Waterbury PT 7/20

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

Thanks for the plug Jodgey, I’m actually pretty psyched to see Chad and the rest of the gang (Dan John, Lonnie Lowery, Josh Henkin, Keats Snideman, Eric Cobb, et al) in action myself…

[quote]jodgey wrote:
They are my two favorite coaches, and really the only two that I follow. Shameless plug. . . BOTH coach Staley and Waterbvury will be speaking that Charles’s Bootcamp in Phoenix in early october (upon hearing the news of which soiled my underwear, jeans, and car seat). I think I saw that there were a few seats left. . . hmmm. . . .
I saw 2 hours of video from two boot camps ago, and was amped for 5 months. I really cant wait to meet both of you guys and hear you in person.

AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
Chad and Charles having a live discussion? Wow.

This should be be surreal.

Amir

[/quote]

22

I do just that, Charles. I’ll go 3x3,6x2 or 5x3. Then 2-3 sets of 5. This gets me near 25 total reps and allows me to not compromise the intensity to a significant degree. My purpose is to increase mechanical work on top of an MxS focused day to still stimulate hypertrophy. Anthony Ditillo in his The Development of Physical Strength did something similar which is where I first got the idea. He’d go:

3x3, 1x2,1x1, then 3-5x5.

or

5x1 with 90% then 5x5 in the old school fashion.

Best,
DH

[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
I did neglect to state another PRO: increased hypertrophy potential, just due to the greater amount of mechanical work.

As far as this method having a negative effect on MxS, I think that could be mediated by not going over say 6 reps on the back-off set(s).

Also, from a psychological perspective, I think there is value in learning how to “grind.”

Chad Waterbury wrote:
PROS:

  1. It’ll tap into the MUs that have larger oxidative capabilities. For some athletes who need to display high intensities for longer than 10-15s, this works well.

  2. It’ll help athletes deal with lactic acid accumulation. Theoretically, such a technique might upregulate mechanisms to accelerate the buffering of lactate. This, of course, would also benefit some athletes such as wide receivers.

CONS:

  1. It’ll negatively affect maximal strength levels. For those who primarily seek MS, I’ve found traditional back-off sets to be ineffectual. In fact, I think it might be detrimental, to a certain extent (too long of an explanation required for that last point).

  2. Excessive neural/structural stress. 2 back-off sets to failure after 6x2 would cause some serious DOMS in some trainees (especially with an exercise such as squats). That’s not good on a consistent basis when attempting to train a muscle group 3-4x/week.

Ball’s in your court!

[/quote]

23

Good work. Now of course, this may still compromise MxS (as compared to simply doing the low rep sets) a bit, however, MxS depends on muscle cross section (in addition to neurological factors).

I suppose an interesting question at this point would be:

"Is MxS development ultimately limited more by neural or structural factors? Chad, thoughts?

[quote]Disc Hoss wrote:
I do just that, Charles. I’ll go 3x3,6x2 or 5x3. Then 2-3 sets of 5. This gets me near 25 total reps and allows me to not compromise the intensity to a signifiant degree. My purpose is to increase mechanical work on top of an MxS focused day to still stimulate hypertrophy. Anthony Ditillo in his The Development of Physical Strength did something similar which is where I first got the idea. He’d go:

3x3, 1x2,1x1, then 3-5x5.

or

5x1 with 90% then 5x5 in the old school fashion.

Best,
DH

Charles Staley wrote:
I did neglect to state another PRO: increased hypertrophy potential, just due to the greater amount of mechanical work.

As far as this method having a negative effect on MxS, I think that could be mediated by not going over say 6 reps on the back-off set(s).

Also, from a psychological perspective, I think there is value in learning how to “grind.”

Chad Waterbury wrote:
PROS:

  1. It’ll tap into the MUs that have larger oxidative capabilities. For some athletes who need to display high intensities for longer than 10-15s, this works well.

  2. It’ll help athletes deal with lactic acid accumulation. Theoretically, such a technique might upregulate mechanisms to accelerate the buffering of lactate. This, of course, would also benefit some athletes such as wide receivers.

CONS:

  1. It’ll negatively affect maximal strength levels. For those who primarily seek MS, I’ve found traditional back-off sets to be ineffectual. In fact, I think it might be detrimental, to a certain extent (too long of an explanation required for that last point).

