Waterbury vs Critics Article...

Training Bodybuilding
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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.[/quote]

So I’m temporarily making a stop in the middle of my effigy burning to address Professor X’s concerns.

Your question to me was: why don’t I acknowledge that TBT is just one way of training, and that body part splits can be beneficial.

Are you serious? When did I ever say that TBT is the only way to train? Please quote me from somewhere.

That’s why you didn’t like my response because I haven’t said that, and you apparently want me to say that TBT is the ONLY way to train for anyone. I won’t say that because I have too much experience in this field.

Why aren’t all my programs total body in nature if I feel that way? Have you ever personally trained with me? Have you ever directly spoken to someone who’s trained with me? Have you ever looked at the programs I design for my bodybuilding clients who compete?

I should’ve called you tonight, Professor. Why? Because I had a long conversation with Tim Patterson about training. I told him that I would not put him on a total body plan. I’d put him on an upper/lower split.

Oh, the audacity of me, Mr. “Total body is the only way” advocating a non-TBT method to the owner?! Why, I’ve surely lost my mind.

You’re doing the strawman technique to me. You’ve decided to “cut and paste” a few of my statements and say that I disown every other type of training, and that ALL bodybuilders are out-of-shape genetic freaks. They can’t do TBT because they can’t make it through the sessions. Or, it’s all about genetics.

Absurd.

So, here’s the deal: You write out what you want me to say about body part splits, and I’ll post it on this thread.

For example, you could say, “Waterbury’s a fuckin’ idiot. He thinks everyone who does body part splits is a steroid-infused, genetic freak who can’t do TBT because he’s too out of shape. He says bodybuilders are imbeciles and they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.”

Oh wait, you already did say that.

From there, it’s time for my response. You could make me say, “Professor X’s body part split training philosophy is the only way to train. Anyone who does TBT is a fuckin’ nimrod-Waterbury-fanboy. Waterbury can only understand one element of training and he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.”

You know, something like that.

So you post what you want me to write, and I’ll write it here. Then, you can quote that comment whenever you see fit. That way, we can bury this so you can get back to bashing me elsewhere.

Fair, enough?

82

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

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.[/quote]

It seems to me that if there is a shift in tone on this site, it is that the authors seem to be trying to distance themselves from the AAS end of things.

CW mentioned it, Shugart has mentioned it, and there is even a post on this thread saying that I am disqualified from having an opinion in this debate because I take AAS.

If there is one thing that separates the elite BBer’s from the beginners - I would think it to be AAS use, not training methods.

I don’t know what you consider standard BBing training, but I think the sites are set more on the gear heads than on any particular training style.

83

This thread looks interesting…

84

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

So I’m temporarily making a stop in the middle of my effigy burning to address Professor X’s concerns.

Your question to me was: why don’t I acknowledge that TBT is just one way of training, and that body part splits can be beneficial.

Are you serious? When did I ever say that TBT is the only way to train? Please quote me from somewhere.

That’s why you didn’t like my response because I haven’t said that, and you apparently want me to say that TBT is the ONLY way to train for anyone. I won’t say that because I have too much experience in this field.

Why aren’t all my programs total body in nature if I feel that way? Have you ever personally trained with me? Have you ever directly spoken to someone who’s trained with me? Have you ever looked at the programs I design for my bodybuilding clients who compete?

I should’ve called you tonight, Professor. Why? Because I had a long conversation with Tim Patterson about training. I told him that I would not put him on a total body plan. I’d put him on an upper/lower split.

Oh, the audacity of me, Mr. “Total body is the only way” advocating a non-TBT method to the owner?! Why, I’ve surely lost my mind.

You’re doing the strawman technique to me. You’ve decided to “cut and paste” a few of my statements and say that I disown every other type of training, and that ALL bodybuilders are out-of-shape genetic freaks. They can’t do TBT because they can’t make it through the sessions. Or, it’s all about genetics.

Absurd.

So, here’s the deal: You write out what you want me to say about body part splits, and I’ll post it on this thread.

