Waterbury vs Critics Article...

[SkyNett]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
along with taking issue with some of chad’s statements, unearth also takes issue with how the questions are asked. it is very clear that the ‘critic’ was not intended to be asking intelligent questions or to ask well-thought out question and taking legitimate beefs with any of chad’s statements regarding training.[/quote]

What are you, Unearth’s PR rep? ; )

Actually, that’s the point of my post. The article is not designed as some hardcore, ball-busting, “put the guy on the spot” piece.

It’s just a chance for Chad to reiterate his views in a format that’s supposed to be entertaining.

If you’re complaining about that fact, and you wanted an article that was more adversarial in regards to his views, then I understand what you’re saying.

I’m just pointing out that this piece is not in that style, nor is it intended to be.

[unearth]

[quote]five-twelve wrote:
I’m using Chad’s HFT program for my BB comp in April. I will post progress pics and a log so you guys can decide for yourself on whether it works or doesn’t.
[/quote]

Excellent!

Looking forward to seeing your before and after pics.

[SkyNett]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
in this thread i have still not seen on asshole statement made in reference to chad.

unearth isn’t being a dick, in the least. neither am i. we’re asking legitimate questions and sharing valid comments.[/quote]

Who said either one of you were?

Certainly not me. Re-read my post - the potential for it is there, which is why, out of respect to the author, they will only allow this kind of discussion in a separate thread.

[vbm537]

[quote]boss99er wrote:
Plus, with this thread you have managed to “unearth” the dead horse that was beaten over and over again a few months back, and you started beating it again. Just let the poor little horse die. Thats all it wants to do.[/quote]

I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his programs. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.

[unearth]

[quote]vbm537 wrote:
I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).
[/quote]

Sorry, but I find AG1’s transformation to be hardly extraordinary. Nor have I been able to find ANY extraordinary transformations with Chad’s programs.

The key word here is EXTRAORDINARY. I’ve seen no one that made any more progress that they couldn’t have achieved using any other proven method.

If you’re going to make EXTRAORDINARY claims, be prepared to back it up with EXTRAORDINARY proof.

Otherwise, his training paradigms are no better than any other decent program.

[quote]
If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his program. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.[/quote]

[hueyOT]

[quote]vbm537 wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Plus, with this thread you have managed to “unearth” the dead horse that was beaten over and over again a few months back, and you started beating it again. Just let the poor little horse die. Thats all it wants to do.

I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his programs. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.[/quote]

what a cheap tactic to say that some of us ‘don’t believe’ chad.

it’s specific concerns that we have about specific things that he has said. it’s not like one day somebody just woke up and said, ‘i hate chad and everything he says’, it’s just that there are things he’s said that some of us take issue with.

instead of using some anecdote about some success story with this or that program in order to write off any criticism, let’s address the issues that some of us have beefs with.

if i recall correctly, there was actually a quote from chad that recommended NOT doing ANY direct biceps work in order to get big biceps. that was the awesome ‘i’m gonna quit doing curls’ thread.

[TrainerinDC]

I have used TBT and split routines. I feel they both have their place in the training arsenal. This is just CW’s style. Every trainer or coach has to have their own style, and how they do things.

For me personally, I feel the TBT program increased my cardiovascular endurance and overall strength. However the drawback in my opinion was, with all those compound lifts, I could not focus on improving bench, deadlift, squat etc because I had all the other energy intensive lifts to go during the workout.

On a split routine, I feel I can focus more and improve more on one big lift at a time. However for overall strength, TBT was better.

CW is correct. So are splits, so is everything that is thought out and well done. There is no need to question this mans style of how he does his job. If there was one answer to everything, none of us in the industry would have jobs, and everyone would be lean with abs and 21" arms.

Personally I wouldnt want that.

[Scott_aka_Rice]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
if i recall correctly, there was actually a quote from chad that recommended NOT doing ANY direct biceps work in order to get big biceps. that was the awesome ‘i’m gonna quit doing curls’ thread.[/quote]

And there in lies the problem. I don’t think the authors realize how much mental control they have over their readers.

If CT said to put 2tsps of african silverback gorilla fecal matter in your PWO shake, there’d be a lot less poachers with dirty shoes. Then again, CT has more respect and credibility because he does show his results.

