T Nation

CT or Waterbury? Frequency for Muscle Growth

[quote]derek wrote:
And the split vs TBT debate comes directly from the differences between CT and CW’s philosophies. One is low frequency split and the other high frequency TBT, hence the comparison.

[/quote]

Not true. I do not have ‘‘one’’ philosophy regarding frequency. The thing is that most of the articles I write are aimed at those wanting to improve the way they look. When I train athletes (I have trained over 800 athletes from 26 different sports including olympians and pros) I do not use the same approach as when I train bodybuilders.

[quote]derek wrote:

I was thinking powerlifters when I wrote strength athletes so I have to still stand by my comments.

And the split vs TBT debate comes directly from the differences between CT and CW’s philosophies. One is low frequency split and the other high frequency TBT, hence the comparison.

[/quote]

Guys like Arnold used to train 6x week, hitting each muscle 3x week, some full body programs are 2x week… Frequency and weekly split are 2 different things.
I’m not against discussing it, but in all this threads people start to prove their point by "my arms are bigger than yours, splits are the way to go ", “no man splits only works because you use roids” etc…
By the way, while i do mostly tbt in my own training i have used splits and have prescribed more split routines than tbt for the people i trained… i´m not trying to “prove” that one is better.

[quote]trextacy wrote:

Add to that the fact that the OP wasn’t querying about which is “universally” better, but which is better for pure hypertrophy.

[/quote]

The “universally” part was just sarcasm…

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
derek wrote:
And the split vs TBT debate comes directly from the differences between CT and CW’s philosophies. One is low frequency split and the other high frequency TBT, hence the comparison.

Not true. I do not have ‘‘one’’ philosophy regarding frequency. The thing is that most of the articles I write are aimed at those wanting to improve the way they look. When I train athletes (I have trained over 800 athletes from 26 different sports including olympians and pros) I do not use the same approach as when I train bodybuilders.[/quote]

What I was referring to was you and CW seem to have very different training philosphies when it comes to the subject of bodybuilding training.

Your philosophy seems to (appropriately) change when training the Olympic lifts, CW’s training philosophy seems to change VERY little whether he’s discussing bodybuilding or S&C or virtually any other athletic endeavor (which I find perplexing).

[quote]Sagat wrote:

Guys like Arnold used to train 6x week, hitting each muscle 3x week, some full body programs are 2x week… Frequency and weekly split are 2 different things.
I’m not against discussing it, but in all this threads people start to prove their point by "my arms are bigger than yours, splits are the way to go ", “no man splits only works because you use roids” etc…
By the way, while i do mostly tbt in my own training i have used splits and have prescribed more split routines than tbt for the people i trained… i´m not trying to “prove” that one is better.[/quote]

I’ll repeat my question more clearly.

Is it a mere coincidence that the strongest powerlifters in the world and the biggest bodybuilders in the world use bodypart splits and relatively low frequency and NOT tbt?

The subject of olympic lifts is pretty far removed from either bb-ing or PL-ing. The technical prowess and neurological efficiency involved and especially the fact that the two lifts are indeed full-body lifts nescesitates the higher frequency and lower volume.

[quote]derek wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
derek wrote:
And the split vs TBT debate comes directly from the differences between CT and CW’s philosophies. One is low frequency split and the other high frequency TBT, hence the comparison.

Not true. I do not have ‘‘one’’ philosophy regarding frequency. The thing is that most of the articles I write are aimed at those wanting to improve the way they look. When I train athletes (I have trained over 800 athletes from 26 different sports including olympians and pros) I do not use the same approach as when I train bodybuilders.

What I was referring to was you and CW seem to have very different training philosphies when it comes to the subject of bodybuilding training.

Your philosophy seems to (appropriately) change when training the Olympic lifts, CW’s training philosophy seems to change VERY little whether he’s discussing bodybuilding or S&C or virtually any other athletic endeavor (which I find perplexing).[/quote]

Gotcha! One of my upcoming article will explain the exact reasons for this.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
derek wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
derek wrote:
And the split vs TBT debate comes directly from the differences between CT and CW’s philosophies. One is low frequency split and the other high frequency TBT, hence the comparison.

Not true. I do not have ‘‘one’’ philosophy regarding frequency. The thing is that most of the articles I write are aimed at those wanting to improve the way they look. When I train athletes (I have trained over 800 athletes from 26 different sports including olympians and pros) I do not use the same approach as when I train bodybuilders.

What I was referring to was you and CW seem to have very different training philosphies when it comes to the subject of bodybuilding training.

