Where is Chad Waterbury Anyway?

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…

… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.

Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]

friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.

it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.

cutting is easier

strength/size gains come quicker.

it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.

it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.

62

Looky here, dudeness…YOU have bad genetics. They suck, since you can’t build muscle following a body part split with an emphasis on muscle groups.

You naturally have low testosterone since you come from a long line of sub-par men who lack the mesomorphic make up altogether. Possibly said sub-par men in your family shone/shone in the academic field/finance ORRR its more likely that you, trextacy come from a line of sub-par men leading subpar lives and trying to round up other subpar men and exhort them to lead subpar lives with pride, in EVERY FIELD, n’importe quel.

If your genetic potential just flat out sucks donkey dick for BBing, as it likely does for any field involving intellectual achievement OR the accumulation of wealth, I think you should persist with TBT, never getting a doctorate and never ever having a million dollars in your bank balance and never having a 10 as a wife.

I also think ANYONE who just happens to be a subpar man like yourself should avoid posting on the BBing forum altogether, and stick with the usual 9 to 5.

Ok, I’m fll of shit…go ahead, tell me something you’re good at:

  1. Have you accumulated a few million dollars liquid net worth?
  2. Do you have an exceedingly high IQ? Numbers please.
  3. Are you severely educated, heavily published and occupy a place as one of the intellectual giants in your community?
  4. Are you exceedingly good-looking and have millions of adoring fans of either sex?

Dudeness, you happen to be sub-par and you will always be sub-par. Your dad was sub-par and your children will also be sub-par at everything they do. You and yours are forever doomed to be ordinary, and you will defend your right to be proud of that to the bitter end.

Ca marche?

[quote]trextacy wrote:

friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.

it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.

cutting is easier

strength/size gains come quicker.

it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.

it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]

63

Summing up, as Charles Barkley said: “Looks, Money, Intellect — A man’s got to have at least one of these”.

So trextacy, tell us where you fall in the grand scheme of things.
I will accept either IQ or academic achievement as a measure of intellect. Money gots to be money and looks got to sell itself.

Your turn.

EDIT: Oh wait, you’re humongously endowed, you say? well that dont count for jack squat unless you’re plowing a 10. If you are, pictures of said 10. OR accept your average-ness and find a new place to roost.

64

tribunal,

i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.

65

Well, here’s the major reason I first got into Waterbury. About 5 years ago I was 6’1" and weighed about 185 lbs. I used all the bodybuilding routines I could find: 3x10, 10x10, pyramids, reverse pyramids, drop sets, negatives, etc. I got about 5 pounds but mostly I just got fatter (I knew very little about nutrition either). I read Waterbury’s ABBH and thought it was total crap to do 10x3 with a weight you could lift 6 times. Not nearly intenese enough.

So after finding out for myself that I couldn’t do 10x3 with my 3 rep max I gave it a go as is written. I liked it so switched to Big Boy Basics. I still wasn’t sold on fullbody, but I decided to give Waterbury Method a try. I really liked the results. I tried nothing but Waterbury, fullbody routines and in about a year I went from my scrawny 185 to about 235. Granted, as I mentioned before, I was by no means in “great shape” due to my lack of nutrition. I was only averaging about 120grams of protein a day and thought fats were sent straight from Hell eating “whole grain” cereal was fine. I was about 18% bodyfat (probably about 15% at 185 lbs BTW).

After learning actually learning about how and what to eat I got down to about 215. I switched back to typical programs like HSS-100 and wound up with some serious tendonitis problems in my shoulders and knee and being in a state of constant overtraining. I actually in that time wound up really falling in love with Staley’s EDT because it was easier to train around my injuries.

Recently I’ve been a bit disappointed in Waterbury’s articles. I definitely think he hit a peak and now decries any type of split routine such as the ones that got him popular first as in ABBH I and II and Big Boy Basics. I haven’t done a Waterubry routine in months. I still like to read his articles, but I by no means think the man is the Messiah. I’m just still glad for having found his programs that initially kickstarted me into actually putting on some muscle and strength.

66

[quote]Blackhole wrote:
Chad never gets the credit he deserves… He hinted about peri-workout nutrition before it became the flavor of the week, he wrote extensively about how to recruit fast-twitch fibers, and his workouts are more geared towards fitness (which is a little bit more healthy by the way) than most authors who are more geared toward bodybuilding. [/quote]

Bodybuilding IS fitness.

