Can anyone explain the benefits of a Chad Waterbury program like SOB or Waterbury Method where you are hitting a muscle spread out over the week vs. a traditional bodybuilding method such as simply working a body part once a week.
One issue I’ve had is being able to sufficiently warm up and get in that groove before starting my work sets. Im used to focusing on one muscle and getting a huge pump and training over about 12-16 sets of 8-12 reps.
It seems like with Chads programs you are doing roughly the same amount of sets as a traditional program, but they are spread out over 3 or 4 workouts and the reps arent nearly as high. I feel like if I’m not getting that great pump that I’m not working the muscle enough.
So which is optimal for mass and aesthetic goals? Or are Chads programs more for beginners? Help me sort out all this information!
There used to be a sorta love hate relationship with CW on here. From what I knew about the methods you’d deadlift a weight you could do in the 3-5 rep range for a total amount of reps. 25 for strength, 40 for hypertrophy and the percentage would change depending on your goals.
I’ve never done one of his programs but it’s been said that the best program you can do isn’t the one you’re doing now (because that’s what you’ve adapted to handle) So if you’ve been doing a traditional bodybuilding split and you want to try something new then do this program and see what the results are. A lot of people could tell you to do this or do that but with programming if you’ve started it, then do it to see the results that it will yield and then decide what the next step is.
You don’t need to sort out all the information, you just need to do it for 4-12 weeks or however long you want to continue doing that and then find something new.
[quote]Efuchs7 wrote:
but it’s been said that the best program you can do isn’t the one you’re doing now (because that’s what you’ve adapted to handle) So if you’ve been doing a traditional bodybuilding split and you want to try something new then do this program and see what the results are.[/quote]
Am I the only one who thought this was a jab at the kind of person who is always switching programs for the next best thing?
[quote]jken81 wrote:
Can anyone explain the benefits of a Chad Waterbury program like SOB or Waterbury Method where you are hitting a muscle spread out over the week vs. a traditional bodybuilding method such as simply working a body part once a week.[/quote]
It’d be tricky to explain it better than he could himself. These two articles are probably the best breakdowns of what he believes and why:
For whatever it’s worth, I recently did his SOB Training and really, like really, felt good on it. It’s a little different than the rest of his routines, in that it uses a wide variety of rep ranges (everything from 2s to sets of 50) as the weeks go on, but the fundamental principles are the same.
For this reason alone, you might benefit from some time spent in the 3-6 range (as most of Waterbury’s stuff is). The weight itself might not be that much heavier than you’re currently using, but the speed of lifting and overall volume would be a new stimulus.
There is no optimal. Lots of different stuff works for a lot of people.
I’ve done “The Waterbury Method” with a few variations twice probably over 5 years ago and had phenomenal gains both times. It’s honestly probably the most fun pre-set program I’ve ever done.
People have given him a very hard time on these boards over the years. In his defense, although I’m skeptical of most of his approaches, he’s never put himself forward (at least iirc) as a “hypertrophy-specific” sort of guy with his HFT and whatnot.
I think CW stuff is very underrated. In fact much of what he advocates is what the old-timers once did. The low-volume/high frequency approach is really effective if applied right. It basically gives your body more opportunities to grow in a given time period. Of course the key is having good nutrition and rest/sleep along with that.
I found that the full-body 3-4 times per week method using the big lifts is a great method. Usually the ones who bash it are the ones who have never seriously tried it.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I think CW stuff is very underrated. In fact much of what he advocates is what the old-timers once did. The low-volume/high frequency approach is really effective if applied right. It basically gives your body more opportunities to grow in a given time period. Of course the key is having good nutrition and rest/sleep along with that.
I found that the full-body 3-4 times per week method using the big lifts is a great method. Usually the ones who bash it are the uses who have never seriously tried it.[/quote]
A lot of his principals have been parroted by other trainers over the last decade. Whether anyone agrees with his approach, the guy was way ahead of his time.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I think CW stuff is very underrated. In fact much of what he advocates is what the old-timers once did. The low-volume/high frequency approach is really effective if applied right. It basically gives your body more opportunities to grow in a given time period. Of course the key is having good nutrition and rest/sleep along with that.
I found that the full-body 3-4 times per week method using the big lifts is a great method. Usually the ones who bash it are the uses who have never seriously tried it.[/quote]
A lot of his principals have been parroted by other trainers over the last decade. Whether anyone agrees with his approach, the guy was way ahead of his time.[/quote]
I subscribe to CW’s site, and I agree. Tons of people regurgitate principles in “new and innovative” ways. Not many people are actually the ones formulating the principles.