Regardless of what CW’s results have been, he refuses to cite examples or point out what TBT “alone” has done for him in terms of aesthetics. Let’s put it this way: If some guy that was 100lbs soaking wet told you the best way to increase your bench with an injured shoulder would be to drop bench for a while and perform db external rotations, and you never read anything about shoulder health, you would brush him off and do a 1rm in front of him because you’re bigger and you should know more than him right?

Well that’s the logic people follow and simply brushing it off by saying that you don’t care about client results is either EXTREME modesty, or the lack of results better than, or equal to, a type of split routine. Yes, no matter what you say, results matter.

Genetic freaks and all, give me an example of the guy with the worst genetics you’ve ever trained with great results. Show me the guy who cries when he benches 45lbs before training with you. Just show me something.

I have nothing against using TBT use for a while, but claiming it’s the BEST way to train (for 80% of the population or whatever number you want to use because it’s an easy out for criticism) is when people like me and others will contest your statements. Do T-Nation members make up the 20% that had success on split routines?

If one were to strictly follow TBT and continue along this path never incorporating isolation work, serious imbalances would occur, and there’d be a lot more people with horrific posture. Worst case scenario, someone gets injured because that muscle group is so weak compared to the supporting ones. I can see it now:

“But doctor, Mr. Waterbury said nothing bad would happen if I avoided curls and hypertrophy would still occur!”

“He lied to you. You have bicep tendonitis. Besides, you think I got these 21” guns doing chin-ups? LOL!"

[boss99er]

[quote]Scott aka Rice wrote:
If one were to strictly follow TBT and continue along this path never incorporating isolation work, serious imbalances would occur, and there’d be a lot more people with horrific posture. Worst case scenario, someone gets injured because that muscle group is so weak compared to the supporting ones. [/quote]

Scott: You are showing a little ignorance here. You say that strictly following TBT without isolation work would lead to imbalances. First of all I dont believe that to be true, and second, who says TBT doesnt involve “some” isolation moves. I have done a couple of CW’s workouts and they both included some isolation work.

TBT doesnt mean only compound movements, but it does use them to get through a full body workout in less than half a day.

[boss99er]

Oh and just to avoid being called a TBT or Waterbury fanboy, I am currently doing the Mutation Series by CT and am loving it. Its a split for those that dont know.

[hueyOT]

[quote]boss99er wrote:
Scott: You are showing a little ignorance here. You say that strictly following TBT without isolation work would lead to imbalances. First of all I dont believe that to be true, and second, who says TBT doesnt involve “some” isolation moves. I have done a couple of CW’s workouts and they both included some isolation work.

TBT doesnt mean only compound movements, but it does use them to get through a full body workout in less than half a day.
[/quote]

doesn’t matter if you believe it to be true, if you avoid isolation exercises you WILL have imbalances. this is true whether or not you believe it.

i don’t know why this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp. CT explained it simply in a post recently in the ‘quitting curls’ thread. and i’ve been saying for awhile, myself.

compound lifts, although incorporating many muscles, do not build all the muscles involved equally. just because your lats can get activated when benching doesn’t mean be benching will build big lats. just because your abdominals are activated during squats doesn’t mean your abs will grow proportionally to your quads when performing this exercise.

certain muscles just don’t get hit hard enough from compounds. biceps are a great example. they need direct work to stay on par with the rest of the body no matter how much chinning and rowing you do. your calves need direct work to stay on par with the rest of the body, squats won’t get them very big.

so the bottom line is, if you ignore isolation/simple exercises, you WILL have imbalances over time. in terms of strength AND aesthetics.

[vbm537]

[quote]unearth wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

Sorry, but I find AG1’s transformation to be hardly extraordinary. Nor have I been able to find ANY extraordinary transformations with Chad’s programs.

The key word here is EXTRAORDINARY. I’ve seen no one that made any more progress that they couldn’t have achieved using any other proven method.

If you’re going to make EXTRAORDINARY claims, be prepared to back it up with EXTRAORDINARY proof.

Otherwise, his training paradigms are no better than any other decent program.

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his program. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.
[/quote]

Did you see her initial picture before she started? Again, I don’t think CW needs to prove this to you…but instead to his clients. I think the main issue here is you are just asking the same questions that keep being asked in so many threads…of which Chad has responded to numerous times.

[vbm537]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Plus, with this thread you have managed to “unearth” the dead horse that was beaten over and over again a few months back, and you started beating it again. Just let the poor little horse die. Thats all it wants to do.

