Waterbury vs Critics Article...

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]unearth wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The first round of this debate started as a result of a Cool Tips that quoted only the intro portion of one of Chad’s articles.

I don’t have it in front of me, nor do I have the time to go search for it.

But basically the quote was something along the lines of Total Body Training will destroy split training any place, any time.

What was left out of the quote was the next sentence, where Chad says - again, I am paraphrasing - Now, enough of the shameless plug…

All of the latest TBT v. Split argument is a cousin to the original.

I think that same tactic is being used here. I don’t know when I have seen two separate threads started about an article with the express purpose of taking issue with the contents of the article.

I have more of a problem with the “critic’s” softball questions, than I do about Chad’s bravado.

I was telling someone via PM yesterday - I have been here for 5 or so years, and I have never seen this kind of attitude from CW. But if you will notice that most of this just started in the last 60 days, or so - would it not make sense that this shit fire is just drumming up attention for his book?

Plus - you get a bunch of guys that like to argue to polarize around one subject, and…well…pissing matches will ensue. Have you never egged on an argument? Maybe lobbed a grenade into an already divided situation just to see what happens?

Not trying to minimize your arguments - but honestly, I don’t see what he said, or didn’t say to be all that offensive. His training methods work, as does Staley’s, CT’s, and Darden’s. He just happens to think his is the best, and chose the most offensive, in-your-face way to get that message out.

But I make no excuses for whoever the “critic” is. I could have done the job better than that - and I would be considered what ProfX calls a fanboy.

62

[quote]rainjack wrote:
[/quote]

You’ve admitted elsewhere that you’re “on.” So, by the very logic CW put forth in the article, you are not allowed to tell anyone what works. Sorry.

63

It’s not about flaming.

You present lies and half truths, and have no problem standing behind them. There is no point in a discussion with you about this topic.

64

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You’ve admitted elsewhere that you’re “on.” So, by the very logic CW put forth in the article, you are not allowed to tell anyone what works. Sorry.[/quote]

What the fuck ever.

65

If this is the case, a significant portion of this site is going to be quiet. Very very soon.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
You’ve admitted elsewhere that you’re “on.” So, by the very logic CW put forth in the article, you are not allowed to tell anyone what works. Sorry.[/quote]

66

[quote]rainjack wrote:
flame on, big boy.

It’s not about flaming.

You present lies and half truths, and have no problem standing behind them. There is no point in a discussion with you about this topic.

[/quote]

are you kidding me? where did i ever lie or present a half-truth?

you just come out of nowhere with your shit, eh? wow.

67

This is really getting old!

Why do some of you have such a hard-on for Chad?

Maybe take another look at what has actually been said and put it into context… including comments by several of the other “experts” and “authors” on this forum and elsewhere. Some of you have chosen to take select quotes, parse them, and/or take them out of context and then drone on and on endlessly, ignoring the fact the this has been prevously responed to, debated, and roundtable’d - to death.

Rainjack wrote:

“… guys like Ian King, Charles Staley, CT. All three have TBT programs, but they aren’t dogmatic, so they aren’t drawing heat.”

Cool Tip 12-04-06

Today tip comes from Alwyn Cosgrove:

Full Body for Most

Probably around 80-90% of the population, 80-90% of the time, will respond best to total body workouts. And I’d say that maybe 90-95% of the population, 90-95% of the time, will respond best to either total body or an upper and lower split.

But make sure to read my entire statement. I’m also saying that 10-20% of the population will not respond best to total body workouts, and that 10-20% of the time these programs won’t work. The problem is, there can’t be an answer that’s 100% correct, 100% of the time, for 100% of people, but I’m comfortable with the “most of the people, most of the time” part of my philosophy.

Also…

from: http://www.elitefts.com/documents/breaking_glass.htm

"Perhaps some examples through the years are in order.

