Great thread over at T-nation

[bfoley]

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do...dra?id=1333967

A roundtable with Chad Waterbury, Christian Thibaudeau, and Alwyn Cosgrove.

[gobbla]

I seen that, looking forward to part II

for those that haven't clicked the link it's the "full body vs split round table"

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by bfoley

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do...dra?id=1333967

A roundtable with Chad Waterbury, Christian Thibaudeau, and Alwyn Cosgrove.

I agree. Great article.

Among the interesting statements there..I thought this quote from CT was thought provoking..never really thought about lifting in these terms:

"As for the bodybuilder, well, he'll obviously focus on building muscles, so he isn't really lifting weights but rather contracting muscles against a resistance."

When I'm about to shite myself moving a weight...I'm not sure I can tell the difference.

Looking forward to the next in that series.

Thanks for the link BF!

[gobbla]

part II

[Waittz]

I just lie how Alwyn calls out thibs about bulding his physique from full bodys and thib rebuttles by saying, well untill i did body part training i never had arms blah blah. Dude gained 5 lbs thats it. Great job on Alwyn for not pulling punching.

[gregl515]

Thanks!

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by TheSteve

I just lie how Alwyn calls out thibs about bulding his physique from full bodys and thib rebuttles by saying, well untill i did body part training i never had arms blah blah. Dude gained 5 lbs thats it. Great job on Alwyn for not pulling punching.

He might have lost lower body mass while putting on upper body mass.

[Waittz]

LD, i really cant see how you guys defend CT, jsut because he looks good. If he was still fat you all would be saying, yeah body part training huh......oh whats that you tell me know, I can "shape" muscles......right fatty. Thibs is putting training back a few years.

[Lost Dog]

It's not like I'm actively defending him. Are you actively looking to bring him down a notch or two?

I think he makes good points. When you're a bodybuilder looking to fine tune your body to get it to look just like you want it, what's wrong with a body part split? He's not advocating that everyone go out and do them.

He says "Yes, I did build a lot of muscle mass using a whole body approach, but I had to switch to split training to get my body into proper balance and improve the weak points I had." So, if you're going to tone down what you do on the legs and focus on the upper body...

For the record, I've never done one of his routines and have zero interest in working out that way. I've done many Waterbury routines, some AC stuff, EC's workouts, etc. I've never had an arm day.

But, I don't see why they wouldn't work, provided you follow them. Most people will do better, overall, on a full body routine. I don't think he disputes that. I read through the whole thing and didn't see him argue that point. Does he?

[Waittz]

What gets me about him is his new general attitude. I've done pendulum bodybuilding and wasted a good two months of my life doing isodynamic nonsense. The thing i have against thibs is basically all in that discussion. He keeps saying how good splits are and whatnot and using people like Ronnie Coleman as examples. He basically justifies his reasoning with advanced body builders this and that. Which non of whom he writes his new stuff for. And yes i am trying to knock him, I generally dislike him very much now. People see his big muscles and want to listen to him. Read alot of the feed back on those threads. Its a classic case of oh he looks good, lets do what he does. Granted he does continually say that splits have its place, and that is in advanced bodybuilding. What advanced bodybuilder reads t mag daily for advice?

[Waittz]

In addition, I've always loved Alwyn, he is befar myfavorite traininer out there. But man, Chad scored some major points by not holding back any punches and telling it like it is. Still about the article itself, great, simply great. Take a guy who is all about full body(CW), a guy who condones Upper Lower splits(AC) and a guy advocating bodypart splits(CT) and let them discuss in the same room. I really hope they do that Failure training follow up. Sorry bout the grammar, guests over, in a rush. night everyone.

[bryanc]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees Steve.

