So Waterbury came out with his new article on T-Nation: [we don't post links to t-nation at GUS if you want to read this crapola search it]

There are a LOT of stupid things in that article.

Point #1:

The caption below the photo is "Chad weighing in at a thick 286"

How the heck is Chad at 286 lbs? Is he 8 feet tall??

Point #2:

There's no substitute for chins and dips from rings.

What? How about chins and dips from normal places to do chins and dips? And so everyone who doesn't have access to rings is spinning their wheels doing dips for parallel bars and chins from regular bars?

Point #3:

Pushing an athlete when he wants to be pushed doesn't do any good. You must push him when he's off balance.

Chad's claim to fame is making his trainees fall down when they least expect it. Great.

Point #4:

If I decided to put back on 30 pounds of muscle, I'd have one helluva time getting female clients in this town. That's something I don't want.

So putting on 30 pounds of muscle is that easy? LOL….

LOL Waterbury is such an idiot…

I barely made it half way down before my gag reflex kicked in, but this point stuck out:

• Are there any trainers out there who have their clients rest three minutes between sets? I haven't seen any. Yet I keep seeing three-minute rest periods prescribed across the Internet. I can't imagine what a paying client must think while they're sitting around for three minutes straight.

It sounds like he is saying 3 minutes is too long. And he wanted to train people to get big and strong…

Making his clients fall down…hahahaaaa

That was good.

Unfortunately those are some of the smarter things he's said.

Most of his 'theories' and observations are based on selection bias. I.E. gymnasts and cirque du soleil performers are very muscular, therefore everyone who trains in a way similar to them will be very muscular.

Problem is he is unaware that the gymnasts he sees on TV or at championship are a small sampling of the elite. When you looked at a larger and larger sampling of people who do gymnastics you would find that not all of them are freaky muscular. So, you might as, for instance, is the ability to grow lots of functional mass a plus when it comes to reaching the level of an elite gymnast?

Another dumb one is "mechanics have huge forearms" so that means working a muscle more frequently will give you huge forearms. Well…sorry, my mechanic doesn't have huge forearms..actually, his forearms are kinda doughy. Maybe he doesn't turn the wrench with the right frequency, lol.

The thing about "pushing" an athlete, any dumbass can "push" an athlete. "Motivating" an athlete, understanding what makes him or her tick, is NOT something everyone can do. My training in instructor in basic training could "push" us..to the point where we wanted to punch him in the face. Never made me a good soldier because I didn't have it in me to be a "good soldier" just because someone "pushed" me.

Less than THREE minutes is BODYBUILDING. These bodybuilding trainers trying to perpetrate like strength guys has gotten out of control. Not everybody needs to train for maximal strength and take long rest periods but he is making GENERAL statements when he is really talking about HIS clients. Chad…not all of us train 22 year old women who want to "tone up" and "have a great but". Some of us train people who want to lift huge ass heavy things. Guy who wants to lift a huge ass heavy thing will sit around as long as you tell him too if he thinks that will allow him to lift said heavy thing.

Is thick another word for doughy now?

How many cans of Surge whatever do these guys friggin get everytime they mention surge? Seriously.

Sorry about the links…but as I said before..I'm not sending traffic to t-rag for ANYTHING.

Despite all of that, let's try to avoid calling people 'idiots' if we can.

Despite all of that, let's try to avoid calling people 'idiots' if we can.

Is 'Moron' an acceptable substitute? haha j/k. :)

I agree…..name calling is not right. So I take that back.

Regarding his philosophies, he has claimed the 3-5 minute rule in SOOOO many of his programs lol….way to self contradict yourself.

Is 'Moron' an acceptable substitute? haha j/k. :)

Much better! Just kidding. It's not that I object to the word. Some people just deserve it sometimes. It's the tone it sets. Anybody can flame. But as I said before…it ain't about the hating gland, it's about the thinking gland. The funny thing about it is that all those silly quotes can teach us something. Even thinking about why something is wrong is a learning experience! So my motto is to make something constructive out of it. But I will go so far as to say that there are a number of people in this industry who have developed a big head syndrome and go a little bit far with the "science".

There is a difference between talking about "science" like you're watching Nova and batting around theories and understanding the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

Going to the circus and saying to yourself, "self, those guys is big, they must be big because of the way they train therefore I will tell people to train like they train"…that isn't scientific. That's straight from "observation" to "conclusion" lol.

It's about like saying, "self, that grass is green, therefore if I stand in one spot all day I'll turn green too".

There is a big problem with people going to college and getting a degree and thinking that that is all there is to it…getting a degree. There is a whole world of experience that comes AFTER that. So when I read these bios..and many of them are similar….I notice that it never says anything about how their experience taught them. With Waterbury, who bills himself as a "neurophysiologist" btw..which would be somebody who is engaged in the study of neurophysiology..i.e. someone who engaged in the science of it so that is misleading to say the least but it's "I went to college and it changed my thoughts on how to train"…what about all the experience training people?