Eugene Sandow in the nineteenth century
Alan Calvert from his ?First Course in Body-Building and Muscle-Developing Exercises,? 1924, Total Body
Earle Liederman, 1924 Muscle Building; quote: ?How can anyone expect to possess coordination in active work when his muscles have never worked together in groups??
Mark Hamilton Berry from his ?First Course in Physical Improvement and Muscle Developing Exercises,? 1936, Total Body
John Grimek in the 1930s?40s, Total Body
Steve Reeves in the 1940s, Total Body
Harry Barton Paschall, ?The Bosco System of Progressive Physical Training,? 1954, Total Body
Joseph Curtis Hise and Peary Rader in the mid to late 1950s, Total Body
John McCallum from his Keys to Progress series circa the mid-1960s, Total Body

Every single scientific reference showing total body workouts is useful for gaining size and strength? Yes, I know these studies were not conducted with elite level bodybuilders. These studies were pretty much all conducted with average people. The same type of people I was writing for. The same type of people I see in the gym everyday."

The Training Split Roundtable

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1333967
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1335480

Alwyn states:
“One of the most impressive physique transformations I’ve ever seen was Christian himself. He lost over 30 pounds of fat and built nearly four pounds of muscle in 15 weeks…
But, Christian built that physique, by his own admission, using mainly Olympic lifts and performance based training! …I think Christian Thibaudeau is the poster boy for total body training being superior to any split routine! That’s why its nuts to me that he’s become the spokesman for the body part split!”

Christian responds:
“I think the take-home message is that when an individual has little in terms of muscle mass, then he should focus on big compound movements trained relatively often: either a whole body or an upper/lower body split”

“…when someone has built a decent base and decides that he wants to train to further his muscular development and build his whole body in perfect balance, then splitting his training might be the better option.”

CW’s actual workouts…

In addition advocating TBT, most of the time for most of the people, his workouts are also based on upper/lower body splits and isolation work!

CW States:

"…if someone simply wants to look good naked, and if they’ve never trained before, I’ll typically put them on an upper/lower body split for a few months. That’s exactly what my Anti-Bodybuilding Hypertrophy

ABBH 1 - upper/lower body split
ABBH 1 - upper/lower body split
Waterbury Method - TBT w/ isolation movements (biceps, triceps, etc.)
Quattro Dynamo - TBT w/ isolation movements (biceps, triceps, etc.)
Total Body Training - TBT w/ isolation movements (biceps, triceps, etc.)

and on and on…

68

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
are you kidding me? where did i ever lie or present a half-truth?

you just come out of nowhere with your shit, eh? wow.
[/quote]

Not nowhere - straight from you. Do you even pay attention to what you write? Here - from your own keyboard:

[i][b]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. [/i][/b]

Now - it sounds as if you are saying that TBT does not include islolation, or single joint exercises. Are you lying, or just talking out of your ass? I can’t tell.

If you want more - this thread is full of your shit. I can find at least two other posts in which you either stretch the truth, or cut it in half.

You are crying like a fucking baby for CW to be accurate - yet you have no problem throwing shit to the 4 winds.

I’ll repeat myself yet again: DO you hold all of the authors here to the same standard? If so - I have missed your blather filled ramblings on those particular threads. Why single out Waterbury?

69

[quote]rainjack wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You’ve admitted elsewhere that you’re “on.” So, by the very logic CW put forth in the article, you are not allowed to tell anyone what works. Sorry.

What the fuck ever. [/quote]

Bodybuilders get gains on split programs because they’re juiced. That’s from the very article under discussion.

I can simply say you’re getting results on TBT because you’re juiced.

Of we could all be a lot less dogmatic and admit that people are getting great results using both types of programs.

There’s no One True Way to train. What a fucking concept!

70

[quote]rainjack wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
are you kidding me? where did i ever lie or present a half-truth?

you just come out of nowhere with your shit, eh? wow.

Not nowhere - straight from you. Do you even pay attention to what you write? Here - from your own keyboard:

[i][b]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. [/i][/b]

Now - it sounds as if you are saying that TBT does not include islolation, or single joint exercises. Are you lying, or just talking out of your ass? I can’t tell.

If you want more - this thread is full of your shit. I can find at least two other posts in which you either stretch the truth, or cut it in half.

You are crying like a fucking baby for CW to be accurate - yet you have no problem throwing shit to the 4 winds.

I’ll repeat myself yet again: DO you hold all of the authors here to the same standard? If so - I have missed your blather filled ramblings on those particular threads. Why single out Waterbury?

