T Nation

Madcow's Periodical or Linear?

Oh that sounds god but i dont have time to add a 4th day, will working those muscles only once a week realy pay off though? If adding a 4th day makes all the individual workout session shorter then so be it. I thought i had to work arms twice a week for maximun hypertrophy.

If right now you are BB Curling 85lbs for 8 reps, and 6 months from now you are curling 115lbs for 8 reps, it doesn’t matter if you hit arms once a week or twice a week during that time.

The only reason to increase the frequency of bodyparts hit to twice a week is if you think this will allow you to actually make faster strength gains (eg: if by training arms twice a week this has allowed you to instead be curling 135lbsx8 after 6 months)

Most people don’t do well with this idea for all of their bodyparts at once, however, so instead most bodybuilders opt to hit each muscle group hard and heavy once a week, and once they have built a solid foundation of size all over, they train any muscle groups they think are lagging or need to come out more twice a week.

Doing a 3-way split like what was recommended to you seems like a good idea right now, you just have to consider what exercises you are going to be doing and how this is going to affect the schedule.

For example, I would never do a leg day right after training my back because it would impair my ability to do deadlifts. But maybe that isn’t a problem for you? Figure it out (IN THE GYM).

[quote]mr popular wrote:
If right now you are BB Curling 85lbs for 8 reps, and 6 months from now you are curling 115lbs for 8 reps, it doesn’t matter if you hit arms once a week or twice a week during that time.

The only reason to increase the frequency of bodyparts hit to twice a week is if you think this will allow you to actually make faster strength gains (eg: if by training arms twice a week this has allowed you to instead be curling 135lbsx8 after 6 months)

Most people don’t do well with this idea for all of their bodyparts at once, however, so instead most bodybuilders opt to hit each muscle group hard and heavy once a week, and once they have built a solid foundation of size all over, they train any muscle groups they think are lagging or need to come out more twice a week.

Doing a 3-way split like what was recommended to you seems like a good idea right now, you just have to consider what exercises you are going to be doing and how this is going to affect the schedule.

For example, I would never do a leg day right after training my back because it would impair my ability to do deadlifts. But maybe that isn’t a problem for you? Figure it out (IN THE GYM).[/quote]

Ok so like the poster forbes said day one Chest & back, day 2 Legs, Day 3 Shoulder & arms. Day one is monday, 2 is wednesday, and 3 is friday, hopefully the fact that this plan uses the same frequency of workout and rest days as before wont hamper anything…i’ll keep my fingers crossed.

Anyway i have alot more questions to ask but i feel like i shouldnt ask you guys since i know it gets irritating, is there a program that works just like this so i can do more research on frequency, volume, and and all those things?
Here are some routines by CW, which one would be better suited for me.

If any of you folks have tried them let me know how it went.
Anti-Bodybuilding Hypertrophy I
Anti-Bodybuilding Hypertrophy II
Strength Focused Mesocycle
SOB Training
Triple Total Training
Hybrid Hypertrophy
Waterbury Method
Total Body Training (blank)
Total Body Training (with exercises)
Quattro Dynamo
Singles Club
Big Boy Basics
Next Big 3
Outlaw Strength & Conditioning

If your goals are bodybuilding, I’d avoid programs like that. Chad Waterbury isn’t a bodybuilder, as far as I know he doesn’t train any bodybuilders (successfully), and in fact he has even openly stated on several occassions that he DISLIKES bodybuilding.

So he would be the wrong person to take bodybuilding advice and programs from.

Honestly, the “research” you could do on volume, frequency, etc. is not going to help you as much as you think. In fact, it will probably steer you in the WRONG direction, and give you a mentality of self-limitations and fitness dogma.

The best research you could do, would be to find guys that have gone from where you are now, to where you want to be, and find out how they did it. This could be online (bodyspace.com is a great resource for this), or in your gym, or tnation, or wherever.

That is what got me heading in the right direction after spinning my wheels trying to learn about the perfect scientific way of training and eating and blah blah blah, its all crap! There is NO REPLACEMENT for finding out what works for you, and your body alone.

[quote]mr popular wrote:
If your goals are bodybuilding, I’d avoid programs like that. Chad Waterbury isn’t a bodybuilder, as far as I know he doesn’t train any bodybuilders (successfully), and in fact he has even openly stated on several occassions that he DISLIKES bodybuilding.

So he would be the wrong person to take bodybuilding advice and programs from.

Honestly, the “research” you could do on volume, frequency, etc. is not going to help you as much as you think. In fact, it will probably steer you in the WRONG direction, and give you a mentality of self-limitations and fitness dogma.