  2. Excessive neural/structural stress. 2 back-off sets to failure after 6x2 would cause some serious DOMS in some trainees (especially with an exercise such as squats). That’s not good on a consistent basis when attempting to train a muscle group 3-4x/week.

Ball’s in your court!

[/quote]

24

[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
I did neglect to state another PRO: increased hypertrophy potential, just due to the greater amount of mechanical work.

As far as this method having a negative effect on MxS, I think that could be mediated by not going over say 6 reps on the back-off set(s).

Also, from a psychological perspective, I think there is value in learning how to “grind.”

Chad Waterbury wrote:
PROS:

  1. It’ll tap into the MUs that have larger oxidative capabilities. For some athletes who need to display high intensities for longer than 10-15s, this works well.

  2. It’ll help athletes deal with lactic acid accumulation. Theoretically, such a technique might upregulate mechanisms to accelerate the buffering of lactate. This, of course, would also benefit some athletes such as wide receivers.

CONS:

  1. It’ll negatively affect maximal strength levels. For those who primarily seek MS, I’ve found traditional back-off sets to be ineffectual. In fact, I think it might be detrimental, to a certain extent (too long of an explanation required for that last point).

  2. Excessive neural/structural stress. 2 back-off sets to failure after 6x2 would cause some serious DOMS in some trainees (especially with an exercise such as squats). That’s not good on a consistent basis when attempting to train a muscle group 3-4x/week.

Ball’s in your court!

[/quote]

Well, if the back-off set was only 6 reps, that’s a whole nutha ballgame!
I was referring to the traditional 18-20 reps that most trainees use.

Regardless, if a trainee seeks maximal strength, I’d advise the use of one set of 1-3 reps with the heaviest possible load. This “boost” in MU recruitment, rate coding, and synchronization seems to work well. I use that exact technique with my clients. But I’m getting off track, back to “back off” sets.

Neurologically, “straining” can be useful technique. Indeed, the carry-over to building up a person’s “will” is reason enough to do them. If all sets are easy, and if the trainee doesn’t push himself to high-strain levels, ultimate levels of performance will be less than a person who does those things.

Ultimately, I think a coach/trainee must ask himself, “why am I doing back-off sets?” Is it merely for hypertrophy? If so, there are better ways (bumping 6x2 up to 10x3) for starters. “Is it for MS gains?” I sure hope not. “Is it merely for variety?” If so, I would consider that a good reason. Variety is the spice, my friend.

25

[quote]bg100 wrote:
Chad,

I?d like any feedback you might have on the program shown below which I have put together. I have just completed two cycles of your Waterbury Method program (which resulted in great strength gains btw!), which I guess would be the ?Accumulation Block? for my current goal of improving my maximum strength. It?s now time to intensify things a bit and go to lower volume, higher load and more frequency.

I?ve decided to do an 8 day cycle through these workouts to allow a day of rest in between, but if you think any of the workouts could be done back to back I?ll be able to fit it in to 7 days.

Two of the workouts are ?heavy? days where there is a main lift using a double wave and the other lifts using low rep sets. The other two workouts are slightly more of a ?speed? day as I will do an Olympic lift on each day. Each workout also has a lighter pre-hab exercise. On the oly lift days I use the overhead squats as a warmup for the faster lifts.

Workout 1:
A. Back Squat (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
B. GHR (4x4)
C. Bent Over BB Rows w/ pronated grip (4x4)
D. Close-grip Bench Press (4x4)
E. Face Pulls (3x12-15)
F. Trunk Flexion Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 2:
A. Overhead Squat (3x8)
B. Snatch (6x3)
C. Incline Bench Press (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
D. Chin Ups (4x4)
E. Cuban Press (3x12-15)
F. Obliques Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 3:
A. Deadlift (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
B. Front Squat (4x4)
C. Cable Row w/ pronated grip (4x4)
D. Dips (4x4)
E. Pull Throughs (3x12-15)
F. Trunk Flexion Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 4:
A. Overhead Squat (3x8)
B. Clean & Jerk (6x3)
C. Flat DB Bench Press (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
D. Rack Pulls (4x4)
E. Low Pulley External Rotations (3x12-15)
F. Obliques Exercise (3x8-10)

Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Ben
[/quote]

My response to your program depends on your loading parameters. If two of the days are heavy (as you mentioned) with >80% of 1RM, while the other two days are light 60% of 1RM for speed, I think it’s good. But, if you’re pushing the loading envelope with those parameters, you’ll be overwhelmed. Cycle your loading parameters throughout the week.