For example, you could say, “Waterbury’s a fuckin’ idiot. He thinks everyone who does body part splits is a steroid-infused, genetic freak who can’t do TBT because he’s too out of shape. He says bodybuilders are imbeciles and they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.”

Oh wait, you already did say that.

From there, it’s time for my response. You could make me say, “Professor X’s body part split training philosophy is the only way to train. Anyone who does TBT is a fuckin’ nimrod-Waterbury-fanboy. Waterbury can only understand one element of training and he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.”

You know, something like that.

So you post what you want me to write, and I’ll write it here. Then, you can quote that comment whenever you see fit. That way, we can bury this so you can get back to bashing me elsewhere.

Fair, enough? [/quote]

It is funny that you mention strawmen, because my argument has never been that body part splits are the single best way to train.

I haven’t even written that it is the best for most, all, a slight majority, just the people over there, the skinny people, the fat people, or even any really short people who some might call midgets. I have never called you “a fucking idiot”…even though you used “fuckin’” as if I wouldn’t pronounce it FUCKING.

I also didn’t write that you think all bodybuilder are “imbeciles and they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground”. Perhaps you like straw even more than I do.

However, you did write:

…which brings forth the question I asked you before…to what exactly are you implying? That body part splits are only most effective for drugged up genetic freaks? I mean, you did write that, right? If you did, with all due respect for someone who writes on a forum that I have been a part of for six years now, what did you mean?

I truly wish you had called me tonight. I just got back from the gym. I trained chest today…and it was a really great workout. Hell, I’m still feeling extremely positive due to how it went which is why there are no attempts to call you any names or even put words in your mouth…simply words you actually wrote.

Now, considering a change in my recent schedule, unless you type a response within the next 30 minutes, I won’t be able to get back to you until tomorrow night. Maybe we should exchange phone numbers. I can call you every time I can’t climb some stairs.

85

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
So I’m temporarily making a stop in the middle of my effigy burning to address Professor X’s concerns.

Your question to me was: why don’t I acknowledge that TBT is just one way of training, and that body part splits can be beneficial.

Are you serious? When did I ever say that TBT is the only way to train? Please quote me from somewhere.

That’s why you didn’t like my response because I haven’t said that, and you apparently want me to say that TBT is the ONLY way to train for anyone. I won’t say that because I have too much experience in this field.

Why aren’t all my programs total body in nature if I feel that way? Have you ever personally trained with me? Have you ever directly spoken to someone who’s trained with me? Have you ever looked at the programs I design for my bodybuilding clients who compete?

I should’ve called you tonight, Professor. Why? Because I had a long conversation with Tim Patterson about training. I told him that I would not put him on a total body plan. I’d put him on an upper/lower split.

Oh, the audacity of me, Mr. “Total body is the only way” advocating a non-TBT method to the owner?! Why, I’ve surely lost my mind.

You’re doing the strawman technique to me. You’ve decided to “cut and paste” a few of my statements and say that I disown every other type of training, and that ALL bodybuilders are out-of-shape genetic freaks. They can’t do TBT because they can’t make it through the sessions. Or, it’s all about genetics.

Absurd.

So, here’s the deal: You write out what you want me to say about body part splits, and I’ll post it on this thread.

For example, you could say, “Waterbury’s a fuckin’ idiot. He thinks everyone who does body part splits is a steroid-infused, genetic freak who can’t do TBT because he’s too out of shape. He says bodybuilders are imbeciles and they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.”

Oh wait, you already did say that.

From there, it’s time for my response. You could make me say, “Professor X’s body part split training philosophy is the only way to train. Anyone who does TBT is a fuckin’ nimrod-Waterbury-fanboy. Waterbury can only understand one element of training and he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.”

You know, something like that.

So you post what you want me to write, and I’ll write it here. Then, you can quote that comment whenever you see fit. That way, we can bury this so you can get back to bashing me elsewhere.
Fair, enough? [/quote]

Chad,

I really enjoy and quite often apply the information you present here. I have had great success applying some of your training concepts to my workouts. However, this rant is completely unprofessional and uncalled for. I would even go so far as to call it embarrassing. You, your arguments and your products lose credibility when you resort to these tactics.