[/quote]

wow man, every post of yours is way out of left-field.

that post of mine had nothing to do with TBT <i don’t even know what TBT is, i’m guessing it’s some Chad-program?>, but it is simply a response to programs which don’t use any isolation movements.

nor did i imply it was regarding TBT. not did i say it was in response to TBT. do you always pretend to be able to read people’s minds and then end up looking silly?

stop making shit up.

71

feel free to come up with more lies and half-truths of mine. this is pretty funny to see you go to work.

72

[quote]98V wrote:

A bunch of stuff
[/quote]

I never made that quote. You have me confused with someone else.

73

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
feel free to come up with more lies and half-truths of mine. this is pretty funny to see you go to work.[/quote]

You are delusional. Did you work for the Clinton Administration?

Anyhow, it looks as if you will be shunned once again by CW in your quest for “accuracy”.

I can see why he doesn’t waste his time on folks like you.

74

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
and if this website is interested in becoming more than a bodybuilding website, then it’s probably time to change it’s slogan to something else.
[/quote]

You mean, it’s not a “home to bodybuilders, powerlifters, Mixed Martial Artists, and in fact, athletes of any kind who stand to benefit from increased size, increased strength, increased power, or increased endurance”? I must be on the wrong site, then.

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
i don’t think people come here to find out how to train for MMA or rugby.

i like this website. but if someone’s looking for information regarding MMA conditioning and skill-improvement, they’re not coming here. nor should they. [/quote]

I hear you, my man- fuck those MMA freaks. Hell, there aren’t even that many of them here, so obviously there’s no need to put out articles for them.

Oh, wait…Hammer Down, anybody?

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
this ‘critic’ didn’t really argue anything except parrot typical forum flamer bullshit questions.[/quote]

Um…duh? At this point it’s pretty obvious, to me, at least, that not only did the article fly over your head, but so does the purpose of this site.

Go find a ladder next time you feel the need to post nonsense like the above.

Now, I enjoy Chad’s programs, as I have been getting some solid results with them. I do, however, somewhat get a lot of what you are trying to say- mainly the comments about elite bodybuilders and mass, as well as the exclusion of isolation movements from programs.

However, claiming some of you have [quote]legitimate beefs [/quote] with what Chad writes is just silly. I wonder why so many of you, who aren’t personal trainers, or coaches but regular 9-5 guys with 9-5 jobs worry about which training method is being degraded or promoted. You are free to do whatever routine you want, you don’t have to sell anybody to a particular program, and fuck all, it’s not like any of this will decide which routine you will be forced into using.

75

[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]

Huey, not sure where you are going with this, but I am going to take it and run from here.

I have to question the ability of a company to present non-biased reviews of supplements/routines/competition/bodybuilding in general when they are censoring professional, intelligent open discussion of such a seemingly minor aspect of bodybuilding as the Waterbury thread.

I mean, I have read over and over how Biotest can present non-biased reviews of the above items, and numerous reasons why and how they can, however, it seems they are selling themselves short by editing out intelligent discussion that disagrees with the presented argument.

I have not tried total body routines as Chad has prescribed, but I have tried a lot of routines and what my body tells me/ divided by gains, is an intelligent split is the way to go. I ask people in my gym and no one is doing a split. Granted their gains suck, but then again my split may fit close to a Waterbury TB routine.

I have a split challenge out there, and while it is for 6 months, I am currently challenged by the man Rainjack several months short of the full 6.

I think we all seem to lack a role model, if you will, that has succeeded start to finish (whatever the finish is, 10 pounds LBM or whatever) with a TBT routine. Yea, some experienced people get gains from anything, and subscrive to TBT. The guy I am competing with, who seems to be a very admirable opponent (Petedacook sweats) and says he can do either split or TBT and get the same gains.

The purpose of my post is to question what gives here? Unbiased free discussion of training and supplements, or controlled selling of corporate goods in certain areas, for certain marketing purposes, which equaes to one sided opinions geared toward marketing and profit?

76

Can I add one more thing and say that I began split training for 2 reasons:

  1. I became too tired with TBT to apply the intensity to get the gains I could attain by applying higher intensity with a split.

Note: For this discussion intensity= higher weight/optimum form/failure

  1. I read about 5-10 years ago (maybe outdated?) that a body could not focus necessary recovery on more than 1 major muscle group per day.