Your philosophy seems to (appropriately) change when training the Olympic lifts, CW’s training philosophy seems to change VERY little whether he’s discussing bodybuilding or S&C or virtually any other athletic endeavor (which I find perplexing).

Gotcha! One of my upcoming article will explain the exact reasons for this.[/quote]

For what? That you use different methods for different outcomes/activities or that CW doesn’t?

Or both?

[quote]derek wrote:

Is it a mere coincidence that the strongest powerlifters in the world and the biggest bodybuilders in the world use bodypart splits and relatively low frequency and NOT tbt?

The subject of olympic lifts is pretty far removed from either bb-ing or PL-ing. The technical prowess and neurological efficiency involved and especially the fact that the two lifts are indeed full-body lifts nescesitates the higher frequency and lower volume.[/quote]

This is a very interesting question/discussion. I’d say that the more technique/CNS dominant an activity is, the higher the training frequency and the more specific the exercises need to be. For example the olympic lifts are far more technical than the powerlifts and the intermuscular coordination factor necessary for ELITE performance is much more important too.

This is why olympic lifters have moved away from most assistance exercises to focus almost exclusively on practicing the competitive lifts. Most elite olympic lifters only use 2-3 assistance movements:

  • the front squat
  • the back squat
  • the ‘‘power’’ variations of the olympic lifts

There are some exceptions (Chinease lifters) but the above is true for 90>% of the top level lifters.

The reason for that type of training is to maximize technical efficiency in the competitive lifts. This is why they will train on the competitive lifts 5-6 days a week using a low number of lifts.

It is actually interesting to note that lifters from the 60s, 70s and 80s actually used a lot more assistance exercises (the old Soviet system included 110 assistance movements, including several ‘‘bodybuilding’’ exercises). To me it is not surprising that the physique of the lifters from that era were MUCH more muscular on average than today’s lifters.

YES there are some modern lifters who are really muscular (Dimas, Tavakoli, etc.) but on average lifters were a lot more muscular in the 60-80s, especially in the upper body. I do not think that it is a coincidence that lifters from that era were more muscular and doing more various lifts.

Heck, many olympic lifters from the 60s and 70s actually used a form of ‘‘split training’’ because they would focus on one competition lift per day and its assistance movements.

For example, in the 60s they also contested the standing press. So the lifters would either split their training into:

A press day
A snatch day
A jerk day

Or…

A snatch and clean & jerk day
A press day

The press day would include various forms of pressing work (military press, incline bench press, push press, DB press, Bradford press) as well as some isolation work for the deltoids and triceps (sometimes for the chest).
Heck, Russ Knipp a former world record holder in the press would actually perform a lot of reverse curls!

Back then we could say that olympic lifting training was more ‘‘muscle dominant’’ than today. And when you look at the technique of the lifters from that era it does seem less efficient than today’s lifters.

The bulgarian are the ones who began to focus only on perfecting technique and the rest of the world followed in their footsteps once they began to dominate the sport, with a much smaller pool of athletes.

Powerlifters are much like the olympic lifters of the 60-80s: they put a lot of emphasis on the muscle portion of strength production, and rightfully so. Since they have to optimize muscular development, they need to use more assistance lifts, hence the need to segment their training either in ‘‘lift days’’ (squat day, bench day, deadlift day) or even using a modified body part split in some cases.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Back then we could say that olympic lifting training was more ‘‘muscle dominant’’ than today. And when you look at the technique of the lifters from that era it does seem less efficient than today’s lifters.

Powerlifters are much like the olympic lifters of the 60-80s: they put a lot of emphasis on the muscle portion of strength production, and rightfully so. Since they have to optimize muscular development, they need to use more assistance lifts, hence the need to segment their training either in ‘‘lift days’’ (squat day, bench day, deadlift day) or even using a modified body part split in some cases.
[/quote]

Very well stated CT! I couldn’t agree more!

And this all seems to back my earlier point about how bodybuilders and powerlifters naturally train using splits (out of sheer nescesity and thier sports’ demands) and consequently why Olympic lifters must train so differently.

And also why tbt is so limited in it’s application. It would seem that (modern) Olympic lifting is the ONLY arena where tbt surpasses bodypart splits. Tbt certainly is not the ideal protocol for either bodybuilding or powerlifting.

And that final point is borne out on the spotlit stages and PL platforms every weekend around the world.

[quote]derek wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

Back then we could say that olympic lifting training was more ‘‘muscle dominant’’ than today. And when you look at the technique of the lifters from that era it does seem less efficient than today’s lifters.