I think I agreed with Alwyn's preface at the beginning of the debate, which pretty much just put the whole conversation in a "moot" kind of category. The reality is that the vast majority of people who read T-nation, or even this forum, for that matter, are nowhere near as 'optimized' as they could be, and for the vast majority of people, ANY training program, whether it's split or whole-body or even intermittent walking (I'm including readers and non-readers of this forum here) will result in fitness and body composition improvements. That's why the grapefruit diet works. That's why the Atkins diet works. That's why squatting only one-quarter of the way down works; and why machine-only routines, and the bowflex, and the Bosu-ball, and the medicine ball, and the physio ball, and Cross-Fit and that weird long flexible stick that you hold in the middle that purports to cause your muscles to contract at 200Hz work. And also why there will likely never be a study that will be able to show superior performance in one training technique over another in Joe-average pseudo-athletes--because we can pretty much throw anything at this target population and they WILL improve. For all the CSCS or any other personal training certification is worth, increasing an individual's workload progressively, in whatever way you deem to do it, no matter how silly, or grounded in actual or fictional theory, WILL result in an improvement--moreso when there's SO much room for improvement. (For crying out loud, the reason why the recommendation for minimum daily activity is only 30 CUMULATIVE minutes of activity per day is because that's how LITTLE effort it takes for a very out of shape, obese person to improve their cholesterol levels. And yes, that reads CUMULATIVE.)

So whether a trainer has decided to champion the whole-body approach, or the split approach, or the "quit your job and work in a lumberyard" approach, for the vast majority of us, it's really NOT going to matter that much. I started a thread about this a few years ago, but it just never really took off Optimization in suboptimal people.

The real question is, "What sorts of things might actually MAKE a massive difference in the vast majority of sub-optimized people?"

I just don't think split vs whole is the haystack that the needle is in.

[Chiron]

Originally Posted by TheSteve

oh whats that you tell me know, I can "shape" muscles......

I thought that was pretty suspect too. I like T-mag but the trouble there is any time an article comes out the overwhelming responses either say "Wow, I totally agree" or "Thanks, this is just the thing I've been looking for!". I don't have a problem with the belief that one can emphasize say the clavicular portion of the pecs with incline presses but when he started going into the whole "inner outer" emphasis thing I just have to question the validity of that theory. I haven't seen convincing evidence of that empirically or anecdotally...if that's a word.

[gobbla]

Originally Posted by bryanc

I think you're missing the forest for the trees Steve.

I think I agreed with Alwyn's preface at the beginning of the debate, which pretty much just put the whole conversation in a "moot" kind of category. The reality is that the vast majority of people who read T-nation, or even this forum, for that matter, are nowhere near as 'optimized' as they could be, and for the vast majority of people, ANY training program, whether it's split or whole-body or even intermittent walking (I'm including readers and non-readers of this forum here) will result in fitness and body composition improvements. That's why the grapefruit diet works. That's why the Atkins diet works. That's why squatting only one-quarter of the way down works; and why machine-only routines, and the bowflex, and the Bosu-ball, and the medicine ball, and the physio ball, and Cross-Fit and that weird long flexible stick that you hold in the middle that purports to cause your muscles to contract at 200Hz work. And also why there will likely never be a study that will be able to show superior performance in one training technique over another in Joe-average pseudo-athletes--because we can pretty much throw anything at this target population and they WILL improve. For all the CSCS or any other personal training certification is worth, increasing an individual's workload progressively, in whatever way you deem to do it, no matter how silly, or grounded in actual or fictional theory, WILL result in an improvement--moreso when there's SO much room for improvement. (For crying out loud, the reason why the recommendation for minimum daily activity is only 30 CUMULATIVE minutes of activity per day is because that's how LITTLE effort it takes for a very out of shape, obese person to improve their cholesterol levels. And yes, that reads CUMULATIVE.)

So whether a trainer has decided to champion the whole-body approach, or the split approach, or the "quit your job and work in a lumberyard" approach, for the vast majority of us, it's really NOT going to matter that much. I started a thread about this a few years ago, but it just never really took off Optimization in suboptimal people.

The real question is, "What sorts of things might actually MAKE a massive difference in the vast majority of sub-optimized people?"

I just don't think split vs whole is the haystack that the needle is in.

