Waterbury vs Critics Article...

Training Bodybuilding
41

What the hell aren’t people getting? The Critic article was SATIRE. It was poking fun of very groundless criticism of Chad and his philosophies, of which there’s been much of. WAY too much of.

There has also been solid and meaningful criticsm. Most of it was in the roundtables, where Thibadeau has some potent arguments for bodypart splits and many members also had well-thought out and articulated posts that detailed the merits of split training and arguments for its superiority in many cases.

Go read it. It’s not that hard.

42

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

Damn straight.

43

[quote]rainjack wrote:

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

[/quote]

That’s gold! Pure, Gold!

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
What gains have you made?
[/quote]

So, the person claiming extraordinary claims doesn’t have to show extraordinary proof, but I do? What a brilliant diversionary tactic!

I’ve been lazy about video taping my workouts lately, but here’s one from a couple of weeks ago. Someone at my gym challenged me to squat his one rep max without gear (oddly he used a belt and knee wraps to do the lift, but I wasn’t allowed to. Also, he squatted about six inches high too), he called me a gear whore and bet I couldn’t squat his one rep max unless I was wrapped up like a mummy, so I did it for eight reps at the tail end of a workout. To be honest I was hoping to do more than eight reps but I guess I was a bit gassed from all the work I’d already done with my gear on.

http://media.putfile.com/425x8nogear

I’m sure you’ll be promptly posting a superior effort considering you’re such a complete badass. I will, of course, worship and grovel at your feet because of your incredible strength level. Even better, if you prove that you’re considerably stronger than I am I will purchase Chad’s book and use Chad’s strength training guidelines for the next year.

Sound fair?

Now, do you have the ball’s rainjack.

Possibly, I’d like to think I’m more open minded than that, but maybe I’m fooling myself. I will be a man of my word though if you show me up.

Is this a southern saying? Don’t see how it applies here.

Not my claim.

Yes there is indeed a theme, no one has answered one of my critiques.

Very impressive.

45

nice video unearth, but how about not having the spotter give so much help, next time? still much more impressive than 99% of wannabes online, though. you sure do bend forward a lot!!

46

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
nice video unearth, but how about not having the spotter give so much help, next time? still much more impressive than 99% of wannabes online, though. you sure do bend forward a lot!![/quote]

Oh, brother.

47

[quote]unearth wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
nice video unearth, but how about not having the spotter give so much help, next time? still much more impressive than 99% of wannabes online, though. you sure do bend forward a lot!!

Oh, brother.[/quote]

dude i’m giving you props. it’s a good show. let’s just write it off to you being tired at the end of your workout.

48

[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]

Dude, in all honesty, you need to be training for another couple of years or FIVE regardless of what program you choose. We’ve seen your pics. We know you want to compete. No one is even against you competing. What you have been told is you simply don’t have much muscle on you. At your stage, nearly any program that you put enough intensity behind should produce some kind of results…BECAUSE YOU LOOK LIKE A NEWBIE. Your progress would not be any sort of judge about this program in relation to body part splits. In fact, that has been solved by the many who ahve actually gotten huge on body part splits.

The argument is about the many claims made by CW in that “article” he posted. This is something quite a few seem to be missing. The fact that many of the posts pointing this out are not allowed in the thread is the only reason this may not be clear to you.

49

[quote]unearth wrote:
I’m sure you’ll be promptly posting a superior effort considering you’re such a complete badass. I will, of course, worship and grovel at your feet because of your incredible strength level. Even better, if you prove that you’re considerably stronger than I am I will purchase Chad’s book and use Chad’s strength training guidelines for the next year.

Sound fair?

Now, do you have the ball’s rainjack.[/quote]

Nice video.

I don’t train for strength, so how strong you are means dick to me. In fact, that is the same type of straw man you accuse Chad of. I don’t think that is the argument anyhow. It is about hypertrophy.

Anyhow - my squat progress has been discussed here before. But I’ll give you a refresher: For the last 2-3 years I have been unable to squat more than 210 without excruciating pain in my knees, and achilles (specifically the heel).

This year I have broken out of that and made a point to increase my squat numbers. I can now easily squat 425 for reps.