I believe you are very knowledgeable of your subject area but when it comes to business and professionalism you still have a lot to learn. Perhaps this is a marketing ploy to stir up controversy and sell more books but I for one am turned off.

Two of my favorite authors on T-Nation are John Berardi and Christian Thibaudeau. I have purchased products from each of them. I was attracted to their work for two reasons:

  1. They both have great reputations for being experts and innovators in their respective fields.

  2. They have consistently conducted themselves in a professional manner and have gone out of their way to answer questions (even the “stupid” ones) about their views / philosophies. (You need to work on this)

People here are challenging your training advice and you’re taking it personally…THIS shows insecurities. If you aren’t going to provide a reasonable response, you’re better off ignoring the post.

I’m sure you will regret making the above post if you haven’t already.

86

[quote]tpa wrote:
Chad,

I really enjoy and quite often apply the information you present here. I have had great success applying some of your training concepts to my workouts. However, this rant is completely unprofessional and uncalled for. I would even go so far as to call it embarrassing. You, your arguments and your products lose credibility when you resort to these tactics.

I believe you are very knowledgeable of your subject area but when it comes to business and professionalism you still have a lot to learn. Perhaps this is a marketing ploy to stir up controversy and sell more books but I for one am turned off.

Two of my favorite authors on T-Nation are John Berardi and Christian Thibaudeau. I have purchased products from each of them. I was attracted to their work for two reasons:

  1. They both have great reputations for being experts and innovators in their respective fields.

  2. They have consistently conducted themselves in a professional manner and have gone out of their way to answer questions (even the “stupid” ones) about their views / philosophies. (You need to work on this)

People here are challenging your training advice and you’re taking it personally…THIS shows insecurities. If you aren’t going to provide a reasonable response, you’re better off ignoring the post.

I’m sure you will regret making the above post if you haven’t already.

[/quote]

I agree. It’s definitely embarassing.

But once in a while you’ve gotta get your hands dirty, right?

87

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
But once in a while you’ve gotta get your hands dirty, right?
[/quote]

I agree. You cant live your life like a sponge just taking shit all the time. Sometimes you have to shoot back. I actually look forward to you and Prof X talking this out. But at least you guys could do it in a way that shows the amount of respect you BOTH deserve. None of this name calling and kindergarten stuff. You guys could really clear up some stuff here.

88

[quote]boss99er wrote:
Chad Waterbury wrote:
But once in a while you’ve gotta get your hands dirty, right?

I agree. You cant live your life like a sponge just taking shit all the time. Sometimes you have to shoot back. I actually look forward to you and Prof X talking this out. But at least you guys could do it in a way that shows the amount of respect you BOTH deserve. None of this name calling and kindergarten stuff. You guys could really clear up some stuff here. [/quote]

Respect? On the forums?

You’re kidding, right?

Here’s the bottom line: if someone doesn’t get my position on the issue by now, they’ll never get it.

Hugs and kisses to all!

I’m outta here.

89

Ok let’s see if we all understand this correctly…

CW- you are trying to say you never said some of the things you said.

Prof X- you are trying to say that you don’t like the things that he said but says he never said, but in general you are more pissed at this forum as a whole for changing.

CW- the truth is you did say those things, even if you don’t mean them the way they are said. The problem we have here is that words are all we have. We don’t get the luxury of “training with you” or “speaking to someone you trained”. All we get is what you write. It’s unfair to you that we also have a record of everything you write, as due to the sheer number of posts and articles how could you not at some point write something that would either piss someone off or contradict yourself.

So you need to realize that people are going to interpret what you write in different ways. It almost seems like you don’t get that. I know you didn’t [i]mean[/i] to say all split trainers are juiced genetic freaks, but can you not at least see how it was interpreted that way?

Prof X- Can you not realize that maybe Chad’s words were shaped a certain way in that article to be defensive because he was supposed to be defending himself against the “snarky” critic? And that maybe there is a chance that they were also formulated in a way strictly to sell CW’s way of thinking so people would buy his book? (I know you know this, these are rhetorical).