I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his programs. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.

what a cheap tactic to say that some of us ‘don’t believe’ chad.

it’s specific concerns that we have about specific things that he has said. it’s not like one day somebody just woke up and said, ‘i hate chad and everything he says’, it’s just that there are things he’s said that some of us take issue with.

instead of using some anecdote about some success story with this or that program in order to write off any criticism, let’s address the issues that some of us have beefs with.

if i recall correctly, there was actually a quote from chad that recommended NOT doing ANY direct biceps work in order to get big biceps. that was the awesome ‘i’m gonna quit doing curls’ thread.[/quote]

So the OP asked for a success story…I named one…and then you pointed that out as a pointless tactic…ok.

I understand the issues with what he is saying…just wondering if the OP even looked at all of the other threads about this.

I think again, people are focusing on the 5-10% that some don’t agree on and forgetting the 90% that many do agree on.

[hueyOT]

[quote]vbm537 wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Plus, with this thread you have managed to “unearth” the dead horse that was beaten over and over again a few months back, and you started beating it again. Just let the poor little horse die. Thats all it wants to do.

I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his programs. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.

what a cheap tactic to say that some of us ‘don’t believe’ chad.

it’s specific concerns that we have about specific things that he has said. it’s not like one day somebody just woke up and said, ‘i hate chad and everything he says’, it’s just that there are things he’s said that some of us take issue with.

instead of using some anecdote about some success story with this or that program in order to write off any criticism, let’s address the issues that some of us have beefs with.

if i recall correctly, there was actually a quote from chad that recommended NOT doing ANY direct biceps work in order to get big biceps. that was the awesome ‘i’m gonna quit doing curls’ thread.

So the OP asked for a success story…I named one…and then you pointed that out as a pointless tactic…ok.

I understand the issues with what he is saying…just wondering of the OP even looked at all of the other threads about this.

I think again, people are focusing on the 5-10% that some don’t agree on and forgetting the 90% that many do agree on.
[/quote]

yes, we are focusing on the 5-10%. so what’s wrong with that? i know i’ve stated openly that i’ve been practising many of the principles that CW also advocates. but if i want to take issue with some statements that make no sense, why can’t i take issue with those statements?

why must someone who disagrees with 5-10% of what chad states reiterate that he/she agrees with most of the other principles that he subscribes to?

if i disagree with an opinion of yours, must i first state that even though i disagree with said particular opinion, that i also like your haircut?

and it’s this 5-10% that was completely ignored in the fake interview which was simply used to imply that criticism of chad originates solely from stupid internet trolls.

[unearth]

[quote]vbm537 wrote:
Did you see her initial picture before she started? Again, I don’t think CW needs to prove this to you…but instead to his clients. I think the main issue here is you are just asking the same questions that keep being asked in so many threads…of which Chad has responded to numerous times.[/quote]

Chad has made extraordinary claims about his training methods but has yet to produce anyone with extraordinary results. So far all that he has shown is that he’s been able to help people to from beginners to intermediates. Big deal, any decent training methodology can accomplish that and more.

The example you gave was no where near extraordinary.

By the way, he hasn’t responded to any of my other points either.

[rainjack]

[quote]unearth wrote:
Chad has made extraordinary claims about his training methods but has yet to produce anyone with extraordinary results. So far all that he has shown is that he’s been able to help people to from beginners to intermediates. Big deal, any decent training methodology can accomplish that and more.

The example you gave was no where near extraordinary.

By the way, he hasn’t responded to any of my other points either.[/quote]

What gains have you made?

I use CW’s workouts quite a bit, and I am a pretty sizeable guy. I would compare my stats/pics with your progress - but you haven’t the balls to post them. You must too busy fussing with the bunch in your panties.

The bulk of your posts have been to insult CW. Maybe he refuses to answer you questions because you will never be satisfied with an answer.

You would bitch if you were hung with a new rope.

The argument that Total Body training does not include isolation work is just showing the utter ignorance of those making the claim.

Unless you call calf raises, skull crushers, standing BB curls, reverse curls, hammer curls, reverse crunches, hanging leg raises, lying triceps extensions, and tricep press downs compound movements - you guys are just talking out of your asses.

But that seems to be the theme of this thread. What a bunch of knobs.