26

[quote]Msogard wrote:
Any tips on how a 5’10" guy can increase his vertical? Drop jumps, depth jumps, plyos, jump squats, heavy squats, deads, rack pulls? To give you an idea of my strength level, I weigh 185 pounds and squat 315x5, ~365 max. Maybe heavy squats to increase my maximal strength?

Thanks![/quote]

If you’re a novice trainee, MS training will build your vertical jump. But an experienced trainee must utilize techniques to explosively train the glutes, hams, hips, quads, etc. Actually, I’ve found 40M sprints and maximal dead/squat training to have a nice effect.

27

[quote]jodgey wrote:
They are my two favorite coaches, and really the only two that I follow. Shameless plug. . . BOTH coach Staley and Waterbvury will be speaking that Charles’s Bootcamp in Phoenix in early october (upon hearing the news of which soiled my underwear, jeans, and car seat). I think I saw that there were a few seats left. . . hmmm. . . .
I saw 2 hours of video from two boot camps ago, and was amped for 5 months. I really cant wait to meet both of you guys and hear you in person.

AMIRisSQUAT wrote:
Chad and Charles having a live discussion? Wow.

This should be be surreal.

Amir

[/quote]

Coming all the way from Florida, eh? Cool! I look forward to meeting you. It’ll be awesome.

28

[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
Good work. Now of course, this may still compromise MxS (as compared to simply doing the low rep sets) a bit, however, MxS depends on muscle cross section (in addition to neurological factors).

I suppose an interesting question at this point would be:

"Is MxS development ultimately limited more by neural or structural factors? Chad, thoughts?

Disc Hoss wrote:
I do just that, Charles. I’ll go 3x3,6x2 or 5x3. Then 2-3 sets of 5. This gets me near 25 total reps and allows me to not compromise the intensity to a signifiant degree. My purpose is to increase mechanical work on top of an MxS focused day to still stimulate hypertrophy. Anthony Ditillo in his The Development of Physical Strength did something similar which is where I first got the idea. He’d go:

3x3, 1x2,1x1, then 3-5x5.

or

5x1 with 90% then 5x5 in the old school fashion.

Best,
DH

Charles Staley wrote:
I did neglect to state another PRO: increased hypertrophy potential, just due to the greater amount of mechanical work.

As far as this method having a negative effect on MxS, I think that could be mediated by not going over say 6 reps on the back-off set(s).

Also, from a psychological perspective, I think there is value in learning how to “grind.”

Chad Waterbury wrote:
PROS:

  1. It’ll tap into the MUs that have larger oxidative capabilities. For some athletes who need to display high intensities for longer than 10-15s, this works well.

  2. It’ll help athletes deal with lactic acid accumulation. Theoretically, such a technique might upregulate mechanisms to accelerate the buffering of lactate. This, of course, would also benefit some athletes such as wide receivers.

CONS:

  1. It’ll negatively affect maximal strength levels. For those who primarily seek MS, I’ve found traditional back-off sets to be ineffectual. In fact, I think it might be detrimental, to a certain extent (too long of an explanation required for that last point).

  2. Excessive neural/structural stress. 2 back-off sets to failure after 6x2 would cause some serious DOMS in some trainees (especially with an exercise such as squats). That’s not good on a consistent basis when attempting to train a muscle group 3-4x/week.

Ball’s in your court!

[/quote]

Neural, definitely! A muscle that’s, let’s say, 20% should be able to produce appreciable levels of additional force due to greater sarcomeres. But, if the rate coding, and synchronization aren’t in check, it won’t matter. The nervous system controls the activity of muscles, it can make them fire faster, longer, synchronously, asynchronously, etc. THAT’S what will determine how much ultimate force a trainee produces. In addition, there are also factors at the neuromuscular junction that can augment or hinder performance. Skeletal muscle is merely a passive tissue that hangs around until the brain turns on the electricity.

