[quote]Poetikaal wrote:
how much do you weigh, for life? just curious. you dont do badly at all
[/quote]
Thanks man, I weigh 160.
how many times week do you workout TBT, forlife?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Guy, this isn’t about “preferences”. If we are discussing what is OPTIMAL, the issue becomes just how much muscle mass you are gaining.
My point on preferences was that it gets old having my personal experience dismissed because I’m not as massive as you are. I have respectable size/strength for my height, and I’ve tried both splits and TBWs. For me, TBWs were more effective in producing muscle mass and strength.
I’m glad splits have worked so well for you. You should be proud of what you’ve achieved. Maybe if you had done TBWs instead, you would have achieved the same or even better? I have no idea, but everyone’s mileage varies and all you can do is share what has worked for you.[/quote]
It isn’t about dismissing your personal experience. In fact, it doesn’t have shit to do with you personally at all. If you are claiming something is OPTIMAL I would expect (as should most people) to see some OPTIMAL RESULTS.
I’ll wait while you make that personal as well instead of understanding the point being made.
[quote]totti13 wrote:
how many times week do you workout TBT, forlife?[/quote]
I go five days/week for about 90 minutes.
wow
when i tried TBT i was unable to recover to train 5 days out of 7
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you are claiming something is OPTIMAL I would expect (as should most people) to see some OPTIMAL RESULTS.[/quote]
I claimed something was OPTIMAL for me, based on my personal experience over 6 years of training. The first 3 years were splits, the second 3 years were TBT. In my experience, the TBT has produced better strength and size. It’s a within-group comparison, from a stats perspective, not the between-group comparison that you keep trying to make.
You’re assuming that if I had done splits all 6 years, I would be bigger and stronger than I am now. However, you don’t know that and you can’t know that. I don’t know what your results would be if you spent all your time doing TBT with the same level of intensity you have done splits. Maybe you would be even bigger than you are now.
Don’t assume that unless someone is your size, their training is inferior to yours. There are a lot of factors that contribute to results outside of type of training. You’re ignoring age, current fitness level, nutrition, and other factors that affect muscle gains.
The best way to assess the effects of training is to vary the training itself, while keeping those other factors constant. In other words, to do a within-groups comparison, which is exactly what I’ve done.
[quote]totti13 wrote:
wow
when i tried TBT i was unable to recover to train 5 days out of 7[/quote]
We may have a different definition of TBT. I know some people define it as working every muscle group every time. I work variations of chest/back every time, but vary everything else so recovery isn’t as big an issue.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If you are claiming something is OPTIMAL I would expect (as should most people) to see some OPTIMAL RESULTS.
I claimed something was OPTIMAL for me, based on my personal experience over 6 years of training. The first 3 years were splits, the second 3 years were TBT. In my experience, the TBT has produced better strength and size. It’s a within-group comparison, from a stats perspective, not the between-group comparison that you keep trying to make.
You’re assuming that if I had done splits all 6 years, I would be bigger and stronger than I am now. However, you don’t know that and you can’t know that. I don’t know what your results would be if you spent all your time doing TBT with the same level of intensity you have done splits. Maybe you would be even bigger than you are now.
Don’t assume that unless someone is your size, their training is inferior to yours. There are a lot of factors that contribute to results outside of the type of training. You’re ignoring age, current fitness level, nutrition, and other factors that affect muscle gains.
The best way to assess the effects of training is to vary the training itself, while keeping those other factors constant. In other words, to do a within-groups comparison, which is exactly what I’ve done.[/quote]
The only thing I assume is that someone like you is going to see less results no matter what because your priority is lying in how lean you are and not how much muscle you are gaining. That alone means that when you speak on how you saw better progress, it makes perfect sense to factor in how much you have actually gained overall and how long you have been lifting.
That isn’t an insult to you, it is simply the TRUTH.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That alone means that when you speak on how you saw better progress, it makes perfect sense to factor in how much you have actually gained overall and how long you have been lifting.
[/quote]
Again, you don’t know how much I would have gained overall if I had done splits the whole 6 years. You can’t say I would have been better off doing splits, as opposed to doing TBT. All you can say is that eating more would have helped under either training type. Holding my nutrition intake constant, I saw more gains with TBT than with splits.
