Why I, BODYBUILDER Isn't as Important as You Think

Training
201

[quote]Ren wrote:
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.
[/quote]

As a personal take, also, from Waterbury’s writings what I get is an emphasis on performing a given number of total reps, in however many sets as needed, while avoiding ever having slow reps. While he speaks of lifting as rapidly as possible, I have never – myself – gotten a message of the maximum volition at each moment, the quality of each rep in this regard, as being such a key factor if even a key factor at all. I never took his writings as meaning anything other than the ordinary concept of explosive or quick reps.

It could be that I am slow but I never “got” what CT is saying until he explained it. That is even with having – not all the time, but certainly at various periods since at least 10 years ago – followed what I understood to be Louie Simmons’ speed protocols. The aspect of maximum volition each instant, I never had until CT explained all this. Yeah, I tried to get all the height I could in the jump squats, but that was with lighter weight such as 50% 1RM and still I did not have the concept in my head the same way.

To me, the instructional emphasis is different.

Now, did Chad Waterbury really mean for reps to be done with this focus and priority and it just never got communicated to me? Could be. Don’t know. But if so, still there are the differences you say above, and also it seems to me he doesn’t want, for example, final reps of the last set to be as slow as what will occur when doing as Coach Thibaudeau is teaching. I would understand Chad Waterbury to want you to stop before then, and also, at least in most cases, not even to do that last set, but to be working at somewhat lighter weights.

202

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As a personal take, also, from Waterbury’s writings what I get is an emphasis on performing a given number of total reps, in however many sets as needed, while avoiding ever having slow reps. While he speaks of lifting as rapidly as possible, I have never – myself – gotten a message of the maximum volition at each moment, the quality of each rep in this regard, as being such a key factor if even a key factor at all. I never took his writings as meaning anything other than the ordinary concept of explosive or quick reps.

It could be that I am slow but I never “got” what CT is saying until he said it.

To me, the instructional emphasis is different.

Now, did Chad Waterbury really mean for reps to be done with this focus and priority and it just never got communicated to me? Could be. Don’t know. But if so, still there are the differences you say above, and also it seems to me he doesn’t want, for example, final reps of the last set to be as slow as what will occur when doing as Coach Thibaudeau is teaching. I would understand Chad Waterbury to want you to stop before then, and also, at least in most cases, not even to do that last set, but to be working at somewhat lighter weights.[/quote]

I think that the fact that english is not my primary language helps me better explain stuff because I have learned to be more thorough and explain myself using several different ‘angles’

203

Well, it works. I have learned a tremendous amount from you.

204

I, Bodybuilder and Hulk T-Shirts, I don’t know what you’re trying to do but I think I’m just as excited about both. If the shirts truly from Universal then they don’t have a functioning online store up yet which means forum members are out of luck until they finish the store.

I propose that the Hulk shirt be the second official shirt for this site.

205

I applaud any training approach which espouses the notion of a principle. Too many times we get lost in the minutia of static programs with little time to consider the individual. Without appreciating the variation of individual ‘settings’ at time of workout for example, no amount of pre-fab programming will work to make one HUGE!

I would go so far as to say this is the demarcation point defining an ‘advanced’ lifter from a ‘newbie’ not necessarily having a proper understanding of the mechanics of a movement or it’s execution (although this certainly helps!) but rather having the training maturity to modify a workout to fully utilize effective training principles to accomplish the best possible training effect with the physical/psychological resources at hand.

Christian, it’s about time we as fitness professionals stepped away from ‘broad brush stroke’ workout programs and truly focused on applying scientific principles to educate and in turn learn from. Weather the grand experiment that is I, Bodybuilder succeeds or fails the effort to change the way things are done is one I certainly can support! Best of luck and I look forward to the results with an eager (albeit critical) eye.
M.

206

I agree with what you’re saying, this is kind of off-topic from the thread, but I am unsure of where to put it.

Since you know about the history of training, what recovery techniques did people used to use before supplements and drugs? Assuming that perfect (or near perfect) reps are used, it takes a lot to recover without use of these items. I ask in a general sense because if perfect reps are used, the program itself doesn’t seem to matter (as much).

What are your thoughts?

Thank you.

207

Where is the picture of this Hulk shirt?

208

[quote]Bona wrote:
Where is the picture of this Hulk shirt?[/quote]

Check out The Mighty Stu’s profile pic, I would send you a link of it online but it really is elusive.

209

[quote]Bona wrote:
Where is the picture of this Hulk shirt?[/quote]

Stu has it on his default.

210

[quote]Bona wrote:
Where is the picture of this Hulk shirt?[/quote]

In Stu’s avartar

211

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
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]

haha thats fucking epic stu, I want me a turkey leg now…

212

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Ren wrote:
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.

As a personal take, also, from Waterbury’s writings what I get is an emphasis on performing a given number of total reps, in however many sets as needed, while avoiding ever having slow reps. While he speaks of lifting as rapidly as possible, I have never – myself – gotten a message of the maximum volition at each moment, the quality of each rep in this regard, as being such a key factor if even a key factor at all. I never took his writings as meaning anything other than the ordinary concept of explosive or quick reps.

