[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Anyways, Waterbury is a smart guy, but the whole total rep thing isn’t THAT different. In the end it all comes down to what rep range you are using, the reps more or less end up being around the same ‘goal’ anyway. Let’s say you have 32 out of 35 reps yet you are using a load of 6-9 RM. Why on earth would you just do 3 reps? It should be a rep out set to get that TUT in. Just look at I, Bodybuilder. In every workout I think there’s some kind of max reps set. Also, I’m pretty sure that hitting the total reps Waterbury-style is using the same load instead of ramping, which isn’t the best for mass and strength. [/quote]
Waterbury IS a smart guy! I distinctly remember him advocating explosive reps to potentiate the nervous system, as in IBB. I also remember his recommendation to terminate the set once the speed of the rep declined (this was laughed at in the forums) again in IBB.
I did a prog of his many years ago, which required me to do a set of 3 reps with about 60% of my 1RM. This was then ‘ramped’ (term wasn’t used then) up to a 3 rep max. This was done using explosive reps, avoiding fatigue and avoiding grinding out sets as these interfered with recovery! All great stuff and worked a treat!
I think he shot himself in the foot when he first coined the phrase Anti Bodybuilding and as a result a lot of experienced guys on here saw this as an affront to bodybuilding.
I think he had a lot of great ideas but with everything you have to use what you think is good and discard all the rest and this only comes with trying it out for yourself.
In most instances if you have been training a particular way for a any period of time, a complete flip in training styles (reps, sets etc…) can do wonders for your progress. As in the traditional 3 X 10 protocol used by most inexperienced guys at the time, which was then flipped to 10 X 3 by Waterbury and as a result people moved forward instead of the usual ‘stuck in training limbo going nowhere’ eagerly searching Flex for the next confusion prog. [/quote]
I have nothing against Waterbury. I just don’t see how anyone but a rank beginner can do straight sets for 10 sets of 3 unless the load was so ridiculously low that you were training nowhere near failure (not just 1 or 2 reps shy of it, but A LOT left in the tank in the first few sets). I don’t know why anyone would try this except for perhaps some technique training in a technical lift (volume for the sake of volume).
Who the hell can survive 17 singles unless the weight is nowhere near their max. The goofiest routine he ever wrote involved (if I recall correctly) something like 3 exercises for 17 singles apiece. You’d definitely need to be training nowhere near your max, otherwise you’d be DESTROYED at the end of a workout like that - IF someone can even do that! It takes intermediate and advanced powerlifters about 10 sets to WORK UP to a 1 rep max. So how the hell could that kind of workout be performed with appreciable weights? I dunno if he wrote that just for a new article on something he doesn’t do for himself or others, or if he has actual success with it.