Total Body Training - How Do You Fit Everything In?

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?


This thread has gotten me curious so I’m going to try a 3 day Full Body split for my next 6 week cycle.

Background:
1.) I train at my house w/limited equipment. No DBs, which is why you don’t see any DB work listed.

2.) I’ve caught the O lift bug. I’m trying hard to improve in the Snatch and Clean. See goals sections.

Main Goals:
1.) Increase strength in Clean & Snatch:
A.) By the end of 2013: Clean goal = 242 X 1 (Current PR 205)
B.) By the end of 2013: Snatch goal = 176 X 1 (Current PR 132)
-40 pounds in 3 months seems like a lot, but I think a good portion of that will come as my technique improves.

2.) Continue fat loss:
A.) By Jan 17th 2014 - Goal is 10%-12% body fat ( I figure that’s low 180s for me. Currenly 195)

The only thing I’m thinking of adding is SGHP, I’m just not sure where. I also have 3 days of light walking (probably 60 minutes on treadmill @ an incline of 8 or so) w/stretching and mobility work. I also added a 7th conditioning day, where I’ll do 20 mins or so of running/farmers walks/etc…

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness or missed body parts?

I plan to start this cycle 9/30 after a week vacation.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This thread has gotten me curious so I’m going to try a 3 day Full Body split for my next 6 week cycle.

Background:
1.) I train at my house w/limited equipment. No DBs, which is why you don’t see any DB work listed.

2.) I’ve caught the O lift bug. I’m trying hard to improve in the Snatch and Clean. See goals sections.

Main Goals:
1.) Increase strength in Clean & Snatch:
A.) By the end of 2013: Clean goal = 242 X 1 (Current PR 205)
B.) By the end of 2013: Snatch goal = 176 X 1 (Current PR 132)
-40 pounds in 3 months seems like a lot, but I think a good portion of that will come as my technique improves.

2.) Continue fat loss:
A.) By Jan 17th 2014 - Goal is 10%-12% body fat ( I figure that’s low 180s for me. Currenly 195)

The only thing I’m thinking of adding is SGHP, I’m just not sure where. I also have 3 days of light walking (probably 60 minutes on treadmill @ an incline of 8 or so) w/stretching and mobility work. I also added a 7th conditioning day, where I’ll do 20 mins or so of running/farmers walks/etc…

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness or missed body parts?

I plan to start this cycle 9/30 after a week vacation. [/quote]

Good for you. Full body workouts are pretty hard at first. Just looking at your spreadsheet looks like too much volume. For me the whole benefit of Full body is condensed workouts with high intensity. 3 exercises alone should be enough to kick your ass at first. I mentioned it before, do some honest 5x5 squats and you will be shocked at how challenging benching is after. One rule with full body, KISS…

Edit- when I mean too much volume, I just mean at first. Remember you only have one day to rest really until you go again. After the first week or too your workload will increase tremendously

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.

Your goal isn’t to hypertrophy every little muscle the same as a 5 day split when you use TBT. This is the main problem with debates that pop up. Your not going to end up with some awesome steve reeves body either(unless your genetically superior). The best uses of TBT are to save time and at the same time

  1. not lose what you have
  2. Gain overall mass
  3. Focus on athletic strength

Most compound exercises will hit different combinations of the muscles you listed but if your FOCUS is on all those muscles you shouldn’t be doing TBT.

The only exceptions I’ve seen are people who have tons of time and literally do a million exercises every day for several hours a day. They usually do this for a month maybe two look drastically different. But I doubt that’s your intent.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

Still confused why they moved it. I agree and disagree at the same time with your points as strange at that sounds.

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This thread has gotten me curious so I’m going to try a 3 day Full Body split for my next 6 week cycle.

Background:
1.) I train at my house w/limited equipment. No DBs, which is why you don’t see any DB work listed.

2.) I’ve caught the O lift bug. I’m trying hard to improve in the Snatch and Clean. See goals sections.