Now would it be possible that maybe what you’re mad about the most is not Chad’s opinion, but the fact that his opinion has far reaching effects? Most people who are in the know are aware that one way is not better than the other. Does it really need to be stated everywhere?

Well at least I feel better.

Let’s all kiss up and move on already.

90

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
Here’s the bottom line: if someone doesn’t get my position on the issue by now, they’ll never get it.
[/quote]

Probably true. Ah well, at least I tried to get a good debate going.

91

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
boss99er wrote:
Chad Waterbury wrote:
But once in a while you’ve gotta get your hands dirty, right?

I agree. You cant live your life like a sponge just taking shit all the time. Sometimes you have to shoot back. I actually look forward to you and Prof X talking this out. But at least you guys could do it in a way that shows the amount of respect you BOTH deserve. None of this name calling and kindergarten stuff. You guys could really clear up some stuff here.

Respect? On the forums?

You’re kidding, right?

Here’s the bottom line: if someone doesn’t get my position on the issue by now, they’ll never get it.

Hugs and kisses to all!

I’m outta here. [/quote]

That honestly leaves me wondering why you posted in this thread to begin with. You thought the debate would be that easy?

92

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

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.

It seems to me that if there is a shift in tone on this site, it is that the authors seem to be trying to distance themselves from the AAS end of things.

CW mentioned it, Shugart has mentioned it, and there is even a post on this thread saying that I am disqualified from having an opinion in this debate because I take AAS.

If there is one thing that separates the elite BBer’s from the beginners - I would think it to be AAS use, not training methods.

I don’t know what you consider standard BBing training, but I think the sites are set more on the gear heads than on any particular training style.

[/quote]

I like steroids. I would use them were I not in the position I’m in (watched) and they were legal.

There is no anti-steroid policy here.

93

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

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.[/quote]

There is no change in policy.

Right now, I’m dealing with someone else on a different thread who’s calling me incompetent because there’s not ehough censorship.

Really, if I had any emotions left, I’d be sad, bewildered, angry, confused, and flatulent.

I wish you could see it though a writer’s eyes, though.

You put your heart and soul in a piece, and you sometimes get one attack after another. It gets brutal. It really does.

Sometimes you guys ask what happened to particular author after they disappear. Sometimes it’s because they got fed up with the attacks.

Granted, every writer should expect debate, but that’s not what happens most of the time.

Im going to conndense what Chad said into this article into one line: “TBT training is pretty cool and useful, but it might not be the best thing for bodybuilders.”

Why o why the venom? Don’t answer that.

(Kal Yee? Oh man that’s rude!)

94

Would that be the Ava Cowan thread? I am not sure I would believe it is her, and if it is, it seems she stopped in because of that thread and would never have been a contributing member here anyhow.

I could see where that would get to a person. At the same time, the reality of this site is what makes it unique and down right humorous. People I work with are logging in to read threads daily, as well as buying the products offered here, specifically Spike.

We think very highly of all the writers here. It kind of reminds me of customer service. You feel beat up and unappreciated all the time, when thats not the case.

95

"I could see where that would get to a person. At the same time, the reality of this site is what makes it unique and down right humorous. People I work with are logging in to read threads daily, as well as buying the products offered here, specifically Spike.

We think very highly of all the writers here. It kind of reminds me of customer service. You feel beat up and unappreciated all the time, when thats not the case."

What site do you read? Debate is ok, but don’t deny that most articles are attacked by many posters. Not critiqued, not debated, just plain out attacked. It’s old now.

…to others:

If someone doesn’t like CW’s work, don’t fuckin read it. I dont care if he said deal a fuckin meal is the only way to get lean…just let it go.

I def. dont like every article written here, but I don’t run around like my cock is on fire everytime one comes up.

96

[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
"I could see where that would get to a person. At the same time, the reality of this site is what makes it unique and down right humorous. People I work with are logging in to read threads daily, as well as buying the products offered here, specifically Spike.

We think very highly of all the writers here. It kind of reminds me of customer service. You feel beat up and unappreciated all the time, when thats not the case."