But here is my biggest pet peeve. Strength is SUBJECTIVE. Even if a guy can claim superior results for HIS clients, they are HIS clients. Getting results for YOUR clients based on THEIR goals and needs has nothing to do with "STRENGTH" as everyone trains it and sees it. What the hell do figure models, bodybuilders, grapplers have to do with someone who wants to train for absolute strength? Nothing. Given that is a minority of people. But um…so is figure models and grapplers.

I understand why Jamie Hale gets so tired of the "i have a degree" line, lol. Once you add up all the ridiculously unscientific things they say you realize the degree don't mean much.

I just revisited this thread and Ahsiem's comments really cracked me up:

There's no substitute for chins and dips from rings.

What? How about chins and dips from normal places to do chins and dips? And so everyone who doesn't have access to rings is spinning their wheels doing dips for parallel bars and chins from regular bars?

Pushing an athlete when he wants to be pushed doesn't do any good. You must push him when he's off balance.

Chad's claim to fame is making his trainees fall down when they least expect it. Great.

If I decided to put back on 30 pounds of muscle, I'd have one helluva time getting female clients in this town. That's something I don't want.

So putting on 30 pounds of muscle is that easy? LOL….

This had me LMAO. You know, some would say that these reactions are an exaggeration, sort of a straw man, if you will. But I would disagree, I think that these comments perfectly sum of the essence of the statements attributed to Waterbury, whose talent does not lie in critical thinking.

This had me LMAO. You know, some would say that these reactions are an exaggeration, sort of a straw man, if you will. But I would disagree, I think that these comments perfectly sum of the essence of the statements attributed to Waterbury, whose talent does not lie in critical thinking.

This is true.

Waterbury is actually a good trainer: he has some good ideas. But, he keeps thinking small and making each idea into it's own routine?

Want to superset big and small exercises?
Here is next week's Anti Bodybuilding Whatever Training for all you Bodybuilders!!

Pistol Squats are the best. Let's learn that for a month, okay?

Sigh!!! There are many more like this.

It's like the old Batman TV Show….Here's this month's program, tune in next week for the next month.

he has some good ideas. But, he keeps thinking small and making each idea into it's own routine?

Well, in a way. It's when people are always looking for that one missing ingredient. The problem is that that is all they are EVER doing, looking for that one key, the thing that brings it all down to it's simplest elements. This is related to reductive thinking and what is known as the 'reductive fallacy'. All that really happens when you constantly search for the fountain of youth is that you drink from a whole lot of different fountains and go around in a big circle.

See, people tend to think that if you do not know the exact and one reason that we make progress in strength training, a reason that is easily explainable, then training can never make any sense. It's akin to thinking that the whole concept for increasing physical performance must be absurd if you cannot explain it's essence or origin. This need creates this constant search for magical ingredients and then you can say "hey, it's all about frequency" or "it's all about this".

Now, remember the other day when I was talking about definitional statements and circular reasoning? What happens when you try invent a fundamental premise that explains how and why strength training progress occurs? Well, you get what amounts to a definitional statement. I.E. saying that it is "all bout this" or "nothing but that" is the same thing as saying that "IT IS THIS".

So now every month, strength training is redefined by some grand new program based on one magical ingredient, only to be defined yet again next month. The effect is that you end up thinking "small" because you hyper-focus on details, but you actually think that you are thinking big because you have such grand designs.

Well, in a way. It's when people are always looking for that one missing ingredient. The problem is that that is all they are EVER doing, looking for that one key, the thing that brings it all down to it's simplest elements. This is related to reductive thinking and what is known as the 'reductive fallacy'. All that really happens when you constantly search for the fountain of youth is that you drink from a whole lot of different fountains and go around in a big circle.

I got a really funny image when I read this. LOL!!!

Now, remember the other day when I was talking about definitional statements and circular reasoning? What happens when you try invent a fundamental premise that explains how and why strength training progress occurs? Well, you get what amounts to a definitional statement. I.E. saying that it is "all bout this" or "nothing but that" is the same thing as saying that "IT IS THIS".

So now every month, strength training is redefined by some grand new program based on one magical ingredient, only to be defined yet again next month. The effect is that you end up thinking "small" because you hyper-focus on details, but you actually think that you are thinking big because you have such grand designs.

Hmmmm, yes, I can see this happening with Waterbury. At GUS, we just incorporate these things as tools. Someone needs to work on mobility so we throw in OH Squats for some time, once they reach a point it's okay to switch these out and say work a little on being able to do a Pull-ups, blah blah. We don't reinvent the wheel or as you put it: try to find the basic premise of how and why strength training occurs.