They are definitely similar even if not absolutely alike. To be fair to CW, he did say that, if the target rep total is 25 and you can only do sets of 2 reps, to keep doing AS MANY SETS AS IT TAKES to get 25 total reps for that exercise.
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.
[quote]mutombo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Posts like this don’t make much sense. What supplement on the fucking planet takes the place of hard work?
Oh but catchphrases like ‘Black Ops’ Bodybuilding do? Explain what that is cough Professor. Go on? Or do I need a degree in Broscience like you? BTW, I didnt even mention hard work vs supplements, so try not to go off on tangents ok… too late:
Professor X wrote:
Most of the people whining like this are not at a level where they even understand what an intense workout even is. They are too busy overanalyzing every minor detail. They have no WORKING KNOWLEDGE of what they should be doing.
Working Knowledge? You guys can’t even release a program in 10 months, and apparently its so badly written and designed that most people will fail it? (dont worry T-fanboys, you guys really will be the special minority who get it).
Professor X wrote:
People like that couldn’t change things up on the fly based on a split second’s understanding of what needs to be changed. Guys like that are still carrying around graph paper.
What has changing things up got to do with I,BB and this thread? ooooo Professor have you been smoking the weed again… you have havent you… you silly kid you. You best run home to mom now and take your medication.
Hey dont knock graph paper, its got twice the line hypertrophy of normal paper! You must use it all the time, being a Professor!
Professor X wrote:
The one thing most of you should be realizing is that if he hadn’t written a thread like this, it would mean the attempt was to be like every other flashy “here one minute gone the next” supplement out there.
Or, you wouldnt have an excuse for people failing this uber-hypertropy program?
Professor X wrote:
I do believe the goal here is an actual understanding of HOW TO FUCKING LIFT along with the nutrition to do it…/which again means most of you whining are not at that level where you are ready for it.
And yet it seems that most will fail to understand! Despite your best efforts!
Nutrition?.. hmmm not sure I noticed that part in the I,BB spiel (Anaconda plugs dont count) can you provide a link?
Professor X wrote:
Hell, how many guys in this thread alone even have arms over 16"…SOLID (not so smooth you can’t even make out where the biceps is)?
16? Why 16? What about 15.5? or 15? Or that doesnt count? Hell, how many guys in this thread have 18 arms? Ah hang on, once the arms hit the magic 16, that’s when those Black Ops guys rappel down from a helicopter into your house and give you your Broscience degree!! hang on…shhhhh… I think I hear a chopper right now… Get to da choppa!
[/quote]
You are not nearly as witty as you think.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.[/quote]
Where did he say that? I’m curious because I always remember him saying to not worry about the eccentric, just lower it controlled.
I love that you guys are taking members of the forum. I am really looking forward to seeing how you tweak any of their form mistakes.
All those guys look pretty amazing. I’m not sure of the WOW potential in any changes they may make. They are all pretty WOW.
EDIT:
okay so not exactly a post about the program or a question.
But I am looking forward to the roll-out of I, BODYBUILDER.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.
Where did he say that? I’m curious because I always remember him saying to not worry about the eccentric, just lower it controlled.[/quote]
Somewhere in the “everything is about to change” articles. I even remember CT mentioning somewhere in one of his q&a’s that completely ignoring the eccentric was less than optimal.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.
(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)
Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.
So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.
So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)[/quote]
Because Waterbury is usually speaking of weights of 80% 1RM or less. Sometimes a little more, but his idea of doing triples, for example, is often at only 80%. (Which there is nothing wrong with doing, but CT’s approach as I understand it doesn’t involve bypassing weights heavier than that. I have seen figures from him of even 90%+.)
Where Waterbury has referred in a quantitative way to the amount of time that represents too much slowing, I don’t recall exactly how he stated it, but with the heavier weight such as 85%+ CT’s reps are – necessarily – slower than what Waterbury has described as the “time to stop” point. At least as I have understood his writings.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.[/quote]
Probably, but I honestly think they both probably meant the same thing but CT managed to get his point across better.
Off topic:
CT, that Hulk shirt is so goddamn badass…
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Off topic:
CT, that Hulk shirt is so goddamn badass…[/quote]
I still can’t find a place that sells that.
That’s OK, CT, one day…
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
They are definitely similar even if not absolutely alike. To be fair to CW, he did say that, if the target rep total is 25 and you can only do sets of 2 reps, to keep doing AS MANY SETS AS IT TAKES to get 25 total reps for that exercise.[/quote]
But he wouldn’t say do 25 reps with your 2RM.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.
Probably, but I honestly think they both probably meant the same thing but CT managed to get his point across better.
Off topic:
CT, that Hulk shirt is so goddamn badass…[/quote]
I’m curious, where did you see the shirt?
Do you guys have a pic of CT s Hulk t-shirt?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Ren wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.
(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)
Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.
So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.
So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)
Because Waterbury is usually speaking of weights of 80% 1RM or less. Sometimes a little more, but his idea of doing triples, for example, is often at only 80%. (Which there is nothing wrong with doing, but CT’s approach as I understand it doesn’t involve bypassing weights heavier than that. I have seen figures from him of even 90%+.)