67

[quote]trextacy wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…

… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.

Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]

friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.

it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.

cutting is easier

strength/size gains come quicker.

it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.

it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]

I dont want to take anything away from the guys who train hard and are not natural, but I also agree that there is a huge difference.
I have seen the same guys, out drinking most nights, eating crap, and still not having it take it’s toll on them.
I personally know guys who fall into this category.
Now, before anyone labels me a “hater” or whatever, I have a good deal of muscle on a large frame. If it were legal, I probably would not have to think that hard before losing my natural status.

68

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]iwong wrote:
Folks here must have a gluten for punishment
The Waterbury/fitness guys always post in the bodybuilding forum
The bodybuilding guys always reply in topics about Waterbury[/quote]

That is exactly my point. Why would you, X and whoever else knocks Waterbury waste time trying to convince Waterbury fans that tbt is not ideal for bodybuilding. It is just as asinine as fitness oriented guys trying to give someone like X advice on building muscle.

69

[quote]deadlift655 wrote:

[quote]trextacy wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…

… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.

Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]

friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.

it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.

cutting is easier

strength/size gains come quicker.

it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.

it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]

I dont want to take anything away from the guys who train hard and are not natural, but I also agree that there is a huge difference.
I have seen the same guys, out drinking most nights, eating crap, and still not having it take it’s toll on them.
I personally know guys who fall into this category.
Now, before anyone labels me a “hater” or whatever, I have a good deal of muscle on a large frame. If it were legal, I probably would not have to think that hard before losing my natural status. [/quote]

And I know natural guys who don’t sleep, eat 2-3 times a day, train a few times a week and party 3-4 nights a week and STILL gain muscle while keeping their abs. And I also know quite a few guys who have used AAS at some point in their lives and look like every other random shmoe in the gym. For someone who has not used AAS you are sure giving them a lot of credit. High testosterone levels don’t build slabs of muscle by itself. Fuel and stimulus is still absolutely essential.

Its posts like yours that it make it so obvious why Americans hate performance enhancing drugs. You feel like youre being cheated even though you aren’t in a competition.

70

[quote]iwong wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]iwong wrote:
Folks here must have a gluten for punishment
The Waterbury/fitness guys always post in the bodybuilding forum
The bodybuilding guys always reply in topics about Waterbury[/quote]

That is exactly my point. Why would you, X and whoever else knocks Waterbury waste time trying to convince Waterbury fans that tbt is not ideal for bodybuilding. It is just as asinine as fitness oriented guys trying to give someone like X advice on building muscle.[/quote]

I think the problem is that if people aren’t interested in bodybuilding then they should refrain from posting on BODYBUILDING forums.

71

I think I would have to agree that genetics are a huge factor in bodybuilding. I would say more so than steroids. Steroids are over hyped anyway. Most competitive bodybuilders use a wide variety of anabolic enhancers, many of which are legal. Hell, Alex Rodriguez used 'roids and he didn’t become Ronnie Coleman.

I workout now at a gym and there is a guy there with killer genetics. I’ve seen him to a leg routine which consists of Smith cage squats with about 115 pounds. He does a few sets of high reps. Later he did some leg extensions. That was it!! The guy is built like a monster. When I worked at a gym in Dallas the wrestler Bautista came in. I couldn’t believe how huge he was. He did a workout that consisted of doing a chest press machine with very low weights and some triceps extensions.

I’m not trying to pass off every gigantic individual as a genetic freak of nature or a roid rager, but it of course makes a huge difference between a guy who untrained would naturally be about 225 and would that would be 180. That’s why not everyone who lifts heavy could become an NFL lineman. You have to be naturally big.

72

And what I find quite bizarre is that bodybuilding is the ONLY field spoken of in which people have the goddamn nerve to say that we shouldn’t emulate or at least TRY to emulate pros! All of the fucking sudden, we now have people who aren’t even into getting big telling us that we shouldn’t emulate those who are big!

What other goddamn field do you have people saying shit akin to: “You know the top dogs, right? Don’t try to be like them!”

That’s similar to saying: “If you want to become a good writer, don’t read the best writers’ works, for you might pick up some helpful stuff along the way!”