Main Goals:
1.) Increase strength in Clean & Snatch:
A.) By the end of 2013: Clean goal = 242 X 1 (Current PR 205)
B.) By the end of 2013: Snatch goal = 176 X 1 (Current PR 132)
-40 pounds in 3 months seems like a lot, but I think a good portion of that will come as my technique improves.

2.) Continue fat loss:
A.) By Jan 17th 2014 - Goal is 10%-12% body fat ( I figure that’s low 180s for me. Currenly 195)

The only thing I’m thinking of adding is SGHP, I’m just not sure where. I also have 3 days of light walking (probably 60 minutes on treadmill @ an incline of 8 or so) w/stretching and mobility work. I also added a 7th conditioning day, where I’ll do 20 mins or so of running/farmers walks/etc…

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness or missed body parts?

I plan to start this cycle 9/30 after a week vacation. [/quote]

Good for you. Full body workouts are pretty hard at first. Just looking at your spreadsheet looks like too much volume. For me the whole benefit of Full body is condensed workouts with high intensity. 3 exercises alone should be enough to kick your ass at first. I mentioned it before, do some honest 5x5 squats and you will be shocked at how challenging benching is after. One rule with full body, KISS…

Edit- when I mean too much volume, I just mean at first. Remember you only have one day to rest really until you go again. After the first week or too your workload will increase tremendously [/quote]

Gotcha. I’ll take a look at the over all volume for the first 2-3 weeks. I added in quite a few BW and hopefully less taxing movements to try and mitigate some of the concerns you hit on.

Maybe I’ll work at much lower %'s after the main 2 lifts, say 60% (so like 60% of 12RM on OHP for example) or so until I’m use to the volume?

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

Still confused why they moved it. I agree and disagree at the same time with your points as strange at that sounds. [/quote]

Who knows, maybe the OP requested that it be moved.

Your response isn’t really strange, just kind of vague.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This thread has gotten me curious so I’m going to try a 3 day Full Body split for my next 6 week cycle.

Background:
1.) I train at my house w/limited equipment. No DBs, which is why you don’t see any DB work listed.

2.) I’ve caught the O lift bug. I’m trying hard to improve in the Snatch and Clean. See goals sections.

Main Goals:
1.) Increase strength in Clean & Snatch:
A.) By the end of 2013: Clean goal = 242 X 1 (Current PR 205)
B.) By the end of 2013: Snatch goal = 176 X 1 (Current PR 132)
-40 pounds in 3 months seems like a lot, but I think a good portion of that will come as my technique improves.

2.) Continue fat loss:
A.) By Jan 17th 2014 - Goal is 10%-12% body fat ( I figure that’s low 180s for me. Currenly 195)

The only thing I’m thinking of adding is SGHP, I’m just not sure where. I also have 3 days of light walking (probably 60 minutes on treadmill @ an incline of 8 or so) w/stretching and mobility work. I also added a 7th conditioning day, where I’ll do 20 mins or so of running/farmers walks/etc…

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness or missed body parts?

I plan to start this cycle 9/30 after a week vacation. [/quote]

Good for you. Full body workouts are pretty hard at first. Just looking at your spreadsheet looks like too much volume. For me the whole benefit of Full body is condensed workouts with high intensity. 3 exercises alone should be enough to kick your ass at first. I mentioned it before, do some honest 5x5 squats and you will be shocked at how challenging benching is after. One rule with full body, KISS…

Edit- when I mean too much volume, I just mean at first. Remember you only have one day to rest really until you go again. After the first week or too your workload will increase tremendously [/quote]

Gotcha. I’ll take a look at the over all volume for the first 2-3 weeks. I added in quite a few BW and hopefully less taxing movements to try and mitigate some of the concerns you hit on.