Powerlifters are much like the olympic lifters of the 60-80s: they put a lot of emphasis on the muscle portion of strength production, and rightfully so. Since they have to optimize muscular development, they need to use more assistance lifts, hence the need to segment their training either in ‘‘lift days’’ (squat day, bench day, deadlift day) or even using a modified body part split in some cases.

Very well stated CT! I couldn’t agree more!

And this all seems to back my earlier point about how bodybuilders and powerlifters naturally train using splits (out of sheer nescesity and thier sports’ demands) and consequently why Olympic lifters must train so differently.

And also why tbt is so limited in it’s application. It would seem that (modern) Olympic lifting is the ONLY arena where tbt surpasses bodypart splits. Tbt certainly is not the ideal protocol for either bodybuilding or powerlifting.

And that final point is borne out on the spotlit stages and PL platforms every weekend around the world.[/quote]

This has been said in possibly every way known to man for several years now on this site. The only ones denying it seem to be the ones making the least progress in that arena…well, them and the fan boys.

When it comes to all sorts of advice in terms of BODYBUILDING, I never follow what any non-bodybuilder, Chad Waterbury included, have to say on the subject.

And also, why would anyone want to follow advice for bodybuilding from someone who bashes bodybuilding?

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And also, why would anyone want to follow advice for bodybuilding from someone who bashes bodybuilding? [/quote]

…because many of these guys started reading these articles as rank newbies, making them very impressionable as far as the opinions of others. By making bodybuilders seem weak or inadequate, certain authors can promote their own method as superior while at the same time having the effect of getting other newbies to avoid actually going to bodybuilders for info or advice.

It is a great selling technique as far as business is concerned…and there are just enough clueless individuals to make it work.

What gets me is that after all of these years, we can SEE who is making the most progress on this site and who isn’t. They won’t even pay attention to that and it is right in front of them.

I stand by the notion that significant physique change is not for everyone. Those who rely on “theory” while ignoring real world evidence right in front of them are destined to make the least progress. They overcompensate for this by making themselves believe they are so intelligent that what they’ve read makes up for the lack of muscle mass on their bodies.

I don’t think they’ve figured out yet that no one is being fooled but them.

Hey, Derek, i think you didnt understand my point… i was saying that talking about training frequency and split are 2 different things, you can do both high or low frequency with different split routines.

About, the tbt thing: as i mentioned i’m not against split routines, if i planned to go compete in bodybuilding that is how i would train. What i’m against is the notion that all training routines should be based in BB, when you see BBs, fighters, recreational lifters, begginers doing the same routine something is wrong. A BBer may need a lot of volume and intensity to grow so tbt is not pratical for him, but its hard to explain to a guy 50kgs lighter, have never lifted weights and plays soccer twice a week that tbt can be good for him (and you are not stupid for training him differently of a pro BBer).

[quote]Sagat wrote:
when you see BBs, fighters, recreational lifters, begginers doing the same routine something is wrong.[/quote]

The only person in that list you just wrote who might NEED a different routine is the “fighter”. The rest would be after hypertrophy so why would they ignore what has worked the best for the most people?

[quote]Sagat wrote:
About, the tbt thing: as i mentioned i’m not against split routines, if i planned to go compete in bodybuilding that is how i would train. What i’m against is the notion that all training routines should be based in BB, when you see BBs, fighters, recreational lifters, begginers doing the same routine something is wrong. A BBer may need a lot of volume and intensity to grow so tbt is not pratical for him, but its hard to explain to a guy 50kgs lighter, have never lifted weights and plays soccer twice a week that tbt can be good for him (and you are not stupid for training him differently of a pro BBer).[/quote]

Is this not the “Bodybuilding” forum?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What gets me is that after all of these years, we can SEE who is making the most progress on this site and who isn’t. They won’t even pay attention to that and it is right in front of them.
[/quote]

Time to toot my own horn :wink:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:

What gets me is that after all of these years, we can SEE who is making the most progress on this site and who isn’t. They won’t even pay attention to that and it is right in front of them.

Time to toot my own horn ;)[/quote]

I’ll be there with you soon enough. I just had to get some shit taken care of.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:

What gets me is that after all of these years, we can SEE who is making the most progress on this site and who isn’t. They won’t even pay attention to that and it is right in front of them.

Time to toot my own horn :wink:

I’ll be there with you soon enough. I just had to get some shit taken care of.[/quote]

Well you do have twice the mass that I had and are leaner than I was. I can see you as a Johnny Jackson in the making.

But you are right though, I always say that you can’t argue with results.

Oh yeah, this reminds me of something I like to say to the ‘‘gym theorists’’ who show little in the way of achieving any improvements themselves:

Would you ask sex advice to a virgin … even if he has read all the playboy and hustlers since 1990?