What site do you read? Debate is ok, but don’t deny that most articles are attacked by many posters. Not critiqued, not debated, just plain out attacked. It’s old now.

…to others:

If someone doesn’t like CW’s work, don’t fuckin read it. I dont care if he said deal a fuckin meal is the only way to get lean…just let it go.

I def. dont like every article written here, but I don’t run around like my cock is on fire everytime one comes up.[/quote]

Dude, get serious. Most of the time, I completely ignore any article that I find useless. Chad was debated with for SOME OF THE THINGS HE SPECIFICALLY WROTE. He was questioned on those things…and then either never actually answered those questions or they were simply not allowed in that thread at all.

THAT is what produced much of the controversy you are reading about right now. I sure as hell don’t even follow most of Chad’s writing or the writing of most other authors here.

What brought me to this site 6 years ago was the writing style of TC. Cy Willson then impressed me, and still does, with his depth of investigation with what he wrote about. Out of all of the authors here, he is probably the one I would give the most credit to because I find his style and base of knowledge interesting.

However, I will say this, if authors feel that NONE of their work will ever or should never be challenged, why allow discussion after the article?

I limited PERSONAL attacks on Chad Waterbury and kept going back to the same quote. Even that appeared to be too much as my actual debate was skipped around and I was TOLD what my stance is without once actually touching upon my stance.

We all get that some of you may have your favorites. That doesn’t mean that ANYONE who dares question something said by one of them is trampling over everything they have ever written.

If you can’t deal with even that, perhaps your skin is just too damn thin.

97

[quote]TC wrote:
Right now, I’m dealing with someone else on a different thread who’s calling me incompetent because there’s not ehough censorship.

Really, if I had any emotions left, I’d be sad, bewildered, angry, confused, and flatulent.

I wish you could see it though a writer’s eyes, though.
[/quote]

I have published several pieces of legal scholarship and have been a legal blogger for years. I understand what it’s like to have my ideas analyzed and criticized. I’ve had my head handed to me many times. It has made me a more careful writer.

I know when I write or post something, there is someone going to slay me if I get sloppy. I like knowing that I’m being “watched.” So I don’t say things like, “This is the only right way.” My views are more nuanced.

Of course, posts attacking the person are disfavored. But posts attacking my ideas are welcomed. Shit, when no one says anything, I feel irrelevant!

Like all humans, of course, I prefer ego-stroking feedback and stuff like: “This guy is the smartest ever!” But I’m wise enough to realize I’m imperfect and my ideas worthy of criticism.

98

A quick note:

At one point I claimed that my questions were not being answered, not so, TestosterTon did a good job of answering in Chad’s proxy (not that he was asked to, but I think he did a good job).

Maybe another T-Mag civil war could be averted in the future if authors chose not to use polarizing terminology like “anyone making gains on method XYZ is on copius amounts of AAS or is a genetic freak” and “full body training beats any other training method hands down”.

Here’s a tip to all the authors who are concerned with comming up with the greatest training methods ever: Super advanced, uber awesome, best every, nothing else compares training methods don’t mean shit. You want your clients to succeed? Here’s what your clients REALLY need to do. Bust their ass working out, have a high commitment level, an excellent nutritional strategy, superior recovery methods, asskicking mental toughness, and they need to abstain from detrimental activities that could harm their progress. If they have all of the above, any decent training method is going to get them great gains.

Besides, these My Program Is Great, Your Program Sucks na-na-na-na-na type articles are just plain stupid.

Anyways, hope everyone reaches their training goals.

99

I submit this to the debate. I hope that clears things up.

100

Is it just me or is this thread thoroughly inane? I’d hardly consider myself a CW ‘fanboy’ - an unfortunate colloquialism - but his articles are consistently succinct in focus, requiring little in the way of realistic expansion. Almost to a post, every criticism of Chad’s work stems from a lack of basic comprehension skills. Articles and comments are read superficially and assumed to be dogmatic. Perhaps actually doing Chad’s programs rather than debating them would be more productive.
J.