Maybe I’ll work at much lower %'s after the main 2 lifts, say 60% (so like 60% of 12RM on OHP for example) or so until I’m use to the volume? [/quote]
Good plan.
Waitz hit a couple things on the head regarding TBT.
Lower your volume at first and lower your weight.
The first few weeks of TBT definitely show you if you’ve been slacking in the cardio department as well lol

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This thread has gotten me curious so I’m going to try a 3 day Full Body split for my next 6 week cycle.

Background:
1.) I train at my house w/limited equipment. No DBs, which is why you don’t see any DB work listed.

2.) I’ve caught the O lift bug. I’m trying hard to improve in the Snatch and Clean. See goals sections.

Main Goals:
1.) Increase strength in Clean & Snatch:
A.) By the end of 2013: Clean goal = 242 X 1 (Current PR 205)
B.) By the end of 2013: Snatch goal = 176 X 1 (Current PR 132)
-40 pounds in 3 months seems like a lot, but I think a good portion of that will come as my technique improves.

2.) Continue fat loss:
A.) By Jan 17th 2014 - Goal is 10%-12% body fat ( I figure that’s low 180s for me. Currenly 195)

The only thing I’m thinking of adding is SGHP, I’m just not sure where. I also have 3 days of light walking (probably 60 minutes on treadmill @ an incline of 8 or so) w/stretching and mobility work. I also added a 7th conditioning day, where I’ll do 20 mins or so of running/farmers walks/etc…

Thoughts? Any glaring weakness or missed body parts?

I plan to start this cycle 9/30 after a week vacation. [/quote]

Good for you. Full body workouts are pretty hard at first. Just looking at your spreadsheet looks like too much volume. For me the whole benefit of Full body is condensed workouts with high intensity. 3 exercises alone should be enough to kick your ass at first. I mentioned it before, do some honest 5x5 squats and you will be shocked at how challenging benching is after. One rule with full body, KISS…

Edit- when I mean too much volume, I just mean at first. Remember you only have one day to rest really until you go again. After the first week or too your workload will increase tremendously [/quote]

Gotcha. I’ll take a look at the over all volume for the first 2-3 weeks. I added in quite a few BW and hopefully less taxing movements to try and mitigate some of the concerns you hit on.

Maybe I’ll work at much lower %'s after the main 2 lifts, say 60% (so like 60% of 12RM on OHP for example) or so until I’m use to the volume? [/quote]
Good plan.
Waitz hit a couple things on the head regarding TBT.
Lower your volume at first and lower your weight.
The first few weeks of TBT definitely show you if you’ve been slacking in the cardio department as well lol[/quote]

Ya, that’s what I’ll do. Thanks!

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.[/quote]

No, they weren’t. Maybe the biggest, most genetically gifted guys of the guys were as big in the off season as the lower Tier Natty Pros of today in contest shape, but today’s genetic elite Natty Pros are bigger, leaner, and more completely developed than anyone from the 40’s or 50’s.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.[/quote]

No, they weren’t. Maybe the biggest, most genetically gifted guys of the guys were as big in the off season as the lower Tier Natty Pros of today in contest shape, but today’s genetic elite Natty Pros are bigger, leaner, and more completely developed than anyone from the 40’s or 50’s.[/quote]

i happen to disagree… have any examples of natty pros today drastically bigger and proportional than guys like reg park? pros today do get way more shredded for competition, but thats the only real difference i see.

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.[/quote]

No, they weren’t. Maybe the biggest, most genetically gifted guys of the guys were as big in the off season as the lower Tier Natty Pros of today in contest shape, but today’s genetic elite Natty Pros are bigger, leaner, and more completely developed than anyone from the 40’s or 50’s.[/quote]

i happen to disagree… have any examples of natty pros today drastically bigger and proportional than guys like reg park? pros today do get way more shredded for competition, but thats the only real difference i see. [/quote]

That makes a huge difference though and is significant.

Grimek looked good, no doubt, but he never got all that lean from any of the pictures that I’ve seen of him (which means that he would have been noticeably smaller if he had gotten down to today’s levels of contest condition).