As for my max - I don’t know, nor do I care. I a msure that at your age - you are stronger than I am. I’ll leave the feats of strength for the younger crowd. I just want to get bigger. And Total Body training helpd with that. So do splits.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

unearth wrote:
Possibly, I’d like to think I’m more open minded than that, but maybe I’m fooling myself. I will be a man of my word though if you show me up.[/quote]

I have to squat more than you do to show you up?

You started a thread to bitch about Chad. Is this really that big of a damn deal? Why don’t you start a thread about Darden as well?

Chad’s trying to sell a new book. How about you let that fact soak in. I think that can explain a lot.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You would bitch if you were hung with a new rope.

unearth wrote:
Is this a southern saying? Don’t see how it applies here.[/quote]

I think it does. No matter what CW said, were he to say anything, you would not be satisfied. I’ll take that back. If he said that splits were superior to TB, maybe you would be satisfied. But that’s not going to happen. CW’s whole schtick is Total Body.

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

unearth wrote:
Not my claim.
[/quote]

Didn’t say it was. Maybe I should have worded it differently. But there are those in this thread that have claimed it, and I was addressing them.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But that seems to be the theme of this thread. What a bunch of knobs.

unearth wrote:
Yes there is indeed a theme, no one has answered one of my critiques.

Very impressive.[/quote]

Critique? Dude - you ar bitching and moaning like a 13 year-old little girl. You may call that a critique where you come from - but in my part of the world, you are being a baby.

I am not sure what you consider impressive. Surely it is not this thread.

50

Rainjack,

The reason why CW has been getting ripped on lately is because he is dogmatic.

Have you noticed that other authors who advocate TBT, like AC for example, aren’t getting ripped like CW?

People don’t have a problem with the fact that CW uses TBT, nor do they believe that they don’t produce results, what irritates people is the way he presents it.

He claims that TBT is BY FAR more productive than splits! Then when someone genuinely interested in his system asks for evidence of this he’ll say things like who he’s trained doesn’t matter, but that he is good at improving a newbies strength/size! Like many have said before; any program with good intensity and good nutrition will do wonders for a newbie.

Or as proof he’ll reference a study showing that higher frequency training is more productive. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s just a study. I’d like to see how TBT beats splits “hands down”. Not because I want to expose him, but because I want to believe that he’s on to something. Hell, why wouldn’t I want to train using a system that beats splits hands down?

But again, no proof…

Compare him to guys like Ian King, Charles Staley, CT. All three have had TBT programs, but they aren’t dogmatic, so they aren’t drawing heat.

Guys like Mentzer, Furey and CW are dogmatic and some people don’t like that. People who read his articles will fall in either the critic category or the jedi category.

That’s just the way it is when you play those cards.

51

If that was at the end of your workout, you deserve extreme credit for it. Depth was good, you do lean forward a little tho. =)

Out of curiousity alone, what do you weigh? Im guessing about 210 from the video. If thats the case double body weight for 8 at the end of a workout… Wow.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
unearth wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
nice video unearth, but how about not having the spotter give so much help, next time? still much more impressive than 99% of wannabes online, though. you sure do bend forward a lot!!

Oh, brother.

dude i’m giving you props. it’s a good show. let’s just write it off to you being tired at the end of your workout.[/quote]

52

[quote]XxMAGxX wrote:
Rainjack,

The reason why CW has been getting ripped on lately is because he is dogmatic.

Have you noticed that other authors who advocate TBT, like AC for example, aren’t getting ripped like CW?

People don’t have a problem with the fact that CW uses TBT, nor do they believe that they don’t produce results, what irritates people is the way he presents it.

He claims that TBT is BY FAR more productive than splits! Then when someone genuinely interested in his system asks for evidence of this he’ll say things like who he’s trained doesn’t matter, but that he is good at improving a newbies strength/size! Like many have said before; any program with good intensity and good nutrition will do wonders for a newbie.

Or as proof he’ll reference a study showing that higher frequency training is more productive. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s just a study. I’d like to see how TBT beats splits “hands down”. Not because I want to expose him, but because I want to believe that he’s on to something. Hell, why wouldn’t I want to train using a system that beats splits hands down?

But again, no proof…

Compare him to guys like Ian King, Charles Staley, CT. All three have had TBT programs, but they aren’t dogmatic, so they aren’t drawing heat.

