Waterbury vs Critics Article...

Training Bodybuilding
101

[quote]TC wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Maybe there’s not a written policy on file.

But when Shugs is telling readers that gear heads need to shut the hell up about training progams posted by members here - I think he is implying very strongly that the AAS community members are not well thought of.

And that coupled with some statements made in CW’s interview with “the crtic”, he makes some backhanded remarks about trainees that are on the juice.

Maybe I am a little sensitive to the remarks. Maybe I am a little defensive. But to throw all AAS users into the “meatheaded gym rat” pile makes it seem like there is an anti-gear bias floating in the air.

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing you specifically, Prof. Actually, I was surprised to see you “argueing” with Chad. Sorry if my post seemed directed at you. I’m talkin more about the barrge of 16yo experts who attack anything they see.

103

This was an eye-opening thread. I have mostly kept out of this debate, having used both TBT methods & splits & I’m not sure exactly how you’ld characterise what I’m doing right now. I basically have no huge emotional attachment to one way or the other.

What I found eye-opening was that there were legitimate questions being asked of what an author had written, and that author refused point blank to answer anything that wasn’t congratulating him on a great job, or asking an inane, easy-to-put-down question. Ultimately he threw his teddy bear out of the pram and stamped his feet a bit.

Sometimes you’ve got to get your hands dirty? Dogmatism is a very bad quality in a researcher/author in any field, because quite simply no one person is right all of the time. Sometimes you’ve got to hold up your dirty hands and address legitimate points, or even entertain the idea that you may have written stuff that went over the top.

104

Some random comments…

  1. Think everybody knows my stance regarding TBT vs. Split training. In that regard I do differ from Chad in that I believe that split training is more effective for individuals of an intermdiate to advanced level focusing on bodybuilding-type gains. That having been said, I still read and appreciate Chad’s articles. He does bring some valid points in all of 'em, points that made me reconsider some of my methodologies over the years. So even when I read something from him in an article I wont go “Cosgrove on his ass” simply because I don’t agree! IMHO if you can learn one new thing from an article, then its worth reading… so even if an article seemingly seems to go against my beliefs, I’ll still read it objectively, looking for that one thing that could be applied to my training methodologies. And if for some reason Chad doesn’t at least present that one thing that will help me, then I will simply do a few rounds with the Waterbury-shaped sand bag in my basement :slight_smile:

  2. Regarding the steroids issue. I’m not against them, I’ve trained athletes who used them and I’ve trained athletes who were dead set against them. I have never talked negatively about steroids in my articles. However the thing that you will see at T-Nation is that we all have our area of specialization. I’m a training guy, JB is a nutrition guy, DJ is a beer-drinking “lift heavy things” guy, etc. And we kinda stick to our own area because we know that others on the staff have more knowledge in some areas than we do… I have no problem saying that JB, Lonman and Mike Roussel know a heckuva lot more than I do about nutrition so in most cases I will leave that field to them.

For the record, the methods that worked best for my enhanced athletes are the ones who also worked the best for my natural athletes. The magnitude of the gains are more important for the former, but what’s best for one is also what’s best for the other (alhtough volume mangement becomes slightly more important).

The only time where steroids become an issue is when they are used to “bypass” stupid practices: bad nutrition, not sleeping enough, idiotic training programs. When someone is doing eveything wrong he can still get some gains if he uses steroids (I say some beause even on steroids, if you do everything wrong you wont get super gains). In that case, yeah, the gains are almost “all drugs”. But most peoples who get very good gains from steroids must still train right, eat properly and rest enough to grow optimally.

  1. The training split used is a very SECONDARY factor compared to exercise selection, quality of effort and consistency. The training split is only selected to better manage the micro-trauma vs. recovery ratio. In other words if you use exercises, methods and loading schemes leading to more muscle-micro trauma then you will have to train each muscle group with less frequency. So the training content you select should determine your split, not vice versa.
105

You missed a few key points here. Those who are questioning in this thread,

A. Are questioning respectfully.

B. Have done CW inspired programs before.

C. Take no exception with the programs, his work or his style.

You even subscribe to the bashing with this comment quoted below.

Now because some may disagree, they are drug laced mutants, can not walk up stairs, have horrible fitness levels, and are too stupid to read. With all these things flying around, it seems a little dificult to me to believe that people wouldn’t have something to say.

[quote]Hriliu999 wrote:
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.[/quote]

106

[quote]rainjack wrote:
TC wrote:
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.

Maybe there’s not a written policy on file.

But when Shugs is telling readers that gear heads need to shut the hell up about training progams posted by members here - I think he is implying very strongly that the AAS community members are not well thought of.

And that coupled with some statements made in CW’s interview with “the crtic”, he makes some backhanded remarks about trainees that are on the juice.

Maybe I am a little sensitive to the remarks. Maybe I am a little defensive. But to throw all AAS users into the “meatheaded gym rat” pile makes it seem like there is an anti-gear bias floating in the air.