The best research you could do, would be to find guys that have gone from where you are now, to where you want to be, and find out how they did it. This could be online (bodyspace.com is a great resource for this), or in your gym, or tnation, or wherever.

That is what got me heading in the right direction after spinning my wheels trying to learn about the perfect scientific way of training and eating and blah blah blah, its all crap! There is NO REPLACEMENT for finding out what works for you, and your body alone.[/quote]

the search engine on here is not very sophisticated,

If you’re looking for inspiration here, go to the Rate My Physique forum and check out all the guys that got a good rating (7+). You can read through the thread and see what they did, or ask them if you have a question.

Here’s two good ones that helped me:

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/pictures_pics_photo_body_image_performance/bulk_pictures

Here are some more good ones:

And then like I said, Bodyspace.com is a great way to browse for people that are your general height and body structure and see how they went from skinny to big by reading their threads/posts/blog information.

Like this guy:

I think having role models is very important in this game, and besides the internet there are books like Education of a Bodybuilder that help a lot too.

i must say that im at a little over 210 now, so im not really a skinny bastard. Its just my arms are not up there with my torso.

[quote]mr popular wrote:
If your goals are bodybuilding, I’d avoid programs like that. Chad Waterbury isn’t a bodybuilder, as far as I know he doesn’t train any bodybuilders (successfully), and in fact he has even openly stated on several occassions that he DISLIKES bodybuilding.

So he would be the wrong person to take bodybuilding advice and programs from.

Honestly, the “research” you could do on volume, frequency, etc. is not going to help you as much as you think. In fact, it will probably steer you in the WRONG direction, and give you a mentality of self-limitations and fitness dogma.

The best research you could do, would be to find guys that have gone from where you are now, to where you want to be, and find out how they did it. This could be online (bodyspace.com is a great resource for this), or in your gym, or tnation, or wherever.

That is what got me heading in the right direction after spinning my wheels trying to learn about the perfect scientific way of training and eating and blah blah blah, its all crap! There is NO REPLACEMENT for finding out what works for you, and your body alone.[/quote]

I have to disagree…to a degree. To say blatantly that CW programs are NOT conductive to bodybuilding is wrong. Here’s why: A guy coming off of a VERY low volume training program should NOT jump into a very HIGH one (high in comparison to Madcow’s). His body AT THIS POINT IN TIME doesn’t need high volume of work. Probably just a few extra sets than normal.

BUT…I do agree that in the long run, CW’s programs are NOT the best way to go. For one, a bodybuilder should progress into a more volumized program for each muscle group, comething CW’s programs dont really do. And then there’s CW’s constant set/rep changing. Obviously thats not a good thing b/c the whole point to the muscle buildng process is to get stronger, something you cant do if you keep changing things.

So to sum up what im saying…people should progress gradually from low volume/high frwquency programs to high volume/low(er) frequency program. And I simply think this guy is not ready yet for high volume. HighER volume (than madcow’s) for sure. I just think that people starting out dont need alot of sets for a growth response, so they mine as well go total body until they realize they need more volume for a growth response. Like for me for ex. When I started out, 2-3 sets was all I neede for a growth response. Working my entire body in a single session resulted in a total of 24 sets. And my NRG levels remained relatively high throughout the workout. So I mine as well have performed total body workouts. BUT now that my body needs more volume, I split things up, working each muscle group with a volume of about 13 sets and working them every 5-6 days.

[quote]forbes wrote:
I have to disagree…to a degree. To say blatantly that CW programs are NOT conductive to bodybuilding is wrong. Here’s why: A guy coming off of a VERY low volume training program should NOT jump into a very HIGH one (high in comparison to Madcow’s). His body AT THIS POINT IN TIME doesn’t need high volume of work. Probably just a few extra sets than normal.

BUT…I do agree that in the long run, CW’s programs are NOT the best way to go. For one, a bodybuilder should progress into a more volumized program for each muscle group, comething CW’s programs dont really do. And then there’s CW’s constant set/rep changing. Obviously thats not a good thing b/c the whole point to the muscle buildng process is to get stronger, something you cant do if you keep changing things.

So to sum up what im saying…people should progress gradually from low volume/high frwquency programs to high volume/low(er) frequency program. And I simply think this guy is not ready yet for high volume. HighER volume (than madcow’s) for sure. I just think that people starting out dont need alot of sets for a growth response, so they mine as well go total body until they realize they need more volume for a growth response. Like for me for ex. When I started out, 2-3 sets was all I neede for a growth response. Working my entire body in a single session resulted in a total of 24 sets. And my NRG levels remained relatively high throughout the workout. So I mine as well have performed total body workouts. BUT now that my body needs more volume, I split things up, working each muscle group with a volume of about 13 sets and working them every 5-6 days.
[/quote]

Did anyone here ever tell the OP to immediately start doing a 6-way split and 20 sets per bodypart?