It could be that I am slow but I never “got” what CT is saying until he explained it. That is even with having – not all the time, but certainly at various periods since at least 10 years ago – followed what I understood to be Louie Simmons’ speed protocols. The aspect of maximum volition each instant, I never had until CT explained all this. Yeah, I tried to get all the height I could in the jump squats, but that was with lighter weight such as 50% 1RM and still I did not have the concept in my head the same way.

To me, the instructional emphasis is different.

Now, did Chad Waterbury really mean for reps to be done with this focus and priority and it just never got communicated to me? Could be. Don’t know. But if so, still there are the differences you say above, and also it seems to me he doesn’t want, for example, final reps of the last set to be as slow as what will occur when doing as Coach Thibaudeau is teaching. I would understand Chad Waterbury to want you to stop before then, and also, at least in most cases, not even to do that last set, but to be working at somewhat lighter weights.[/quote]

Bill, CW doesn’t want “slow” reps, but when you’re lifting a 3RM deadlift weight for 15 reps, the bar won’t move explosively, ever, lol. You are right that he does not want slow reps at all, you stop a set when your speed slows down or your form starts deteriorating. I don’t know if you have read CW’s Huge in a Hurry book, but he does cover the mechanics a little more in detail therein.

I now have a good understanding of the difference between the 2 thanks to you and CT now.

213

[quote]ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?[/quote]

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.

214

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.[/quote]

really? I think a lot of things about this actually simplify the whole thing… I feel that some these concepts I used instinctively when I started to lift, before I started overthinking it. If anything, this seems more like a return to roots method, rather than over complication… my humble opinion

215

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.[/quote]

It doesn’t seem that complicated at all based on everything I’ve read.

It is different from what many do, however, and many are resistant to change.

216

[quote]HK24719 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.

It doesn’t seem that complicated at all based on everything I’ve read.

It is different from what many do, however, and many are resistant to change.[/quote]

I guess the part for example “use your back muscles to pull the bar down”, if you pull the bar down with your back muscles you’re not working against gravity at all on the eccentric, along with the fact if you use the back muscles to pull down, how the hell are you supposed to go at a decent rate.
Maybe I’ve just skimmed to much and am missing something.

217

God forbid CT takes the time to explain a concept. And yes there is a very good reason why he explaining how to execute a perfect rep and explain some of his methodolgy. It’s because he cares. Like he told me in a previous post, a good trainer is few and far between.

If some people don’t like his advice, maybe they should just leave it instead of complaining about it. His thread about the perfect rep sums it up perfectly, even the “advanced” have room to improve.

Thanks for the free advice CT. This is why I choose Biotest over the competition. Biotest seems much more interested in its customers than just how many supplements they buy.

218

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
HK24719 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.

It doesn’t seem that complicated at all based on everything I’ve read.

It is different from what many do, however, and many are resistant to change.

I guess the part for example “use your back muscles to pull the bar down”, if you pull the bar down with your back muscles you’re not working against gravity at all on the eccentric, along with the fact if you use the back muscles to pull down, how the hell are you supposed to go at a decent rate.
Maybe I’ve just skimmed to much and am missing something.[/quote]

Idk, I think on the whole it’s good. I mean all this talk has gotten me to go back to the gym and start refocusing on truly giving each rep more focus and making sure that I lift as explosively as possible. I realized that I haven’t been focusing as much on each rep since i first started lifting before I had most movements automatically ingrained.

219

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
HK24719 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
ryanjm wrote:

. Now we’re talking about how to do a rep? Really?

I have to agree here. It’s hard to argue with results, especially when these guys are more developed than I, but it seriously seems like this is all being overcomplicated.

It doesn’t seem that complicated at all based on everything I’ve read.

It is different from what many do, however, and many are resistant to change.

I guess the part for example “use your back muscles to pull the bar down”, if you pull the bar down with your back muscles you’re not working against gravity at all on the eccentric, along with the fact if you use the back muscles to pull down, how the hell are you supposed to go at a decent rate.
Maybe I’ve just skimmed to much and am missing something.[/quote]

Powerlifters have been lifting like this for years and they all control the eccentric (in fact they must pause on the chest). The way I have people learn this concept is to lower a weight down to around 4" from the chest and hold that position while contracting/squeezing the back .

220

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

I guess the part for example “use your back muscles to pull the bar down”, if you pull the bar down with your back muscles you’re not working against gravity at all on the eccentric, along with the fact if you use the back muscles to pull down, how the hell are you supposed to go at a decent rate.
Maybe I’ve just skimmed to much and am missing something.[/quote]

I found this easiest to feel by using lighter DBs for a press. Press the weight and then “pull” them down. Once you get the feel of moving and not just guiding the weight (in either direction) then this begins to make more sense. That said, I have yet to get the same feel with pulling exercises - guess I should try lighter DBs.

I do believe it is mentioned that you are adding resistance in the eccentric by contracting the target muscle. I found myself doing this without thinking about it.