At my intensity, I find this to be true.

77

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
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.

Huey, not sure where you are going with this, but I am going to take it and run from here.

I have to question the ability of a company to present non-biased reviews of supplements/routines/competition/bodybuilding in general when they are censoring professional, intelligent open discussion of such a seemingly minor aspect of bodybuilding as the Waterbury thread.

I mean, I have read over and over how Biotest can present non-biased reviews of the above items, and numerous reasons why and how they can, however, it seems they are selling themselves short by editing out intelligent discussion that disagrees with the presented argument.

I have not tried total body routines as Chad has prescribed, but I have tried a lot of routines and what my body tells me/ divided by gains, is an intelligent split is the way to go. I ask people in my gym and no one is doing a split. Granted their gains suck, but then again my split may fit close to a Waterbury TB routine.

I have a split challenge out there, and while it is for 6 months, I am currently challenged by the man Rainjack several months short of the full 6.

I think we all seem to lack a role model, if you will, that has succeeded start to finish (whatever the finish is, 10 pounds LBM or whatever). Yea, some experienced people get gains from anything. the guy I am competing with, who seems to be a very admirable opponent (cook sweats) says he can do either split or TBT and get the same gains.

So, what gives here? Unbiased free discussion, or controlled selling of corporate goods in certain areas, for certain marketing purposes, or one sided opinions geared toward marketing and profit?

[/quote]

I wrote a response in that thread…that had to be posted in the general forums. I also didn’t attack CW in it but exactly WHAT HE SAID. This was apparently too much to handle as he hasn’t even bothered to respond in any way that would explain some of those comments.

Is it any wonder at all that the question arises often as to what the focus of this site is now and why it seems to have changed so drastically from the “hardcore” image it tried so hard to express in the beginning?

I have seen racist rants written in the forums that still get posted…so why the edit of so many that simply disagree with what an author wrote?

Anyone reading that thread/article now will be missing one entire side of the debate. It isn’t because that debate was baseless. It is honestly because it seems they weren’t prepared for it.

How could they not be? What, more bodybuilding bashing? I thought this was discussed several “articles” ago.

78

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
when they are censoring professional, intelligent open discussion of such a seemingly minor aspect of bodybuilding as the Waterbury thread.[/quote]

The censorship has been a bit irksome. It’s not like anyone was calling the guy a shithead or revealing private details of his personal life. Guys were doing nothing other than presenting a contrary viewpoint.

I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

I almost started a thread asking about this (new?) censorship policy. Are authors really to have their ideas critically examined? Are only “This is the best article ever!” posts going to be allowed? Of course, I was too afraid such a post would be censored! (I highly doubt this post will even make it through.)

The last thing people should have to worry about when clicking “Submit” is whether a non-ad-hominem post is going to make it through the mods. After all, if CW is right, why the fear? Why the censorship? Let’s let ideas through and see what ideas are left standing.

I’m starting to wonder if Kal Yee hasn’t been be hired as a forum consultant.

79

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Is it any wonder at all that the question arises often as to what the focus of this site is now and why it seems to have changed so drastically from the “hardcore” image it tried so hard to express in the beginning?[/quote]

It was a fun ride, but all good things must come to an end. I have to wonder, though… I remember the site from jump… Was it all an act? Or does financial success just change a group of people so much?

I remember the “Gold Man” MM2K cover. “The Critic” article is the Gold Man.

80

[quote]Professor X wrote:
How could they not be? What, more bodybuilding bashing? I thought this was discussed several “articles” ago.[/quote]

Standard bodybuilding training, that has been proven effective for both AAS users and non-AAS users alike, seems to be a favorite whipping boy for Chad and a few of the other authors.

Interestingly, not one of the authors that constantly harp on how terrible standard bodybuilding methods are for building muscle has been able to show any proof that their methods are superior.

To be fair though, I don’t think the site as a whole can be said to be “anti standard bodybuilding training”. Off the top of my head I can think of several contributers that seem to think well of split bodybuilding routines for gaining muscle: Berardi, Lowery, Thibaudeau, Tate.

The censorship thing is goofy though. I don’t know what the hell is up with that.