort of sense… I’m just curious.[/quote]
Actually, your question is a good one, and it makes a lot of sense.
Here’s a little story. You remember that dude named Bill Kazmaier? Well, if you don’t, he’s one of the strongest dudes to ever walk the earth. I saw him speak in Toronto and he said that the first time he ever tried to deadlift (at the age of 15), he pulled 500 lbs! With that in mind, he went on to possess unbelievable levels of strength.
On the other hand, some trainees spend the better portion of their life before they reach a 500 lbs deadlift.
Therefore, the man who can start with the larger load will usually reach higher levels of ultimate strength. It’s kinda like running a marathon. The guy who can start a mile ahead will have a huge advantage. But I know of many trainees who were sickly and weak before moving up to elite status.
If the drive exists, anything is possible. But it sure doesn’t hurt to be born with superior mass, muscle insertions, and limb lengths!
[quote]NateN wrote:
Let’s say someone does a set of five and he goes to muscular failure on the fifth rep. So this’ll fry his CNS
Let’s say someone else does a set of ten and he goes to muscular failure on the tenth rep. Just how fried will his CNS be compared to the above guy? More? Less? An insignificant amount?
What about a set of 15 or 20 reps?
I’m wondering how much the number of reps (and therefore the load) matters as far as CNS fatigue from lifting to muscular failure.
Thanks.[/quote]
Good question! How about you give your question a trial run? Here’s what I want you to do: test your 1RM with the barbell back squat. A few days later, test your 20RM with the barbell back squat. Take note of how you feel after each failure test.
Okay, so maybe this is in jest. Nevertheless, trainees who test their 1RM with the squat (for example) oftentimes feel like they could train the squat the very next day (even if failure is reached). On the other hand, those who perform an all-out 20RM to failure are usually bedridden for remainder of the week.
Yes, rep selection makes a huge difference! Indeed, the cardiovascular component becomes a huge factor with large movements like squats and deads. In addition, the level of structural damage can be mind-blowing. The lower the rep choice during a failure test, the quicker the recovery.
forgive me for my ignorance, but can you pls clear up the movement plane with strength training methods for ABBH and ABBHII.
here is what i understand, i am now doing ABBHII but after two more wks, (i have completed the first) my switch should be for day1 is: 5sets per muscle group, with 3reps?
thanks in advance![/quote]
Hmm, yep, I think you are a little confused. No problemo.
During the second phase of ABBHII, the upper body set/rep parameters switch. The same is true for lower body set/rep parameters. In other words, Day 1 paramters (horizontal upper) use the set/rep parameters from Day 5 (vertical upper). Therefore, Day 1 horizontal will become 6x12, while Day 5 vertical becomes 6x5. The lower body days switch 4x12 and 6x5.
TBT (8 weeks)
1 week off
Waterbury Method (6 weeks)
1 week off
EDT cycle (4-6 weeks)
1week off
Repeat…
Since TBT involves greater volume and frequency than WM, I sandwich this “intensification” phase (WM)between the two higher rep, higher volume “accumulation” phases.
Best,
DH
[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
Bearhawk wrote:
Chad any idea when the rest of your frequency article/study will be out and any update as well on your book?
Also have you ever looked at combining your Waterbury Method with CS EDT say 8x3 with 15 minPR?
I’m working on my frequency article as we speak. Thanks for the interest. It should be shocking, and a little scary.
My book? Hmm, unfortunately there are many facets of my book that I can’t talk about until I get the official “OK.” Don’t worry, T-Nation will be the first to know what I’ve got up my sleeve.
WM and EDT? Have you been talking to Disc Hoss?! Yeah, I’m not surprised readers have shown an interest in combining the two programs. But, it’s best to keep each program “as is,” for now. [/quote]
Dubya,
The AD is awesome with your stuff. What I’ve done for two years now. Been on the AD since 95. Loving it.
Just to chime in with some experience that some may find helpful.
The AD enabled me to gain more mass with less fat than I had been able to drum up before. It rocked! Add some EDT and Waterbury programs and you MUST grow, man.