Guys like Mentzer, Furey and CW are dogmatic and some people don’t like that. People who read his articles will fall in either the critic category or the jedi category.

That’s just the way it is when you play those cards.[/quote]

If I was good with words, which I’m not, this is what I would have said.

This sums up my position on the matter nicely.

Thanks.

53

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
If that was at the end of your workout, you deserve extreme credit for it. Depth was good, you do lean forward a little tho. =)

Out of curiousity alone, what do you weigh? Im guessing about 210 from the video. If thats the case double body weight for 8 at the end of a workout… Wow.
[/quote]

Current weight is 220, but I should loose about ten pounds of fat.

Thanks.

EDIT: if you want to see someone that’s actually strong check out this vid http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1363947

54

[quote]XxMAGxX wrote:
Rainjack,

The reason why CW has been getting ripped on lately is because he is dogmatic.

Have you noticed that other authors who advocate TBT, like AC for example, aren’t getting ripped like CW?

People don’t have a problem with the fact that CW uses TBT, nor do they believe that they don’t produce results, what irritates people is the way he presents it.

He claims that TBT is BY FAR more productive than splits! Then when someone genuinely interested in his system asks for evidence of this he’ll say things like who he’s trained doesn’t matter, but that he is good at improving a newbies strength/size! Like many have said before; any program with good intensity and good nutrition will do wonders for a newbie.

Or as proof he’ll reference a study showing that higher frequency training is more productive. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s just a study. I’d like to see how TBT beats splits “hands down”. Not because I want to expose him, but because I want to believe that he’s on to something. Hell, why wouldn’t I want to train using a system that beats splits hands down?

But again, no proof…

Compare him to guys like Ian King, Charles Staley, CT. All three have had TBT programs, but they aren’t dogmatic, so they aren’t drawing heat.

Guys like Mentzer, Furey and CW are dogmatic and some people don’t like that. People who read his articles will fall in either the critic category or the jedi category.

That’s just the way it is when you play those cards.[/quote]

If that’s the issue then there are a lot of people getting their panties wadded up over what amounts to a non-issue.

I think there has been one quote that was taken completely out of context, and Chad determining his marketing strategy to be as abrasive and controversial as possible. Those two things are doing exactly what Chad wants: causing an uproar.

55

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If that’s the issue then there are a lot of people getting their panties wadded up over what amounts to a non-issue.

I think there has been one quote that was taken completely out of context, and Chad determining his marketing strategy to be as abrasive and controversial as possible. Those two things are doing exactly what Chad wants: causing an uproar.
[/quote]

I agree

56

i use both full body and split training. i have found i make the best gains after switching. ive been trying to do like 3 months of any of chad waterburys full body routine and then 2 months of any body part that i think looks good. this keeps it interesting for me and it seems to be working good so im going to keep doing it.

and i dont really think it matters how chad justifies himself thats not the point of this site i dont think… if you try his programs and dont like them its pretty simple dont fucking do them

57

[quote]rainjack wrote:
XxMAGxX wrote:
Rainjack,

The reason why CW has been getting ripped on lately is because he is dogmatic.

Have you noticed that other authors who advocate TBT, like AC for example, aren’t getting ripped like CW?

People don’t have a problem with the fact that CW uses TBT, nor do they believe that they don’t produce results, what irritates people is the way he presents it.

He claims that TBT is BY FAR more productive than splits! Then when someone genuinely interested in his system asks for evidence of this he’ll say things like who he’s trained doesn’t matter, but that he is good at improving a newbies strength/size! Like many have said before; any program with good intensity and good nutrition will do wonders for a newbie.

Or as proof he’ll reference a study showing that higher frequency training is more productive. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s just a study. I’d like to see how TBT beats splits “hands down”. Not because I want to expose him, but because I want to believe that he’s on to something. Hell, why wouldn’t I want to train using a system that beats splits hands down?

But again, no proof…

Compare him to guys like Ian King, Charles Staley, CT. All three have had TBT programs, but they aren’t dogmatic, so they aren’t drawing heat.

Guys like Mentzer, Furey and CW are dogmatic and some people don’t like that. People who read his articles will fall in either the critic category or the jedi category.

That’s just the way it is when you play those cards.

If that’s the issue then there are a lot of people getting their panties wadded up over what amounts to a non-issue.

