[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
CT, I remember this article. I thought it was one of the most intelligently written articles on strength training and gaining mass that I had seen. Several years later, I still do.
DH wrote:
Thib,
What prompted you to change your philosophy so drastically? By that I mean that you were of the high set / low rep school for mass some time ago. Then you began to take on an entirely mainstream look to your programs.
Why did you do this?
DH
If I recall, CT said that he switched his focus to bodybuilding for purposes of his T-Nation articles because there were already several performance coaches here and he wanted to fill the bodybuilding void. I believe CT said that he still coaches many athletes as well as BBers. The newbies here all think that CT is a bodybuilder type, but I know that at heart, CT is a crusty old Olympic lifter. :)[/quote]
Pretty much. Even when I switched to bodybuilding I stuck to lower rep ranges in my own training and it has always been (still is) my belief that low reps and heavy weights for plenty of sets of few exercises is the best way to build size. Stupidly, in hope to facilitate my teaching being accepted by the bodybuilding crowd, I diluted my beliefs with some more traditional bodybuilding things to make it seem more acceptable and less ‘against the grain’.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Pretty much. Even when I switched to bodybuilding I stuck to lower rep ranges in my own training and it has always been (still is) my belief that low reps and heavy weights for plenty of sets of few exercises is the best way to build size. Strategically, in hope to facilitate my teaching being accepted by the bodybuilding crowd, I diluted my beliefs with some more traditional bodybuilding things to make it seem more acceptable and less ‘against the grain’.[/quote]
I fixed that for you. I don’t think it was stupid. People are very resistant to accept new ideas. In some ways that’s not bad - new ideas should be tested out and not blindly accepted. But at some point, you have to give something a fair chance, and lots of people don’t seem to even want to do that.
So how should we view your HSS-100 series and the newer 5 part series on how you train for bodybuilding you did recently. Cant remember what it was “called” per se. But you hit each variable over 5 large articles which were to be a “complete Thib” kinda series.
These both involve a large repetition range, particulary HSS-100. These were presented as what you felt were the “best” mass programs.
How should we view these now that we know the facts?
So how should we view your HSS-100 series and the newer 5 part series on how you train for bodybuilding you did recently. Cant remember what it was “called” per se. But you hit each variable over 5 large articles which were to be a “complete Thib” kinda series.
These both involve a large repetition range, particulary HSS-100. These were presented as what you felt were the “best” mass programs.
How should we view these now that we know the facts?
DH
[/quote]
I actually used HSS-100 as is, and I still like the program but would use lower reps every exercises compared to what the program now says.
The HSS spec series also is full of important concepts, especially the efficacy of a specialization cycle approach.
The Thib system series is about 90% pertinent.
I might rewrite something of the sort with the updated concepts.
So how should we view your HSS-100 series and the newer 5 part series on how you train for bodybuilding you did recently. Cant remember what it was “called” per se. But you hit each variable over 5 large articles which were to be a “complete Thib” kinda series.
These both involve a large repetition range, particulary HSS-100. These were presented as what you felt were the “best” mass programs.
How should we view these now that we know the facts?
DH
I actually used HSS-100 as is, and I still like the program but would use lower reps every exercises compared to what the program now says.
The HSS spec series also is full of important concepts, especially the efficacy of a specialization cycle approach.
The Thib system series is about 90% pertinent.
I might rewrite something of the sort with the updated concepts.[/quote]
I think the updated Thib System would answer many many question about training plans.
Pros and cons of different splits, choice of assistance, number of exercises, differences between strength and size cycles, etc.
Can’t wait for that article if it happens. I think it’s great because it would give different templates from which you construct your own training suited for your needs !
I don’t think it was stupid. People are very resistant to accept new ideas. In some ways that’s not bad - new ideas should be tested out and not blindly accepted. But at some point, you have to give something a fair chance, and lots of people don’t seem to even want to do that.