T Nation

Thibaudeau's Full Body Program

Ok, I am referring to this article he writes about creating your own Full Body Program.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/how_to_design_a_damn_good_program_part_1

Essentially some take home notes if you want to do Full Body that is Strength Specified:

  • 4 to 6 sets of ONE exercise per body part
  • 3 to 5 reps on this exercise
  • 2 to 4 minute rests if you are training for strength
  • Performed 3x a week

So here is a sample workout essentially based on his principles of making the program for str

CT’S FULL BODY STRENGTH:|

Flat Bench - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Close Grip Bench - 5 sets , 3-5 reps
Shoulder Press - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Weighted Chins - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Squat - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Romanian Deadlift - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Barbell Curl - 5 sets, 3-5 reps

  • Rest 2-4 minutes on each set

Pretty straight forward… 1 exercise… 4 to 6 sets, 3 to 5 reps, 2-4 minute rest, all basic top notch movements.

Now here is my question.He prescribes that you do these 4-6 sets of 3-5 reps with 2-4 minutes rest with 1 exercise/bodypart for maximum strength…but why can’t one choose 2 exercises with only 2-3 sets of each one instead?

For example, my biggest concern is triceps.

Instead of doing 6 sets of 3-5 reps with Close Grip Bench, couldn’t you just do…

3 sets CGBP 3-5 reps
3 sets Skullcrushers/JM Press/Board Press 3-5 reps

I hope you guys are following my point; it’s still using the same exact set/rep/rest time scheme as he prescribes; but 2 exercises instead of one.

Same goes for back, instead of just doing 6 sets of Chinups …

3 sets Chins
3 sets Barbell Rows

What is exactly wrong with this? The workload is the same and whatnot; is it just for better movement specialization, or am I missing something?

Reg park 5x5 Brah.

ya pressing to pull ratio is 2:1, not good bra.

[i]Pretty straight forward… 1 exercise…4 to 6 sets, 3 to 5 reps, 2-4 minute rest, all basic top notch movements.

Now here is my question.He prescribes that you do these 4-6 sets of 3-5 reps with 2-4 minutes rest with 1 exercise/bodypart for maximum strength…but why can’t one choose 2 exercises with only 2-3 sets of each one instead?[/i]

You’ve answered your own question.

[quote]Ethan7X wrote:
Ok, I am referring to this article he writes about creating your own Full Body Program.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/how_to_design_a_damn_good_program_part_1

Essentially some take home notes if you want to do Full Body that is Strength Specified:

  • 4 to 6 sets of ONE exercise per body part
  • 3 to 5 reps on this exercise
  • 2 to 4 minute rests if you are training for strength
  • Performed 3x a week

So here is a sample workout essentially based on his principles of making the program for str

CT’S FULL BODY STRENGTH:|

Flat Bench - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Close Grip Bench - 5 sets , 3-5 reps
Shoulder Press - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Weighted Chins - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Squat - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Romanian Deadlift - 5 sets, 3-5 reps
Barbell Curl - 5 sets, 3-5 reps

  • Rest 2-4 minutes on each set

Pretty straight forward… 1 exercise… 4 to 6 sets, 3 to 5 reps, 2-4 minute rest, all basic top notch movements.

Now here is my question.He prescribes that you do these 4-6 sets of 3-5 reps with 2-4 minutes rest with 1 exercise/bodypart for maximum strength…but why can’t one choose 2 exercises with only 2-3 sets of each one instead?

For example, my biggest concern is triceps.

Instead of doing 6 sets of 3-5 reps with Close Grip Bench, couldn’t you just do…

3 sets CGBP 3-5 reps
3 sets Skullcrushers/JM Press/Board Press 3-5 reps

I hope you guys are following my point; it’s still using the same exact set/rep/rest time scheme as he prescribes; but 2 exercises instead of one.

Same goes for back, instead of just doing 6 sets of Chinups …

3 sets Chins
3 sets Barbell Rows

What is exactly wrong with this? The workload is the same and whatnot; is it just for better movement specialization, or am I missing something?
[/quote]

How’s this (similar to what I suggested in another one of your threads)? Try it for yourself and see if it works!

If it works, then it’s right! If it doesn’t work, then it’s wrong!

Anyway, besides my suggestion: For strength, it might be a bad idea to spread the sets over two exercises because performing more sets in one lift usually leads to greater strength in that lift than spreading your energy over two lifts (“practice makes perfect”).

[quote]Ethan7X wrote:
am I missing something?
[/quote]

Yes, the discipline to keep mental masturbation at bay.

What makes your idea better? You think more exercise variety is necessary? are you more familiar with strength training than CT is?

Just curious why you think you’re going to be able to improve on his training template, given your limited training experience as compared to his.

I didn’t say my idea is better… I specifically asked a very straight forward question and so far seem to have only gotten one actual straight forward ‘suggestion’, which was it’s easier to gain strength on an exercise if you do more sets of it.

I mean as it is, somebody just posted that the push to pull ratio is bad. Well, I’m not the one who made the template. They’re telling me CT made a bad template himself. His template only says to do 1 back exercise…so I put in Chins for an example, or you can use rows. But it doesn’t say to use both. It’s not like I made up this template, I literally copied what he wrote verbatim -_-, so that means members are finding fault with his own programming. I would’ve myself thought Chins + Rows would be good instead of only 1.