Besides the fact that I think you underestimate the true adaptive ability of the human body, do you think Waterbury and fullbody programs are the only way to do “Low volume” for some reason?

Even if a person needed to “ease into” some different program, which I personally think is dumb at this level, there would be much more effective ways to do it than just doing a Waterbury routine.

[quote]mr popular wrote:
forbes wrote:
I have to disagree…to a degree. To say blatantly that CW programs are NOT conductive to bodybuilding is wrong. Here’s why: A guy coming off of a VERY low volume training program should NOT jump into a very HIGH one (high in comparison to Madcow’s). His body AT THIS POINT IN TIME doesn’t need high volume of work. Probably just a few extra sets than normal.

BUT…I do agree that in the long run, CW’s programs are NOT the best way to go. For one, a bodybuilder should progress into a more volumized program for each muscle group, comething CW’s programs dont really do. And then there’s CW’s constant set/rep changing. Obviously thats not a good thing b/c the whole point to the muscle buildng process is to get stronger, something you cant do if you keep changing things.

So to sum up what im saying…people should progress gradually from low volume/high frwquency programs to high volume/low(er) frequency program. And I simply think this guy is not ready yet for high volume. HighER volume (than madcow’s) for sure. I just think that people starting out dont need alot of sets for a growth response, so they mine as well go total body until they realize they need more volume for a growth response. Like for me for ex. When I started out, 2-3 sets was all I neede for a growth response. Working my entire body in a single session resulted in a total of 24 sets. And my NRG levels remained relatively high throughout the workout. So I mine as well have performed total body workouts. BUT now that my body needs more volume, I split things up, working each muscle group with a volume of about 13 sets and working them every 5-6 days.

Did anyone here ever tell the OP to immediately start doing a 6-way split and 20 sets per bodypart?

Besides the fact that I think you underestimate the true adaptive ability of the human body, do you think Waterbury and fullbody programs are the only way to do “Low volume” for some reason?

Even if a person needed to “ease into” some different program, which I personally think is dumb at this level, there would be much more effective ways to do it than just doing a Waterbury routine.[/quote]

your right, Waterbury is not the only way to train. NOT EVEN CLOSE. but you said he should stay away from his programs. You make it sound like his methods have NOTHING to contribute to the muscle building process. Look,some CW’s beliefs may be a little wacko, but his programs can still be used as a TOOL (and nothing more), in the persuit of building muscle.

My point is that TOOL isn’t even close to optimal.

Waterbury is as useful to bodybuilding as a bosu ball.

Ok, this as expected is frustrating i didnt think it was gonna be easy. a few of you have helped me and i really appreciate that and i just came to the conclussion of getting myself a copy of one of Mark’s book. I just saw 3 of them, two are “Starting Strength” 1st and 2nd edition and the 3rd is “Practical Programming for Strenght Training”. Hummmmm…which one should it be, do any of you own a copy of either of those books?

Damner, what are your long-term goals?

Seeing as you’ve been on starting strength for a few months now, you’d probably get more out of Practical Programming.

I just wanna get bigger but my arms are concerning me though i gotta bring those shits up. I’l just get Practicall Streght then i just hope th book has easy to understand intructions along with good work outs for my guns.

I think Practical Programming is more about teaching you how to structure your workouts toward your goals.

There are TONS of arm workouts out there. You definitely don’t need to buy a book for that.

I know but none of them are directed towards someone whos just staring out, let alone towards someone who just finished SS. And about those books i guess im gonna have to magixcally somehow make time in my schedule to read up on some reviews.

If you just want to get bigger you don’t need to buy anything but food, a gym membership, and bigger sweat pants.

Are your arms really lagging right now? What do they measure, what are your other measurements, and what is your weight and a general guestimate of bodyfat?

[quote]Damner wrote:
Oh that sounds god but i dont have time to add a 4th day, will working those muscles only once a week realy pay off though? If adding a 4th day makes all the individual workout session shorter then so be it. I thought i had to work arms twice a week for maximun hypertrophy. [/quote]

I didn’t mean 4 days/week either

Day 1 (mon): Chest/Back

Day 2 (wed): Legs

Day 3 (fri): Shoulders & Arms

Day 4 (mon): Legs

repeat

I would NEVER do that, personally.