You’re arguing that splits are superior to TBT, because splits have produced great results for you. However, the only way to accurately compare the effectiveness of both is to hold all other variables constant and see the gain achieved by one training type vs. the other.
Have you actually tried TBT for an extended period of time, keeping the same level of training intensity and nutrition intake constant?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That alone means that when you speak on how you saw better progress, it makes perfect sense to factor in how much you have actually gained overall and how long you have been lifting.
Again, you don’t know how much I would have gained overall if I had done splits the whole 6 years. You can’t say I would have been better off doing splits, as opposed to doing TBT. All you can say is that eating more would have helped under either training type. Holding my nutrition intake constant, I saw more gains with TBT than with splits.
You’re arguing that splits are superior to TBT, because splits have produced great results for you. However, the only way to accurately compare the effectiveness of both is to hold all other variables constant and see the gain achieved by one training type vs. the other.
Have you actually tried TBT for an extended period of time, keeping the same level of training intensity and nutrition intake constant?[/quote]
Guy, what I am arguing is if someone is claiming that their results are substantial enough to weigh in on which produces the most long term results, that person had better have made much more progress and trained longer than the average well intentioned weight lifter who has been training for a couple of years.
If I look around and no one using a certain routine has gained 3-4" on their arms since they were a beginner, I won’t be using it…even if one of those people does claim that they saw better results on one than the other.
The overall progress DOES matter. That is all there is to it.
You have been training for six years. That is more than enough time to be REALLY BUILT by now.
No one can say what is absolutely optimal.
You can’t try every routine. Maybe you were using a crappy split the first 3 years?
You can however look at your favorite science of statistics. You want to build a physic like a bodybuilder? The best guess is to train like all the successful ones do. They pretty much all use some type of split.
No offense, but when you are smaller, it is way easier to gain. the bigger you are the harder it is to gain. This is when optimization is more important and you can see the difference between routines better. The big guys use splits.
Even what you are talking about is a split of a type, you don’t same train the same things every day.
And I want video of the 3X10 450 decline. At 160 that would be amazing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No offense, but when you are smaller, it is way easier to gain. the bigger you are the harder it is to gain. This is when optimization is more important and you can see the difference between routines better. The big guys use splits.
[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guy, what I am arguing is if someone is claiming that their results are substantial enough to weigh in on which produces the most long term results, that person had better have made much more progress and trained longer than the average well intentioned weight lifter who has been training for a couple of years.
If I look around and no one using a certain routine has gained 3-4" on their arms since they were a beginner, I won’t be using it…even if one of those people does claim that they saw better results on one than the other.
The overall progress DOES matter. That is all there is to it.
You have been training for six years. That is more than enough time to be REALLY BUILT by now.[/quote]
If you did a comparison of the increases to my strength and size over the first three years of splits, vs. the increases to my strength and size over the next three years of TBT, you would find a statistically significant effect favoring TBT. The point is that with nutrition held constant, TBT was more effective than splits.
You’re confusing nutrition with training type. Yes, if I had eaten more I would be larger than I am now under either splits or TBT. But that speaks only to the effect of nutrition, and says nothing about the relative effectiveness of the two training types.
The only way you can know which training type is more effective is to compare TBT against splits, keeping your nutrition and training intensity constant. Unless you’ve done that, you can’t logically argue that splits are more effective.
So I’ll ask again:
Have you done TBT with the same intensity and nutrition that you have trained splits?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No offense, but when you are smaller, it is way easier to gain.[/quote]
That would argue even more for the effectiveness of TBT, since I should have seen more gains the first three years by virtue of being smaller when I started working out than I was three years in.
I agree, it is more of a hybrid. My comments have been toward the OP’s original question, which was about the value of alternating chest and back in the same workout. I do that every workout, but with different exercise variations.
Thanks man, it is on a machine rather than free weights but I did it last month. Unfortunately, this morning I only did 430 decline, mostly because I am low carbing this week and don’t have as much energy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you did a comparison of the increases to my strength and size over the first three years of splits, vs. the increases to my strength and size over the next three years of TBT, you would find a statistically significant effect favoring TBT. The point is that with nutrition held constant, TBT was more effective than splits.[/quote]
I would also find a BEGINNER who is more concerned with his abs than his muscles.