[vbm537]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Plus, with this thread you have managed to “unearth” the dead horse that was beaten over and over again a few months back, and you started beating it again. Just let the poor little horse die. Thats all it wants to do.

I agree. I can’t believe there is a new thread to go over all this again. It’s unbelievable how many times this needs to be debated. I have seen plenty of posters who have stated they achieved great success through his programs (AG1 is one great example).

If the OP really wants to re-live this then just read all the threads about the EXACT same thing. CW does not need to prove anything to you. Those that believe him will probably find great progress with his programs. Those that don’t…won’t try his programs and won’t know.

what a cheap tactic to say that some of us ‘don’t believe’ chad.

it’s specific concerns that we have about specific things that he has said. it’s not like one day somebody just woke up and said, ‘i hate chad and everything he says’, it’s just that there are things he’s said that some of us take issue with.

instead of using some anecdote about some success story with this or that program in order to write off any criticism, let’s address the issues that some of us have beefs with.

if i recall correctly, there was actually a quote from chad that recommended NOT doing ANY direct biceps work in order to get big biceps. that was the awesome ‘i’m gonna quit doing curls’ thread.

So the OP asked for a success story…I named one…and then you pointed that out as a pointless tactic…ok.

I understand the issues with what he is saying…just wondering of the OP even looked at all of the other threads about this.

I think again, people are focusing on the 5-10% that some don’t agree on and forgetting the 90% that many do agree on.

yes, we are focusing on the 5-10%. so what’s wrong with that? i know i’ve stated openly that i’ve been practising many of the principles that CW also advocates. but if i want to take issue with some statements that make no sense, why can’t i take issue with those statements?

why must someone who disagrees with 5-10% of what chad states reiterate that he/she agrees with most of the other principles that he subscribes to?

if i disagree with an opinion of yours, must i first state that even though i disagree with said particular opinion, that i also like your haircut?

and it’s this 5-10% that was completely ignored in the fake interview which was simply used to imply that criticism of chad originates solely from stupid internet trolls.

[/quote]

No point in debating this…seems more pointless than the debate itself. Nothing wrong with debating…the point was that it has just been done so many times.

[TestosterTon]

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
TestosterTon wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
it’s also very interesting that all the replies to chad’s ‘interview’ were all praising him…

it’s as if no single T-Nation member had any beefs with anything chad had said. imagine that… universal agreement.

unearth obviously doesn’t agree with Chad. So there is no universal agreement.

-ton

it was a sarcastic statement referring to how replies expressing disagreement with chad are prohibited from being posted in the ‘article/interview’ with the ‘critic’.
[/quote]

My fault. I didn’t know that was in effect.

-ton

[vbm537]

[quote]unearth wrote:
vbm537 wrote:
Did you see her initial picture before she started? Again, I don’t think CW needs to prove this to you…but instead to his clients. I think the main issue here is you are just asking the same questions that keep being asked in so many threads…of which Chad has responded to numerous times.

Chad has made extraordinary claims about his training methods but has yet to produce anyone with extraordinary results. So far all that he has shown is that he’s been able to help people to from beginners to intermediates. Big deal, any decent training methodology can accomplish that and more.

The example you gave was no where near extraordinary.

By the way, he hasn’t responded to any of my other points either.[/quote]

I think CW has done plenty of responding…I don’t know why he should pick you out…although I won’t be surprised if he does. I have seen him address this many times.

Did you see AG’s picture before she started? I don’t see those kinds of transformations at my gym.

Anyway…if you feel CW should explain this to you then I hope you get your answers.

Personally I am sure he has the results to back it up, and if he doesn’t I am sure he will.

T-Nation does not hire writers just to fill up a forum; they find writers who know who to bring results. I don’t need him to back up his statements. I read what he writes, make my own opinions, try out his methods, and see if they work for me.

That’s it for now…I am off to go eat Sushi in Santa Barbara.

[five_twelve]

[quote]unearth wrote:
five-twelve wrote:
I’m using Chad’s HFT program for my BB comp in April. I will post progress pics and a log so you guys can decide for yourself on whether it works or doesn’t.

Excellent!

Looking forward to seeing your before and after pics.[/quote]

i will have before pics at the end of the week. Then I will do bi-weekly pics then after.

I should let you know that I will be adding some slight variation to his program. I will be training arms and abs a little more than usual since they are lagging parts. But I will let you know.