[/quote]

As a non-steroid user I have also noticed the shift. An old Atomic Dog was recently posted while TC was on vacation. He said “We like steroids here” or something similar.

It struck me how out of tune it was with the current trend here.

107

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
2. Regarding the steroids issue. I’m not against them, I’ve trained athletes who used them and I’ve trained athletes who were dead set against them. I have never talked negatively about steroids in my articles.
[/quote]

I am not saying that any single contributor/editor/bottle washer is against steroids, or the intelligent use of them.

I think you guys have a professional responsibilty not to sound like a juice monkey.

I have just noticed a recent shift in the overall tone wrt AAS on the site.

Look at the early print version of T-Mag, and compare that with the tone on the site currently. It’s not even the same language.

I am not blaming anyone…well…maybe Shugs for his idiotic rambling about the subject. With one exception, I have never outright accused anyone of being an anti-steroidite.

Like I said - I have seen a change in the overall tone.

108


Now, the world don’t move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he’s a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.

Everybody’s got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don’t matter that you got not alot
So what,
They’ll have theirs, and you’ll have yours, and I’ll have mine.
And together we’ll be fine…

Because it takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.

109

[quote]t-ha wrote:
This was an eye-opening thread. I have mostly kept out of this debate, having used both TBT methods & splits & I’m not sure exactly how you’ld characterise what I’m doing right now. I basically have no huge emotional attachment to one way or the other.

What I found eye-opening was that there were legitimate questions being asked of what an author had written, and that author refused point blank to answer anything that wasn’t congratulating him on a great job, or asking an inane, easy-to-put-down question. Ultimately he threw his teddy bear out of the pram and stamped his feet a bit.
[/quote]

Not the best way to react, considering that this stuff will surface on google for YEARS.

110

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
Not the best way to react, considering that this stuff will surface on google for YEARS.
[/quote]

All you guys that are crying about CW’s reaction evidently never read any thread in which Anthony Roberts participated.

Chad has two posts up in this thread. If, in years to come, someone is so anal as to follow this train wreck all the way to get to where Chad is posting - they really need to get a life.

111

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
2. Regarding the steroids issue. I’m not against them, I’ve trained athletes who used them and I’ve trained athletes who were dead set against them. I have never talked negatively about steroids in my articles.

I have just noticed a recent shift in the overall tone wrt AAS on the site.

Look at the early print version of T-Mag, and compare that with the tone on the site currently. It’s not even the same language.

I am not blaming anyone…well…maybe Shugs for his idiotic rambling about the subject. With one exception, I have never outright accused anyone of being an anti-steroidite.

Like I said - I have seen a change in the overall tone. [/quote]

Just coincidence, maybe.

I’m actively looking for someone to write scholarly articles about steroids. A few people I’ve looked into just haven’t panned out.

112

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

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

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.

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

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. [/quote]

Yes, it’s the Ava Cowan thread where I’m being attacked for not censoring enough.

113

I haven’t even been around here that long, but sometimes reading through some the controversy I feel like I just did 2 hours of HIIT, uphill in Death Valley, in July.

I really do believe some of this is a function of the remote nature of it all taking place across the internet. I just bet if all the prominent players could sit down in a room together for an afternoon there would be much more understanding and hence a better defined “agree to disagree” attitude.

I also wouldn’t be shocked to discover that, while there still wouldn’t be agreement on many things, folks probably aren’t as diametrically opposed as it appears here sometimes.

The digital format has also spawned a newfound state of affairs whereby overwhelmingly large amounts of information from numerous sources are accessible on an almost instantaneous basis… free of charge.

Whereas before it was necessary to actually handle publications that you had to have the money for and turn the pages, now with a few clicks of the mouse the opinions of a dozen sources can be seen in a fraction of the time.

All of this adds up to the rough equivalent of hundreds of people from all over the world, all walks of life, different temperaments, experience levels and viewpoints being put in a room with the hope that they all play nice together.

I guess this was a very long and tiresome way of saying that much of what were seeing in this post modern computer age is an inevitable symptom of human nature.

114

[quote]rainjack wrote:

All you guys that are crying about CW’s reaction evidently never read any thread in which Anthony Roberts participated.

Chad has two posts up in this thread. If, in years to come, someone is so anal as to follow this train wreck all the way to get to where Chad is posting - they really need to get a life. [/quote]

Absolutely true.

Exhibit A:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1139635

115

[quote]rainjack wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
Not the best way to react, considering that this stuff will surface on google for YEARS.

All you guys that are crying about CW’s reaction evidently never read any thread in which Anthony Roberts participated.
[/quote]

In my book, the smarter you are the less leeway you get.

Anthony is smart, but in a crazy way. When I’m looking for training advice a human guinea pig isn’t going to be on the top of my mind.

CW has good ideas, and has been very generous with advice on T-Nation. He’s obviously a smart guy. So I’m guessing that a lot a people are used to his high standards and were kind of confused when he reacted the way he did.

I’m sure that nobody is going to keep this one impulsive reaction against him.