29

Let me qualify “back off” sets before we go any further. I define them as a set with decreased loading (compared to the loading that preceded it), with higher rep schemes.

The main problem I have with back off sets is that they recruit lower threshold motor units. Unless, of course, the set is taken to failure. But even if it’s taken to failure, the very high threshold MUs probably won’t be recruited if the load is too low (eg 60% of 1RM). As such, I see no reason to redirect the nervous system emphasis from high-threshold MUs back down to lower-threshold MUs if MS is the primary goal. Hell, even if hypertrophy is the primary goal. But I do like back off sets for some of the athletes I previously mentioned.

30

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
bg100 wrote:
Chad,

I?d like any feedback you might have on the program shown below which I have put together. I have just completed two cycles of your Waterbury Method program (which resulted in great strength gains btw!), which I guess would be the ?Accumulation Block? for my current goal of improving my maximum strength. It?s now time to intensify things a bit and go to lower volume, higher load and more frequency.

I?ve decided to do an 8 day cycle through these workouts to allow a day of rest in between, but if you think any of the workouts could be done back to back I?ll be able to fit it in to 7 days.

Two of the workouts are ?heavy? days where there is a main lift using a double wave and the other lifts using low rep sets. The other two workouts are slightly more of a ?speed? day as I will do an Olympic lift on each day. Each workout also has a lighter pre-hab exercise. On the oly lift days I use the overhead squats as a warmup for the faster lifts.

Workout 1:
A. Back Squat (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
B. GHR (4x4)
C. Bent Over BB Rows w/ pronated grip (4x4)
D. Close-grip Bench Press (4x4)
E. Face Pulls (3x12-15)
F. Trunk Flexion Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 2:
A. Overhead Squat (3x8)
B. Snatch (6x3)
C. Incline Bench Press (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
D. Chin Ups (4x4)
E. Cuban Press (3x12-15)
F. Obliques Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 3:
A. Deadlift (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
B. Front Squat (4x4)
C. Cable Row w/ pronated grip (4x4)
D. Dips (4x4)
E. Pull Throughs (3x12-15)
F. Trunk Flexion Exercise (3x8-10)

Workout 4:
A. Overhead Squat (3x8)
B. Clean & Jerk (6x3)
C. Flat DB Bench Press (6/4/2/6/4/2 double wave)
D. Rack Pulls (4x4)
E. Low Pulley External Rotations (3x12-15)
F. Obliques Exercise (3x8-10)

Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Ben

My response to your program depends on your loading parameters. If two of the days are heavy (as you mentioned) with >80% of 1RM, while the other two days are light 60% of 1RM for speed, I think it’s good. But, if you’re pushing the loading envelope with those parameters, you’ll be overwhelmed. Cycle your loading parameters throughout the week.
[/quote]

Chad,

Thanks for your reply. The only lifts that were going to be “Speed” were the oly lifts, the others on those days were going to be heavy, so it seems I may have a problem as you suggest. How do you suggest cycling the loading parameters? I’m a bit confused now as I thought max strength programs focused on more frequent, but low volume, high intensity sessions.

Ben

31

hey CW, I’m just wondering, as arm my aching triceps, about the new AofW program and all the direct tricep work involved… wowsa boss!

Every day has direct tricep work and only one day has direct bicep work, I’m wondering what the method behind the madness on that is.

thanks

32

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
Charles Staley wrote:
Good work. Now of course, this may still compromise MxS (as compared to simply doing the low rep sets) a bit, however, MxS depends on muscle cross section (in addition to neurological factors).

I suppose an interesting question at this point would be:

"Is MxS development ultimately limited more by neural or structural factors? Chad, thoughts?

Disc Hoss wrote:
I do just that, Charles. I’ll go 3x3,6x2 or 5x3. Then 2-3 sets of 5. This gets me near 25 total reps and allows me to not compromise the intensity to a signifiant degree. My purpose is to increase mechanical work on top of an MxS focused day to still stimulate hypertrophy. Anthony Ditillo in his The Development of Physical Strength did something similar which is where I first got the idea. He’d go:

3x3, 1x2,1x1, then 3-5x5.

or

5x1 with 90% then 5x5 in the old school fashion.