Jim Cordova is one example off the top of my head. Bigger, leaner, and more fully developed.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.[/quote]

No, they weren’t. Maybe the biggest, most genetically gifted guys of the guys were as big in the off season as the lower Tier Natty Pros of today in contest shape, but today’s genetic elite Natty Pros are bigger, leaner, and more completely developed than anyone from the 40’s or 50’s.[/quote]

i happen to disagree… have any examples of natty pros today drastically bigger and proportional than guys like reg park? pros today do get way more shredded for competition, but thats the only real difference i see. [/quote]

That makes a huge difference though and is significant.

Grimek looked good, no doubt, but he never got all that lean from any of the pictures that I’ve seen of him (which means that he would have been noticeably smaller if he had gotten down to today’s levels of contest condition).

Jim Cordova is one example off the top of my head. Bigger, leaner, and more fully developed.[/quote]

black and white pictures make it harder too see how lean these people where.

people like grimek, reeves and park where all very proportionally developed and had they came in with today’s leanness, they would still be almost the same size as majority of natty pros.

I would just like to add that using top level pros(aka the genetic elite) to prove or disprove a training method isn’t fair, these guys would be pretty successful regardless how they trained. That being said, I have a sneaking suspicion there would be a lot less DYELers out there who have trained for over a year(on this site as well) if they stopped trying to train like the top level guys and just put a fucking barbell on their back and squatted it, pulled it off the ground, pressed it off their chest, rowed it to their chest, and pressed it over there head 5 times for 5 sets 3 times a week for a good 6 months. I also think even the advanced guys should do this at least 4-8 weeks out of the year.

Also not all bodybuilders/physique minded athletes train body part splits. Lane Norton uses PHAT, Matt Ogus trains with 5/3/1, Kane Sumabat uses a movement path split. There are obviously countless examples. To discredit TBT because all the top guys train differently is also dumb because of the fact that all of the top guys train differently from one another.

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would just like to add that using top level pros(aka the genetic elite) to prove or disprove a training method isn’t fair, these guys would be pretty successful regardless how they trained. That being said, I have a sneaking suspicion there would be a lot less DYELers out there who have trained for over a year(on this site as well) if they stopped trying to train like the top level guys and just put a fucking barbell on their back and squatted it, pulled it off the ground, pressed it off their chest, rowed it to their chest, and pressed it over there head 5 times for 5 sets 3 times a week for a good 6 months. I also think even the advanced guys should do this at least 4-8 weeks out of the year.
[/quote]

I understand your objection to using the genetic elite as examples for the effectiveness of a training system. The problem though is that, in general, those are the only names we are all going to know. For instance, I could use my buddy, former client, and natural bodybuilder Matt as a great example, but you wouldn’t know who I was talking about (and I shouldn’t expect you to). Or, for a more relevant point in this discussion name some bodybuilders from the 40’s or 50’s who were not the genetic elite.

Then there is the question of who is truly the genetic elite and who just busted their ass for years and years and built a great physique and how do we know which is which? Sure, you might be able to pick out the guy with a ridiculously small waist like Brian Buchanan, or the guy with the ridiculous calves like Erik Fankhouser, but other than those guys with the abnormal proportions or world beater body parts how do we judge peoples’ genetic potential by the finished product?

Also not all bodybuilders/physique minded athletes train body part splits. Lane Norton uses PHAT, Matt Ogus trains with 5/3/1, Kane Sumabat uses a movement path split. There are obviously countless examples. To discredit TBT because all the top guys train differently is also dumb because of the fact that all of the top guys train differently from one another. [/quote]

First, your same argument as above applies here. There are indeed some exceptions to every rule. But the vast majority of successful modern day BB’ers train with splits.

Second, none of those are TBT, they are all splits; maybe not same splits, but they are splits nonetheless.

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Read this…

[/quote]

That takes me back… HST was the first full body routine I ever did.