What kind of fucking insane reasoning is this? We shouldn’t look to successful people to see what can give us success? This is OUT-FUCKING-RAGEOUS! And I’m surprised I didn’t pick up on this ridiculous phenomenon before - people telling us this sort of shit!

These people mean to tell me that top naturals like Skip La Cour, Mike O’hearn, and Tom Venuto (all of whom use split routines despite being “natty”), and IFBB all-stars like Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, and Jay Cutler have nothing useful to offer us in getting big!

This whole thing is almost venturing into the realm of DISRESPECT - dismissing the methods that brought people success!

73

[quote]trextacy wrote:
i’m saying that Waterbury’s principles are valuable for natty muscle (body) building, and that “full body” is a dishonest represenatation of his whole approach. i’m not saying you don’t have principles of your own, i’m saying that Waterbury’s principles, when implemented, have resulted in muscle gain for many natty guys, while many spin their wheels using the dogma that is regurgitated.

so- strawman = arguing against “full body strictly for bodybuilding” and portraying that as an argument as to why Waterbury sucks.

it is the results of others that have convinced me that his stuff (not necessarily the programs, because i don’t use programs) is worthwhile. [/quote]

It’s MOST of his approach! Yeah, yeah, he uses an upper-lower split also - another split that top bodybuilders, both natural and enhanced, DON’T use!

The advice for using split routines for getting big as possible is dogma? No, it’s not dogma. It’s just a representation of what the damn biggest men on earth have been doing for decades! How is this a matter of dogma?

Name one person on here who wrote “Waterbury sucks”. Can you please do that. I certainly don’t think he sucks because I have two of his books and I like his work. But as I said, I DON’T get general fitness, strength and conditioning, powerlifting, and Olympic lifting confused, nor do I ever think, for some bizarre reason that gurus use, that any training besides bodybuilding should be used for bodybuilding! How does that grab you?

I am not the world’s foremost expert on bodybuilding training. With that said, I want you to find me one awesome bodybuilder that used guidelines other than the ones I listed in the first post of my “Bible” thread.

74

[quote]trextacy wrote:
tribunal,

i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.[/quote]

Who in god’s name would think that looking fit and healthy is passe, considering that such looks have been desirable since ancient times?

You wrote: “… because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth.”

Serves no purpose for YOU perhaps! You contradicted yourself too. You just wrote that competition is as much about illusion as it is about muscle growth but also wrote that mass for mass sakes serves no purpose. If competition is dependent on both muscle mass and illusion, how the fuck could the element of muscle mass (50% of the situation you present here) serve no purpose?!

Are you really a fucking attorney?

Where did anyone write that steroids don’t make a huge difference. Again, an inability to read my posts in full or interpret all while I write on a high school, or lower reading level!

75

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]trextacy wrote:
tribunal,

i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.[/quote]

Who in god’s name would think that looking fit and healthy is passe, considering that such looks have been desirable since ancient times?

You wrote: “… because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth.”

Serves no purpose for YOU perhaps! You contradicted yourself too. You just wrote that competition is as much about illusion as it is about muscle growth but also wrote that mass for mass sakes serves no purpose. If competition is dependent on both muscle mass and illusion, how the fuck could the element (50% of the situation you present here) serve no purpose!

Are you really a fucking attorney?

Where did anyone write that steroids don’t make a huge difference. Again, an inability to read my posts in full or interpret all while I write on a high school, or lower reading level! [/quote]

It would appear that he became a successful attorney through means other than skill.

76

[quote]trextacy wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…

… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.

Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]

friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.

it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.

cutting is easier

strength/size gains come quicker.

it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.

it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]

I hate it to break it to you, but there are also high-level powerlifters and bodybuilders and other athletes who are NOT douches and clearly know what the fuck they’re doing–not just a matter of genetics and 'roids at that level–who get shitfaced too!

And if they reach 230 pounds with 8% bodyfat–'roids or no 'roids–maybe they’re not as douchey as you think! Ever think of that? Most of those guys attend the gym 4 to 6 times per week, do cardio, and pay attention to nutrition. Does that sound douchey for muscle building? Does that sound like this is all a matter of jabbing yourself with a few drugs? No, it doesn’t! Perhaps some stuff they do - looking at oneself in a mirror with pursed lips and an assortment of dumb faces dozens of times per day, spending a quarter of their waking hours in shit clubs, bedding down with skanks, spending two hours on hairstyling, and tanning to the point of looking like they came out of a toaster oven - perhaps that shit is douchebaggish. But the stuff they do to get big and ripped ISN’T!