Best,
DH

Charles Staley wrote:
I did neglect to state another PRO: increased hypertrophy potential, just due to the greater amount of mechanical work.

As far as this method having a negative effect on MxS, I think that could be mediated by not going over say 6 reps on the back-off set(s).

Also, from a psychological perspective, I think there is value in learning how to “grind.”

Chad Waterbury wrote:
PROS:

  1. It’ll tap into the MUs that have larger oxidative capabilities. For some athletes who need to display high intensities for longer than 10-15s, this works well.

  2. It’ll help athletes deal with lactic acid accumulation. Theoretically, such a technique might upregulate mechanisms to accelerate the buffering of lactate. This, of course, would also benefit some athletes such as wide receivers.

CONS:

  1. It’ll negatively affect maximal strength levels. For those who primarily seek MS, I’ve found traditional back-off sets to be ineffectual. In fact, I think it might be detrimental, to a certain extent (too long of an explanation required for that last point).

  2. Excessive neural/structural stress. 2 back-off sets to failure after 6x2 would cause some serious DOMS in some trainees (especially with an exercise such as squats). That’s not good on a consistent basis when attempting to train a muscle group 3-4x/week.

Ball’s in your court!

Neural, definitely! A muscle that’s, let’s say, 20% should be able to produce appreciable levels of additional force due to greater sarcomeres. But, if the rate coding, and synchronization aren’t in check, it won’t matter. The nervous system controls the activity of muscles, it can make them fire faster, longer, synchronously, asynchronously, etc. THAT’S what will determine how much ultimate force a trainee produces. In addition, there are also factors at the neuromuscular junction that can augment or hinder performance. Skeletal muscle is merely a passive tissue that hangs around until the brain turns on the electricity. [/quote]

I meant to say, “a muscle that’s 20% larger.”

33

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
… I’ve found 40M sprints and maximal dead/squat training to have a nice effect. [/quote]

This is great thinking! I have read studies and heard opinions saying that verticle jump is one of the best (if not the best) indicators of 40 yard dash… at least in trained athletes such as football players.

Never thought of reverse engineering the idea to increase verticle

34

Chad,

What do you think of using olympic lifts or variants in the ABBH template?

35

[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
jodgey wrote:
They are my two favorite coaches, and really the only two that I follow. Shameless plug. . . BOTH coach Staley and Waterbvury will be speaking that Charles’s Bootcamp in Phoenix in early october (upon hearing the news of which soiled my underwear, jeans, and car seat).

Coming all the way from Florida, eh? Cool! I look forward to meeting you. It’ll be awesome. [/quote]

Actually, Chad, if I knew you and coach Staley would be dropping info nuggets on us there, I would row a canoe to an undisclosed GPS location in the middle of the Indian ocean.
I am psyched to see what you guys have in store for us.

36

After reading the posts back and forth between Chad and Charles, an idea struck me. T-Nation should try to set up some sort of regular debates between contributers in a Prime Time format. It is quite fascinating to read the ideas that these immesnsley knowledgable people throw out there, when they are just having a little back and forth about a topic.

ps. Charles-great idea on bringing that discussion out with Chad, as things like back off sets can be kind of murky, when thrown into a strength training program, and the technical clarifications are incredibly helpful.

37

[quote]SOCRATES wrote:
After reading the posts back and forth between Chad and Charles, an idea struck me. T-Nation should try to set up some sort of regular debates between contributers in a Prime Time format. It is quite fascinating to read the ideas that these immesnsley knowledgable people throw out there, when they are just having a little back and forth about a topic.

ps. Charles-great idea on bringing that discussion out with Chad, as things like back off sets can be kind of murky, when thrown into a strength training program, and the technical clarifications are incredibly helpful.[/quote]

They used to do this, and it was the greatest and best thing ever.

hint, hint

38

Hey Chad, could one do hiit on days 2,4, and 6 of WM, or would that be overtraining and should it be kept to medium intesity?

39

Chad and Charles, very interesting discussion. What would think of something like 5 x 2, a couple higher rep backoff sets, and finishing with a 2 rep set at the original weight?

40

Funny you should mention that…Chad, your turn!

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Chad and Charles, very interesting discussion. What would think of something like 5 x 2, a couple higher rep backoff sets, and finishing with a 2 rep set at the original weight?[/quote]