*wipes away a tear*

[Waittz]

It just seems that the only thing the experts agree on with split training is that people who have these overwhelming physiques can do splits to target and whatnot. But really, drugs and genetically blessed aside, how many people do you see walking around that are so big they NEED to do body part splits to work on weak areas. I love my sig and I think it somes up what I am arguing. As far as the whole debate, I feel that upper lower splits work best for ME(curious as to what you all say works best for you as well)! Full body workouts are great too, and while I used to enjoy body part training, it never really did anything for me. If body part training works for you, damn, youre lucky and go with it. But I dont like when guys like Thibs become poster boys for them and people see thier physiques built on compounds and decide they are best for them. My favorite part of the article though has to be when AC cites all of the old timers and what they did. Makes you think really, we have made so many advances and learned so much in the field of exercise. And all of this new stuff tells us the old stuff is what works. Really makes you think. Guess im gunan start doing some Sandow Presses

[Lost Dog]

There's still a ton of compounds in his routines.

Here's week 1-4 of one of them. Most of his others have similar amounts.

Superhero Program
by Christian Thibaudeau

WEEKS 1-4
Monday (Shoulders conjugate/Traps heavy)
A. Seated dumbbell press
4 x 6-8 reps
B1. Upright rowing
3 x 10-12 reps
B2. Seated incline lateral raise
3 x 10-12 reps
C. Arnold press
3 x 8-10 reps
D. Lateral raise
1 x 100 reps (take pauses if needed)
E. Barbell power shrugs
5 x 5 reps

Tuesday (Quads/Hams/Biceps/Triceps)
A1. Back squat
1 x 15, 1 x 12, 1 x 8, 1 x 20
A2. Romanian deadlift
1 x 12, 1 x 10, 1 x 8, 1 x 15
B1. Barbell curl
3 x 6-8 reps
B2. Close-grip decline press
3 x 6-8 reps
C1. Preacher curl
3 x 10-12 reps
C2. Decline dumbbell triceps extension
3 x 10-12 reps
D1. Hammer curl
3 x 12-15 reps
D2. Cable triceps extension
3 x 12-15 reps

Thursday (Traps conjugate/Shoulders heavy)
A. Barbell shrugs
4 x 6-8 reps
B1. Haney shrugs (behind the back shrugs in the Smith machine)
3 x 10-12 reps
B2. Upright rowing
3 x 10-12 reps
C. Standing calf machine shrugs
3 x 8-10 reps
D. Rear delt machine
1 x 100 reps
E. Military press
5 x 5

Saturday (Chest/Back)
A1. Incline bench press
3 x 6-8 reps
A2. Bent over barbell rowing
3 x 6-8 reps
B1. Flat dumbbell bench press
3 x 10-12 reps
B2. Lat pulldown
3 x 10-12 reps
C1. Decline bench press
3 x 12-15 reps
C2. Seated rowing
3 x 12-15 reps
* NOTE: Abdominal work is performed after every workout. Alternate between these two:
ABS WORKOUT 1
A1. Kneeling cable crunch
3 x 12-15 reps
A2. Machine crunch (use a 505 tempo)
3 x 6-8 reps
A3. Swiss ball crunch
3 x max
ABS WORKOUT 2
A1. Eagle sit-up
3 x max
A2. Roman chair Russian twist
3 x 12-15 reps
A3. High pulley woodchop
3 x 12-15 reps per side

For weeks 5, on here's the link.

Superhero Program

[Alcoholiday]

i pretty much agree with steve.

also i'd like to add that the majority of posters at t-nation run around with their heads cut off. They weigh about 100 pounds, and want to know how to sculpt their pecs. They need to build a base first. Articles about pendulum bodybuilding, or working for isodynamics, and isometric pauses and all that shit, doesn't really apply to anyone except the top 1% of people who lift. And, the people who post on that forum are not in the top 1%. They are in the lower 80%.

Whenever an article comes out, or even a product of t-nation, you have every poster over there hanging from the balls of shugart. Talking about how hot rocks will make thier balls grow a few more inches, and make them super vascular. These are eventually the people who end up spinning their wheels for a few years and give up. Or, the people who keep plugging away for a few years, and never make progress.

Of course, the simple stuff is what is EFFECTIVE. it's simple and it works, and people ignore the simple stuff because it's normal, and they want something cool and new. T-nation caters to these people by writing articles like pendulum training and the like. You can only write so much about the old school stuff.

I guess you can't really blame the authors for making a living, but blame the stupid people who listen to them.