By the way, as I wrote in another post, there are some natural guys that are big who have no clue about what the fuck they’re doing! I have a friend who used to have an enormous upper body and “OK” legs and he had NO CLUE - didn’t pay attention to his diet; just ate two to three enormous meals per day; had no programmed routine; just did whatever he felt like doing on a day-to-day basis; rarely trained legs. He just liked working out; he had no interest in bodybuilding, nor did he know the name of any bodybuilders. If you asked him about his routines, he sometimes couldn’t even name certain exercises; he had to explain it with words and body language. Typical talk from him was shit like: "You know the machine where you do this (accompanied by demonstration with arms)… yeah, that one… I tried that tonight… I like that one for back… "; “I think I’ll hit my chest tonight - haven’t hit it for a few days. I’ll start with bench, then maybe I’ll go onto…”

This guy was very strong and big for someone who paid as little attention to detail as he did.

So you’re assertions about 'roid use are nonsensical.

And STOP putting words in our mouths. Do you know how fucking annoying that is - ASSUMING that I think CW’s methods are shit, that 'roids don’t work dramatically, that I think CW only uses TBT, that I think looking healthy is undesirable?!

77

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I think I would have to agree that genetics are a huge factor in bodybuilding. I would say more so than steroids. Steroids are over hyped anyway. Most competitive bodybuilders use a wide variety of anabolic enhancers, many of which are legal. Hell, Alex Rodriguez used 'roids and he didn’t become Ronnie Coleman.

I workout now at a gym and there is a guy there with killer genetics. I’ve seen him to a leg routine which consists of Smith cage squats with about 115 pounds. He does a few sets of high reps. Later he did some leg extensions. That was it!! The guy is built like a monster. When I worked at a gym in Dallas the wrestler Bautista came in. I couldn’t believe how huge he was. He did a workout that consisted of doing a chest press machine with very low weights and some triceps extensions.

I’m not trying to pass off every gigantic individual as a genetic freak of nature or a roid rager, but it of course makes a huge difference between a guy who untrained would naturally be about 225 and would that would be 180. That’s why not everyone who lifts heavy could become an NFL lineman. You have to be naturally big.[/quote]

I’M positive that Bautista didn’t GET big pecs and tris only doing that stuff - rather he is MAINTAINING his bigness with that stuff.

78

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]trextacy wrote:
tribunal,

i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.[/quote]

Who in god’s name would think that looking fit and healthy is passe, considering that such looks have been desirable since ancient times?

You wrote: “… because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth.”

Serves no purpose for YOU perhaps! You contradicted yourself too. You just wrote that competition is as much about illusion as it is about muscle growth but also wrote that mass for mass sakes serves no purpose. If competition is dependent on both muscle mass and illusion, how the fuck could the element (50% of the situation you present here) serve no purpose!

Are you really a fucking attorney?

Where did anyone write that steroids don’t make a huge difference. Again, an inability to read my posts in full or interpret all while I write on a high school, or lower reading level! [/quote]

It would appear that he became a successful attorney through means other than skill.[/quote]

Like fast patter! Well, actually that’s a skill too, but it doesn’t involve reasoning; rather it involves ILLUSION!

79

It’s so obvious that over half the people on this forum have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about anymore!

80

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Summing up, as Charles Barkley said: “Looks, Money, Intellect — A man’s got to have at least one of these”.

[/quote]

I don’t know why men have to have one or all those, considering that most men have NONE of them and still manage to get a woman, have an ordinary job, and have an OK life.

Tribunal:

You speak of wealth, intellect, model looks, and outstanding achievement, but I don’t see your need for emphasis on them. Our society would be worse off than it is now (and it’s pretty fucking bad now for reasons unrelated to this conversation) if we had too many genius, independent-minded, handsome, overambitious men. We’d have utter chaos, and it would be impossible for people to move in the same direction and to be led. Corporations and organizations would crumble if we hordes of hard-driving, loud-mouthed smart alecs running around.

Ordinary is OK, and that’s what 99.9…% of the population is.