Yes, that has MUCH to do with the progress you saw. In fact, if anyone tells me they saw LESS progress as a newbie, I know for sure they were doing something wrong because that is when you should be blowing up by simply looking at the weights.
[quote]
You’re confusing nutrition with training type. Yes, if I had eaten more I would be larger than I am now under either splits or TBT. But that speaks only to the effect of nutrition, and says nothing about the relative effectiveness of the two training types.[/quote]
What? The goal is big muscles. If you are wrecking your own progress by not eating enough, your results are null and void.
I have no need to do TBT. I have passed up most average people in terms of muscular size so why would I do something just to do it when I know what works for me?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No one can say what is absolutely optimal.
You can’t try every routine. Maybe you were using a crappy split the first 3 years?
You can however look at your favorite science of statistics. You want to build a physic like a bodybuilder? The best guess is to train like all the successful ones do. They pretty much all use some type of split.
No offense, but when you are smaller, it is way easier to gain. the bigger you are the harder it is to gain. This is when optimization is more important and you can see the difference between routines better. The big guys use splits.
Even what you are talking about is a split of a type, you don’t same train the same things every day.
And I want video of the 3X10 450 decline. At 160 that would be amazing.[/quote]
coughbullshit***
wtf? tbt is one thing tbw may or may not be another, are you saying you do a TBT 5 days a week?
If so then You have not done whats OPTIMAL for size and strength for you regardless of how much you think you have. No way in the world your doing back to back days of tbt for years and accomplishing maximum size.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would also find a BEGINNER who is more concerned with his abs than his muscles.[/quote]
I don’t think most people would look at the four lifts I posted and call that a BEGINNER. They may not be to your level, but for my height it is at least INTERMEDIATE.
Your results aren’t null and void if you see statistically more progress under one training type than another, holding other variables constant.
If you haven’t done TBT, you have no idea where you would be today if you did. Yes, you have seen great results with splits but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have seen even better results with TBT, if you ate as much and trained with the same level of intensity.
As you said, it is about what is IDEAL. You can only know what is IDEAL if you have given both training types a fair shot, holding constant other contributing factors.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I would also find a BEGINNER who is more concerned with his abs than his muscles.
I don’t think most people would look at the four lifts I posted and call that a BEGINNER. They may not be to your level, but for my height it is at least INTERMEDIATE.[/quote]
We are talking about your first three years of lifting. Difficulty with comprehension?
[quote]
The goal is big muscles. If you are wrecking your own progress by not eating enough, your results are null and void.
Your results aren’t null and void if you see statistically more progress under one training type than another, holding other variables constant.[/quote]
Again, if someone tells me they did not grow faster as a beginner, that is a huge sign they did something WRONG.
[quote]
If you haven’t done TBT, you have no idea where you would be today if you did. Yes, you have seen great results with splits but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have seen even better results with TBT, if you ate as much and trained with the same level of intensity.
As you said, it is about what is IDEAL. You can only know what is IDEAL if you have given both training types a fair shot, holding constant other contributing factors.[/quote]
I know what is ideal by what has built the most really big well developed bodies.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We are talking about your first three years of lifting. [/quote]
We are talking about the first three years of lifting compared with the next three years of lifting. I had the same nutrition throughout, but saw better gains with TBT. To be fair though, I started out 3x/week and gradually increased frequency/intensity, so that must have had some effect as well.
I saw good gains the first three years, just not as good as the second three years. I’m not sure where you differentiate beginner from intermediate. If I compared my first year with my third year, it’s probably true I saw more gains the first year.
The problem is you’re not holding the other factors constant. For all you know, the big guys that do splits might be even bigger if they did TBT. Most of them haven’t seriously tried it. Maybe the really big guys are better about eating more, train with greater intensity, etc. Those factors could account for most of their results, apart from any training type.
Ronnie might be bigger if he switched to TB workouts? I lol’d
What you are saying is that if you are nutritional depleted TBT might be better.
You want to stay lean, that’s fine, your goals are your goals.
Ever think you weren’t eating enough to recover from splits. Then TBT doesn’t tear down your muscle as much.
When you are eating to stay lean and not progressing in your nutrition to match your training, you have no idea what program builds the most muscle. You most undoubtedly would have gained more eating more.
Your diet is your limiting factor, not your training.