I’m always curious to the people that question the efficacy of full body training, have you ever tried it? Seriously if you never did full body training for minimum 6 weeks how can you have any basis to say if it is good or bad?[/quote]

Yes, I have at least.

Also, I am not saying that TBT will not produce any results, it will. My assertion is only that it is not a great choice if bodybuilding is your goal (this thread was originally posted the the BB forum btw, which is when I first responded to it). If you simply want to get stronger, improve sports performance, or “look good naked”, though then TBT could work just fine.[/quote]

just about every bodybuilder through the 40’s and 50’s used TBT and where just as big and proportional as alot of natty pros today.[/quote]

No, they weren’t. Maybe the biggest, most genetically gifted guys of the guys were as big in the off season as the lower Tier Natty Pros of today in contest shape, but today’s genetic elite Natty Pros are bigger, leaner, and more completely developed than anyone from the 40’s or 50’s.[/quote]

i happen to disagree… have any examples of natty pros today drastically bigger and proportional than guys like reg park? pros today do get way more shredded for competition, but thats the only real difference i see. [/quote]

That makes a huge difference though and is significant.

Grimek looked good, no doubt, but he never got all that lean from any of the pictures that I’ve seen of him (which means that he would have been noticeably smaller if he had gotten down to today’s levels of contest condition).

Jim Cordova is one example off the top of my head. Bigger, leaner, and more fully developed.[/quote]

black and white pictures make it harder too see how lean these people where.

people like grimek, reeves and park where all very proportionally developed and had they came in with today’s leanness, they would still be almost the same size as majority of natty pros. [/quote]

What are you talking about? Black and white photos show more detail in terms of leanness than color photos.

Ok, so the absolute genetic elite of that time would be almost as big as today’s lower tier Natty BB’ers. I’d say that would be case closed right there.

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would just like to add that using top level pros(aka the genetic elite) to prove or disprove a training method isn’t fair, these guys would be pretty successful regardless how they trained. That being said, I have a sneaking suspicion there would be a lot less DYELers out there who have trained for over a year(on this site as well) if they stopped trying to train like the top level guys and just put a fucking barbell on their back and squatted it, pulled it off the ground, pressed it off their chest, rowed it to their chest, and pressed it over there head 5 times for 5 sets 3 times a week for a good 6 months. I also think even the advanced guys should do this at least 4-8 weeks out of the year.

Also not all bodybuilders/physique minded athletes train body part splits. Lane Norton uses PHAT, Matt Ogus trains with 5/3/1, Kane Sumabat uses a movement path split. There are obviously countless examples. To discredit TBT because all the top guys train differently is also dumb because of the fact that all of the top guys train differently from one another. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with ya Waittz.I made some of my best gains when I followed a split of 2 different w/out days and would alternate between them all week then take Sunday’s off.
Day-1
squats
clean and press
tris

Day-2
deads
bench
bis

5x5 for the big lift’s for the most part,and 5x8-10 for bis and tris.I would change up the lift’s I used from time to time but still used a big basic movement In It’s place.I would try to add weight when I could and also would deload every 4th week by cutting reps In half.(5x2 Instead of 5x5).Might not have been the smartest set up to do but It built a dense and solid foundation for me.Just my thoughts on the subject.

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would just like to add that using top level pros(aka the genetic elite) to prove or disprove a training method isn’t fair, these guys would be pretty successful regardless how they trained. That being said, I have a sneaking suspicion there would be a lot less DYELers out there who have trained for over a year(on this site as well) if they stopped trying to train like the top level guys and just put a fucking barbell on their back and squatted it, pulled it off the ground, pressed it off their chest, rowed it to their chest, and pressed it over there head 5 times for 5 sets 3 times a week for a good 6 months. […]
[/quote]

Wise words.

Just about all the skinny dudes coming to me asking for advice almost always make amazing improvements when I tell them drop the bro-split and some of the volume and focus on getting stronger. Train like a BBer when you are a BBer.