T Nation

CW Calls Out CT


In Chad's most recent article he says:

"So what's the problem? Well, when they use post-tetanic facilitation in reference to wave loading, supramaximal holds, or some other maximal strength method they don't know what in the hell they're talking about!"


"So if you ever hear a strength coach or fitness writer throwing around "post-tetanic facilitation" in relation to resistance training, you can be sure that their neuroscience studies were limited to the back of a Wheaties box."

Well I just saw in CT's "Little Black Book of Training Secrets" he writes about post-tetanic facilitation.
Those were some pretty harsh comments by CW.
I like them both, but "Ouch", that was rough.


In one of the most recent threads/articles they BOTH commented that they have the highest respect for each other and that they differ only when training for bodybuilding...and not even that much.

I do not think CW is calling anyone out but the trainers who use the term to make themselves look and sound smarter than they are. CT certainly does not fill that bill. Heck I have heard a 24 hour fitness trainer use the term (and mispronounce it) as well as seen her abuse it with a newbie who could hardly bench press 180 (she had him hold 225 for 30 sec at least before doing reps with 180 where she deadlifted for him :)).

I am certain he was refering to these types of trainers.

However, even the best of trainers can be off on the definition while using the technique correctly. I have CT Black Book as well and CW would not disagree with the way CT applies this.

Great book by the way, did you just recently get it?



You need to:

1) Grow up;
2) Get a life.


Why? It was a reasonable question. While the first person rationalized it fairly well, the fact remains CW did not qualify it when he said it.

Would it upset you so to find that the 2 people don't agree on several ideas wrt training? Heaven forbid anyone do anything more than read the articles here and give them no introspection.


He disagrees with him on the TERM itself... it's a fucking vocabulary disagreement.

the concept still works...re-read the article...stop the "bigger dick" arguments.

Note the below:

Thats the whole "disagreement" between CT and CW...the term. Still works, and thats all that matters. The other shit is just semantics man.

So smile...our fav. strength coaches dont have to fight it out :slight_smile:


Shoot yourself in the foot.


Please read what Xen Nova said. It was a vocabulary thing. However, both coaches agree that post-activation potentiation, also (incorrectly) known as post-tetanic facilitation, is a power weapon in one's training arsenal. Yes, we now have confirmation that, despite his Vin Diesel-like appearance, CT is actually a mere mortal who can make mistakes.

For the records, I like it when the contributors disagree. I sometimes disagree with some of their methods if, from experience, I've found that I don't get good results from that particular method, or conversely, they don't like a particular method but I have found that I get good results from it.


I was definitely not "calling out" CT in my article. Even though my comments might have seemed harsh, it was all in good fun. I merely made some blanket statements that shouldn't be taken as disrespectful to anyone. As I said in the article, we all can't be an expert on everything.

The bottom line is that post-tetanic facillitation is the incorrect term to use for wave loading or supramaximal holds. I merely put, what I call, a "Cosgrove Spin" on my tone.

CT is a great coach. Most of you would probably be surprised at how many of the techniques I use with my clients that are advocated by him. But I don't write about them. Why? Because it wouldn't be any fun to read this site if all of us coaches talked about the same methods.


Great going guys... You interuppted chads 4th workout today. I love how people take liberties with your writing and then declare that you "called out" C-Thib. I love the internet.



And yes, I too thought "what does that have to do with 'calling out'?"

It's almost like you were trying to start something.


Yeah I guess that does sound bad. It wasn't really suppose to. I just found it funny that when I was reading the TLBBOTS and I ran acrossed this phrase right after CW ripped on it.
I would have been better off posting this in the discussion after CW's article (mods you can move it there if you want).


Seriously. If they all said the same thing, we'd only need one of them. Its good to have an arguement here and there, as long as its in good fun and for a good reason.


i'd be interested in hearing about Chad's max lifts, and at what bodyweight.


Why? What possible relevance does that have to this thread?



Ya know what. It wasn't about admitting that someone made a mistake. It was about something a reader found to be incongruant between the authors and he asked about it--simple as that. For that, you told him to get a life. I just don't think it was wrong of him to bring it up and get the apropriate response from CW. Which he did.

For the record, I don't care about Xen's response. Everyone came to the rescue when that was not the necessary reaction. In your own words it was incorrectly called something by an author. In his own words, CW said people who use that terminology are suspect.

It was a solid question, politely and professionally responded to by the apropriate person.


Most of the crap that comes out of his mouth isnt relevant.


i just wanna know how strong he is. i wonder if he's ever deadlifted triple bodyweight, benched double body weight, etc...


uh oh another upset fanboy!


Hardly. Your comment has zero relevance and could have easily been submitted directly to him via pm.


I'm not making a judgement one way or the other on CW's expertise, but I just have a curiousity about your philosophy Huey: do you only respect training advice from someone who has achieved certain personal strength levels? Does someone have to have achieved a certain personal level of competitiveness in their sport for you to consider them an expert?