Chad Waterbury’s methods may be the fastest way possible for a beginner to build a base. Can you keep training like that and build a complete, stage ready physique? Not likely, unless you are incredibly gifted genetically. CW’s principals work great for what they are intended to do… people just don’t understand what it’s for.
For sheer mass, you can’t beat high frequency with high loads and adequate volume.
I think a lot of CW’s stuff is good. Of course you can build a muscular and strong body with his method, which is similar to what many people have been doing or advocating for a long time: mostly three-sessions-per-week, full-body routines with a heavy-medium-light system and some upper-lower programming as well. SOME of his seems whacked out to me, but HE is not whacked out and he has put out a lot of useful information (I just can’t get into low rep triceps extensions and lat pulldowns and some other stuff that seem very odd to me).
I feel bad because when I was young, close-minded, ignorant, and overall stupid in some cases, I dissed some of his stuff on here. I apologize for that.
If I remember correctly, he has some programs that work in isolation work. However, I think if one wants to cross over from being a big and strong guy to a big and strong BODYBUILDER–that is, a guy who looks like a bodybuilder or compete as one–I think some slight changes need to be made in programming.
I recently started with one of his Total body three days a week programs; it is too early for me to see how effective it is for me. However, I have noticed that my shoulders feel a lot better.
I had previously been doing a push/pull/legs split twice a week for a few years, but I noticed that things were stagnant and I also needed to make time for doing cardio to help cut some excess body fat; working in the gym three days a week gives me three days a week for running and sprints.
He’s got great programs. They won’t make you look like a “bodybuilder” but they’re very good for size and strength. His earlier work is especially good.
I had to admit that when I first started reading this site nearly 10 years ago I was very much in disagreement with CW stuffs, but as I grow older and have more experience lifting, I find that my training style gravitates more and more towards his principles.
For the record, I only care for getting bigger, stronger and being more athletic, so if your goals are more aesthetic oriented (more focus on certain muscles, some kind of balance etc) then some tweaks have to be done. Or just stick with the tried and true bodybuilding style of training haha.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’ve done “The Waterbury Method” with a few variations twice probably over 5 years ago and had phenomenal gains both times. It’s honestly probably the most fun pre-set program I’ve ever done.[/quote]
Yes, loved it as well. Got more strength than size though.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
(I just can’t get into low rep triceps extensions and lat pulldowns and some other stuff that seem very odd to me).[/quote]
I feel you, and I was hesitant on working some things with lower reps, but it actually forced me to be smarter with exercise choice. Since he often talks in movement patterns rather than bodyparts/specific exercises, it’s a little easier. I actually had a mini ah-ha moment during ABBH 1 when I was trying to figure out how to do low rep calf raises.
I ended up doing them flatfoot (on the ground, not the step, so the stretch is eliminated). It was such a unique stress that I had some nice results, so I’ve kept that variation in my regular rotation.
Yep, this is probably one of the most common misconceptions with his training methods. There is almost-always room for direct work for the calves, delts, and arms. It’s all about fitting them in without detracting from the bigger work.
[quote]Andre-Jacques wrote:
Yes, loved it as well. Got more strength than size though.[/quote]
That’s often an issue of nutrition, not training, no?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
(I just can’t get into low rep triceps extensions and lat pulldowns and some other stuff that seem very odd to me).[/quote]
I feel you, and I was hesitant on working some things with lower reps, but it actually forced me to be smarter with exercise choice. Since he often talks in movement patterns rather than bodyparts/specific exercises, it’s a little easier. I actually had a mini ah-ha moment during ABBH 1 when I was trying to figure out how to do low rep calf raises.
I ended up doing them flatfoot (on the ground, not the step, so the stretch is eliminated). It was such a unique stress that I had some nice results, so I’ve kept that variation in my regular rotation.
Yep, this is probably one of the most common misconceptions with his training methods. There is almost-always room for direct work for the calves, delts, and arms. It’s all about fitting them in without detracting from the bigger work.
[quote]Andre-Jacques wrote:
Yes, loved it as well. Got more strength than size though.[/quote]
That’s often an issue of nutrition, not training, no?[/quote]
Actually I belive the program lacks a bit of volume to maximize size gains, my nutrition is spot on.
I made a lot of size gains when I upped my reps to around 10 per set and decreased the rest beetween sets while still keeping one heavy power exercise for each muscle group in the 1-5 rep range.
I remember I bought his first book Muscle Revolution and read that thing damn near cover to cover every week for about three months. I tried a handful of the programs from the book and I got the best gains in size and strength from the hybrid hypertrophy routine, which also happened to be my favorite routine. It was also the first time in my training career that I actually realized how effective food was for building muscle so take that for what it’s worth