Best,
DH
[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
novamcglone wrote:
Chad,
What are your thoughts on the Anabolic Diet, for both cutting and bulking, in conjunction with your programs? Thanks.
-Greg
I must admit, I haven’t kept up on the AD. In other words, I don’t know what changes Mauro has recently made to the program. If you’re referring to 5 days of low carb, followed by a carb up on the weekends, I think it works well for many trainees. Specifically, I’ve found that males respond well to it, while females tend to do a little better on a slightly modified plan.
I think it would work well with many of my programs, as long as the intensity level isn’t pushed too high. [/quote]
I’ve been lifting pretty seriously for the past year and put on about 35 lbs…most of which is muscle, so I’m pretty happy about that, and the fact that I’ve gained alot of strength. My question is that my look is “soft”, and my muscles feel “soft” too. They’re only firm when I workout…is this genetic? I don’t know how to better describe it, but I’ve been working out for a while, and I don’t know if this is a tiny bit of fat over my muscles taht causes them to feel soft or something, but it’s just kind of, I dunno, embarassing that I work this hard to gain so much and I can’t see it other than an overall gain in size, but little definition. Any ideas on what to do?[/quote]
This is definitely a classic case of excessive body fat. Even though you might not have much of it (fat), it’s still excessive given the look you’re going for.
This issue can be complex, or very simple. Short of having you list your entire eating plan, I suggest you read up on Lowery’s Temporal Nutrition or Berardi’s fat loss articles. You’ll need to alter your eating plan to get the look you’re after.
I wish there was a “magic bullet” answer, but almost all trainees encounter the same situtation you’re in. You must experiment with different: carb sources, AM carb feedings, post-workout carb intake, healthy fat consumption, cardio, and daily protein intake (to name a few).
Hi CW, I have a question you’ve probably answered 1000x already, but here it is: I’ve tried both full body workouts from you and split routines from CT, When I was doing the full body workouts I did TBT followed by WM followed by SOB training. My strength went up, but my mass did not. I was eating 4k calories a day at 160lb but I noticed my carb intake was quite low (possibly why I didnt gain any mass). I stayed at 160, so needless to say I was pretty upset with my weight staying the same so I switched back to Split routines from CT while also upping my carb intake and staying around 4k a day.
I’m now at 170lb but my lifts arent going up as good as the full body stuff you write.
What I’m getting at is, Are some people genetically better at building mass by the split routines (tear em down) then frequency training (full body wrokouts)?
I’m thinking it might have been my 150g of carbs a day limiting my weight when on your programs and I enjoy the variety u offer more then doing same muscle over and over on any given day.
Thanks for all your contributions, you write great stuff.
I can tell you this much. Carbo content has nothing to do with massing. Not unless you count water retention. Seriously. Caloric intake is THE determining factor. You may simply need to eat more. Rather I’d try to drink more calories as it’s much easier.
Trust me on the CHO info. I’ve done the AD for years and gained much better. The false “puff” of CHO is as valuable as high rep sarcoplasmic goo. Both are fake and fall away in a short span of time in the end.
DH
[quote]freejury wrote:
Hi CW, I have a question you’ve probably answered 1000x already, but here it is: I’ve tried both full body workouts from you and split routines from CT, When I was doing the full body workouts I did TBT followed by WM followed by SOB training. My strength went up, but my mass did not. I was eating 4k calories a day at 160lb but I noticed my carb intake was quite low (possibly why I didnt gain any mass). I stayed at 160, so needless to say I was pretty upset with my weight staying the same so I switched back to Split routines from CT while also upping my carb intake and staying around 4k a day.
I’m now at 170lb but my lifts arent going up as good as the full body stuff you write.
What I’m getting at is, Are some people genetically better at building mass by the split routines (tear em down) then frequency training (full body wrokouts)?
I’m thinking it might have been my 150g of carbs a day limiting my weight when on your programs and I enjoy the variety u offer more then doing same muscle over and over on any given day.
Thanks for all your contributions, you write great stuff.[/quote]
Thought my ears were burning.