Where Waterbury has referred in a quantitative way to the amount of time that represents too much slowing, I don’t recall exactly how he stated it, but with the heavier weight such as 85%+ CT’s reps are – necessarily – slower than what Waterbury has described as the “time to stop” point. At least as I have understood his writings.[/quote]
Correct, basically… (as I posted in the “The rep” thread.
- You select a number of reps (let’s say 5)
- You start your work sets at around 60% of your max
- You gradually add weight every set while still performing only the selected number of reps
- You work up until you reach the maximum weight you can lift for the selected number of reps
- You always try to accelerate as much as you can, given the load and fatigue level
Obviously the first few sets are stopped before acceleration decreases, but as the weight increases toward your RM, acceleration also decrease but you still attempt a fast turnaround and try to lift as fast as you still can.
I’m pretty sure it’s from Universal Studios’ Islands of Adventure. I went over the summer for the 1st time, and that Hulk Rollercoaster was just about the freakiest thing I’ve ever seen at an amusement park. (although the real highlight for me was being able to eat a humongous turkey leg for lunch while feeling like a complete caveman -lol)
S
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
They are definitely similar even if not absolutely alike. To be fair to CW, he did say that, if the target rep total is 25 and you can only do sets of 2 reps, to keep doing AS MANY SETS AS IT TAKES to get 25 total reps for that exercise.[/quote]
I don’t think they are the same.
CW’s idea of lifting as fast as you can with a given load is ONE method of increasing the MU recruitment for that rep.
IBB includes dead-starts, twitch reps, blast isometrics to help to teach you to recruit more MUs when you do normal reps. On top of this you have the idea of using the fast turn-around. The fast turn-around is the strong effect of being able to recruit even more HTMU through the SSC.
This mechanism allows you to produce more force then you would through the intention to lift fast alone. But you have to restrict the fast eccentric to the last portion of the movement, if you do the entire eccentric fast then you cause the body’s anti-injury mechanism to kick and you get a decrease the amount of force you can produce. Furthermore, without the controlled eccentric you lose the effect that it has on muscle activation.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.
Probably, but I honestly think they both probably meant the same thing but CT managed to get his point across better.
Off topic:
CT, that Hulk shirt is so goddamn badass…
I’m curious, where did you see the shirt?[/quote]
The one in Stu’s profile pic
[quote]randomality wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If I remember correctly, CW suggested ignoring the eccentric entirely and basically lowering the weight as absolutely quickly as possible during the entire eccentric phase…which isn’t what CT is advocating here.
Probably, but I honestly think they both probably meant the same thing but CT managed to get his point across better.
Off topic:
CT, that Hulk shirt is so goddamn badass…
I’m curious, where did you see the shirt?
The one in Stu’s profile pic
[/quote]
Ahhhhh… Stu has a big head, is using the “stand closer to the camera” trick to look bigger and I need a shave and to work on my tan!
You know, I was actually a little bummed that I was standing so much closer to the camera. I wanted to show my GF the pic of what a beast Thibs really is. Ya gotta knock my big mellon though huh? -lol
Seriously, I wish I had a better shot, I know I’m not exactly tiny by ‘normal’ standards, but you don’t realize just how thick the guy is until you see him in person. I think his wrist circumference was about the size of my forearm.
S
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Ren wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Because at quite high percent 1RM, regardless of working as hard as possible every inch of the way and particularly in the launch to push the weight as hard and fast as possible, the speed will not be that great, not as fast as what Waterbury is talking about.
(If it were, then the percent 1RM could not have been at all close to maximal.)
Bill, in Waterbury’s book he states that you have to “attempt to move the weight” as fast as possible.
So I am getting from him that he is not advocating speed in lifting, but exerting as much acceleration as possible to produce the most force, regardless of how fast the weight moves in reality.
So how would that differ from what CT is saying? (still slightly confused on the differences here)
Because Waterbury is usually speaking of weights of 80% 1RM or less. Sometimes a little more, but his idea of doing triples, for example, is often at only 80%. (Which there is nothing wrong with doing, but CT’s approach as I understand it doesn’t involve bypassing weights heavier than that. I have seen figures from him of even 90%+.)
Where Waterbury has referred in a quantitative way to the amount of time that represents too much slowing, I don’t recall exactly how he stated it, but with the heavier weight such as 85%+ CT’s reps are – necessarily – slower than what Waterbury has described as the “time to stop” point. At least as I have understood his writings.
Correct, basically… (as I posted in the “The rep” thread.
- You select a number of reps (let’s say 5)
- You start your work sets at around 60% of your max
- You gradually add weight every set while still performing only the selected number of reps
- You work up until you reach the maximum weight you can lift for the selected number of reps
- You always try to accelerate as much as you can, given the load and fatigue level
Obviously the first few sets are stopped before acceleration decreases, but as the weight increases toward your RM, acceleration also decrease but you still attempt a fast turnaround and try to lift as fast as you still can.[/quote]
Okay, I have a firm grasp of the difference, which really comes down to how one implements the accelerated lifting in one’s workout.
Where CT advocates ramping up till a given number of reps as he stated, Waterbury normally gives you a rep range to start off with and then a total number of reps - i.e use a weight that is your 10-12RM for 45 reps, stopping each set once you slow down.
Got it.
also, that shirt is downright awesome.