Anyways, aside from those points… I just was wondering why only doing close grip bench for triceps instead of CGBP+ a tricep extension like everybody else does and has suggested(Tate Presses…JM Presses…Rolling Tri Extensions…Heavy Skullcrushers…JMR Pullovers…) … or just 6 sets of chins or rows would be more beneficial then doing 3 sets chin/3 sets rows.

I didn’t argue it would, I was just wondering why and still haven’t really found a conclusive answer.

Why is 6 sets of 1 exercise > 3 sets/3 sets of 2 that work the same muscle.

[quote]Ethan7X wrote:

I didn’t argue it would, I was just wondering why and still haven’t really found a conclusive answer.
[/quote]

You’re still not understanding that:

  1. training is not an exact science
  2. the answer lies in you, but you refuse to find it for yourself
  3. there’s no “right” and “wrong” way in the literal sense because there have been so many people who’ve made and are making progress on what APPEAR to be goofy or “wrong” routines (Brian Siders comes to mind when I discuss this matter).
  4. a trainer worth his salt (CT for example) isn’t gonna tell you your program sucks if it’s WORKING.

CT’s template is CT’s template. If you change the structure it’s not what he meant to present. I believe he makes money doing this stuff…

I actually gave you this decent answer. [quote]BrickHead wrote:
Anyway, besides my suggestion: For strength, it might be a bad idea to spread the sets over two exercises because performing more sets in one lift usually leads to greater strength in that lift than spreading your energy over two lifts (“practice makes perfect”). [/quote]

@ Cuso, yeah , I realized that which is why I made the thread.
@Brick, yes, I gave you credit for giving me that decent answer in my post.

OK then, I’ll give you a straight forward suggestion then, which was implied in my original post: don’t change anything.

CT’s philosophy, along with Wendler’s and most strength-oriented trainers is to limit the number of exercises, and focus on the best/most important exercises. Why do you think 6 sets of CGBP is not enough work for the triceps. I’m also curious as to why you think that after a year or less of training you have any real use for board pressing? Why are 3 sets of skull crushers better for triceps than 3 additional sets of CGBP?

If you can’t answer these questions adequately, then there’s no reason to deviate from this template, if you agree with the philosophies behind it. If you don’t agree with the general training philosophy, find a totally different template from a different trainer that you prefer.

why pick a program you dont want to follow?

[quote]bignate wrote:
why pick a program you dont want to follow?[/quote]

Good post/question!

I thought the same thing: if one has a problem or doesn’t like something, gloss over it and pick something else!

[quote]bignate wrote:
why pick a program you dont want to follow?[/quote]

Because he’s a troll. Note the avatar.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]bignate wrote:
why pick a program you dont want to follow?[/quote]

Because he’s a troll. Note the avatar.[/quote]

yeah that little fucker. fuck that troll shit mang.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
OK then, I’ll give you a straight forward suggestion then, which was implied in my original post: don’t change anything.

CT’s philosophy, along with Wendler’s and most strength-oriented trainers is to limit the number of exercises, and focus on the best/most important exercises. Why do you think 6 sets of CGBP is not enough work for the triceps. I’m also curious as to why you think that after a year or less of training you have any real use for board pressing? Why are 3 sets of skull crushers better for triceps than 3 additional sets of CGBP?

If you can’t answer these questions adequately, then there’s no reason to deviate from this template, if you agree with the philosophies behind it. If you don’t agree with the general training philosophy, find a totally different template from a different trainer that you prefer.[/quote]

#1. After reading TNATION Emg studies, and listening to the suggestions of 600+ pound benchers(apparently) on this website, the Extension movements and their variations seem to all have an important place in getting your bench press up & building specifically the long head of the triceps which is worked in stretched positions more than any other position. These were not my own created notions, they were others…from THIS website that are “Successful” and respected(apparently)

#2. I do think 6 sets for triceps is more than enough work, I only do 3 myself AS WE SPEAK. I never said I didn’t think it was enough; I asked about splitting it between 2 exercises. 1 for a specific purpose, and the other for a specific purpose…totaling the exact # of sets he wrote in the program…6. I also didn’t argue against the program nor was I trying to fight it or anything, I asked an honest innocent question.

#3. I didn’t think I need board pressing either. My bench is getting closer and closer to 315 though, and people on this website suggested for me to do it? It wasn’t me who thought of doing them…once again,successful and respected(apparently) 600 lb benchers suggested it.

There are your questions answered. I wasn’t going into this thread blind as a bat.

And yes, lol I do troll, but this actually wasn’t a troll post srs

I want to also add, I never said I didn’t want to follow the program lol. What is with people putting words in other people’s mouth? I really don’t get it, lol. I will reiterate for the 10th time, I was only asking a simple,honest,innocent question ;o

I actually really love this program layout, it looks just lots of the other full body routines that I really like and have used. I’m very used to doing this style of training, it seems to be no different than what I already do, except it has more sets with maybe about 1-2 less exercises.

The only thing that was catching my eye was only doing 1 back exercise for 6 sets instead of 3sets chin/3sets row, and only doing 1 tricep exercise for 6 sets instead of 3sets cgbp/3sets skullcrushers. It wasn’t even a big deal, was just looking to get some information about the logic about only choosing 1 exercise that’s all.