I think there has been one quote that was taken completely out of context, and Chad determining his marketing strategy to be as abrasive and controversial as possible. Those two things are doing exactly what Chad wants: causing an uproar.

[/quote]

look, some of us have legitimate beefs with some of chad’s statements. the ‘critic’ did not bring substantial argumentation. it was a tactic to imply that those that diagree with chad are idiots.

it’s not a non-issue to some of us, who like things to be accurate and want coaches to be accountable for what they’ve said.

when chad says things like, ‘bodybuilders aren’t trying to add lots of muscle mass all over their bodies’… i mean, what are we supposed to think? what does chad think bodybuilders do, run marathons?

why is he looking for inspiration and new ideas for hypertrophy training from cirque-de-soleil acrobats who are 5 feet tall and weigh 130 pounds? ya, they do some cool shit, but this is a bodybuilding website. chad seems to have forgotten the slogan, ‘bodybuilding’s think-tank’.

and which quote was taken out of context? and i can guarantee you chad isn’t trying to create an uproar of criticism for himself. he isn’t trying to be controversial, nor is he controversial.

58

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
look, some of us have legitimate beefs with some of chad’s statements. the ‘critic’ did not bring substantial argumentation. it was a tactic to imply that those that diagree with chad are idiots.[/quote]

That’s SOP here. Look around. For some reason you are just now noticing that the reporting here is slighty skewed towards T-Nation/Biotest?

Wake up.

[quote]it’s not a non-issue to some of us, who like things to be accurate and want coaches to be accountable for what they’ve said.

when chad says things like, ‘bodybuilders aren’t trying to add lots of muscle mass all over their bodies’… i mean, what are we supposed to think? what does chad think bodybuilders do, run marathons?[/quote]

Who defines this “accuracy”?

Darden, who says you only need one set to failure to grow?

Thibs, who says you can go from fat fo fab in only 12 weeks?

Staley, who promises astronomical growth through EDT?

Aren’t you the one that said total body training ignores single joint movements?

Where the hell is the accuracy in that? It has nothing to do with accuracy - or you would take every trainer on here to task.

You left out the part where he said elite level body builders don’t need all over mass. They work on specializing their training to bring up lagging body parts. To not know this is a fact is to pull down your pants and moon your ignorance to everyone on I-45.

You are not elite. I am not elite. I would hazard to say there are only a handful of members here that would even come close to being elite. But you want accuracy? You wouldn’t know accuracy if it hit you in the face.

So holding on to old dogma, and never looking around to find something bigger, or better - or at the least thinking outside the box - is your definition of a think tank? Please leave me out of your think tanks then - the stale water would kill me.

The very first one that started this lame, tired, old rehash. I think it was a training tip that had the end of the quote left off. CW freely admits to saying that his statement about total body being the best training method period was a marketing ploy, or shameless self promotion.

But knowing CW the way you do, you already knew that, right?

Tell me - if you know so much about him, why are you wasting your time on this thread? Why are you even asking questions? You would know the answers if you knew the author as well as you insinuate here.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
CW freely admits to saying that his statement about total body being the best training method period was a marketing ploy, or shameless self promotion.
[/quote]

So he admits that his more outlandish statements are nothing more than a shameless marketing ploy? Guess I missed that part in the Waterbury vs Critics article.

Also, glad that you’ve been able to bounce back from your physical problems with the help of Chad’s training methods.

Best of luck with your goals rainjack.

60

well rainjack, you typed a whole lot, and didn’t really say anything. i’m tired of repeating myself.

that whole ‘accuracy’ rant really came out of left field, too. that was pretty funny.

and sorry to break it to you, but elite bodybuilders still grow year after year. ronnie started competing in the olympia around the 250s, i think, and more recently began competing in the 290s. i guess that doesn’t qualify as ‘overall total development’. i guess that’s what you qualify as a ‘tune up’.

elite bodybuilders grow every year. this is no secret. and they grow all over. so when chad says that elite bodybuilders use body-part splits because they’re only polishing off their physiques and not looking for overall body growth i’m stunned. there’s nothing a bodybuilder does EXCEPT grow muscle all over. that’s all they do.

also, what technqiues do you think these guys and girls have used to GET that big in the first place?

flame on, big boy.