Link (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1305014)

Interested to read the women's take on this here.

Well, I think in the short run, he's right, and he's right for women who want to look like Jaime Pressly. But he's mostly talking about training women who want their bodies to look 15 years old. In my experience, if you keep trying to maintain that look as you get into your 30's (when that look doesn't come naturally to you), your face can start to look kinda scary.

(Before I go on, let me link to part of the Stumptuous.com site for pictures of what can happen when someone trains to build muscle: Krista Pics (http://www.stumptuous.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album05). I like those pictures a lot. My body type is similar to hers. And I know that I *can* build muscle fairly quickly, and then when I change things up, I can lose some fat. His system for training women would never work for me, because of my allergies. I would need all over surgery to ever look like Jaime Pressly. I'd probably need some bones removed.)

That was such a long article...

I agree with the guy who commented that Britney's body changed because she grew up. I think her waist would have remained tinier if she didn't work out, but I also think she would have had to not work out at all, period.

I love the rebuttal to that comment, as I have known a couple of strippers, and 21 is still not quite physically mature. In the essentials, yes, but you continue to have hormonal changes throughout your life that change the way your body will look and how you would need to train.

"Zap Branigan wrote:
Not sure I am buying the whole Britney thing.

Her body shape changed because she was growing up.

No way dude, Chad is right. Go to your local strip club and pay attention. You'll notice that alot of the girls there have VERY slim waistlines, even in there 20's, because most of them have never worked out in a gym or trained in there life, yet stay slim because they don't eat, use drugs and strip all day.

My friends GF has the same thing going on. She is a cross country runner, and she claims to have never worked out or done a situp in her life. She has that young britney look as well, and she is 21 I believe."

It has one or two good points. The rest is garbage.

The only people who say that women can't build muscle don't know how to build muscle in the first place. In other words, the notion that women can't build any appreciable amount of muscle is bullshit with a capital "B."

I thought it was just me!
I've been cooling my heels for the last several months because I find that I'm building too much muscle. It's terribly frustrating to hear so many people say it "can't happen". However, the rest of the article is about turning women into tiny little Barbie Dolls, so I don't see where this fits in.:rolleyes:

I don't think his example about Britney Spears holds water. Did he measure her waist? You can't judge results by picture comparisons alone. They are completely different angles, and she looks like she's at a different body weight. My abs are considerably smaller since doing ab work as compared to before, and I've seen exactly the same thing in dozens of women's fitness journals I've perused. Working obliques, on the other hand, could have an abdominal enlarging effect.

It's well-known that Jessica Simpson is wearing butt padding (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061002190815AAG7XXk) and is hghly airbrushed in the photo he references.

For whatever reason, women who train to slim down are often training the same way that guys train to bulk up. And most of the personal trainers that I encounter who are smart enough to know this aren't making the necessary modifications to make up for it.

My point is that if you're a woman and you don't want bigger thighs, don't do what men do to build up their thighs. And if you want slimmer thighs, then do the things that men avoid when they're trying to build up their thighs — long distance running, for one.

I agree with his points, but I'm not sure about the spot reduction techniques he suggests.

Finally, this plan is not about building a female machine of muscle and athletic prowess. This plan is solely intended to make females look good naked (if you're after the female look that I've been referencing). You'll strengthen important structural muscles, you'll build key feminine muscles, and you'll get lean, but this plan won't help you excel in something like female powerlifting.

Yes, all women are into weight training because they want to look good naked.:rolleyes:

In order to build a sexy, curvy figure you've gotta build up your outer thighs, glutes, and delts.
He forgot lattissimus dorsi.

As I've mentioned numerous times so far, this plan is intended to give you the Jaime Pressly or Jessica Simpson look that's portrayed in the pictures. Both of them are carrying somewhere around 14% body fat, so that should be your goal.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No. They're not. But Jelena (http://www.jelenafit.com/) probably is.

Personally I find it hard to believe an article is geared towards women when it is accompanied by a large picture of a blonde with her shorts wedged up the crack of her ass. :rolleyes:

Personally I find it hard to believe an article is geared towards women when it is accompanied by a large picture of a blonde with her shorts wedged up the crack of her ass. :rolleyes:

I figured out real fast that the article was aimed at men who train women in their college years or 20s-- women who would like to look like the latest hot celebrity and are also willing to pay someone to help them.

He did keep saying that not everyone wants to do this, so I consider myself not part of the intended audience.

I figured out real fast that the article was aimed at men who train women in their college years or 20s-- women who would like to look like the latest hot celebrity and are also willing to pay someone to help them.


So long as it’s not men training women (their girlfriends) to look like who the guys want them to look like…I had a friend who was dating this really cute Italian girl. She had a curvy body, a frame with some hips on it. With muscle and the right amount of fat, she was shapely and athletic – but she wasn’t some 5’10” 125 pound supermodel or Jaime Pressley "string-bean" (Cajun opinion) – she looked like a female soccer player, field hockey player, softball player. Well, I think he wanted her to look like a small-framed model, which was flat-out impossible, and last time I saw her, she looked like she was starving herself – had lost a lot of her muscle, but she couldn’t lose the frame, and without the muscle on her frame she just looked worse…her face was gaunt and her smile just wasn’t the same.

Seems like if this was an article directed to guys paid to train female clients, it wouldn't need the butt-crack shorts picture. If it was directed at guys saying "hey, train your woman this way", the butt-crack shorts pic makes more sense. (Of course, the likely explanation is just that the T-Nation editors throw butt-crack shorts pictures in every article because that appeals to their target audience...;) )

After reading this article again, I'm even less impressed. I can't believe so many people responded "Great article. I'm going to start training my female clients this way" He did keep saying that not everyone wants to do this, so I consider myself not part of the intended audience.
I do hope that the trainers who say they're going to recommend this program actually check with their clients to see if it if is indeed their fantasy to look like Britney Spears. I've never considered her body to be particularly attractive. Jessica Simpson's airbrushed photo is nice, but I wouldn't want to look like how she looks on a normal day. And, honestly, unless you have the right genetics, no training program will allow you to look like that anyway.

I think the woman in the black suit demonstrating the exercises is a poor model for this training program. I don't think it's possible to develop that muscular build by doing a wimpy program like that.

This program might work for those women who don't want to look like they work out, but so would any of the programs in Prevention, Shape, and Self magazine. In my opinion, it's a step backwards.

So long as it’s not men training women (their girlfriends) to look like who the guys want them to look like…
That's exactly what it appears to be.
:mad:

I was afraid the tone of the article would get in the way of the content of training. It is on t-nation, not their women's site. That makes me wonder what the goal exactly was.

I agree that a lot of women are training for what he says asthetically, not to really build muscles (guys have their own issues, that's a whole different thread and I'm not meaning this as a slight on women). I think there are lots of myths out there that most here agree should be done away with. I agree on the obliques training for instance, even for guys wanting to build a more promenient V taper look. It will end up making you a bit thicker (doesn't bother me, but that's not a goal I have).

CW is a pretty well regarded trainer and he brings up a lot of points I haven't really heard addressed before about training women. The "flip" diet was an interesting observation that I've been seeing other things point me toward in regards to macros for men vs women. I'd bet for guys, the protein recommendation he'd give would be higher (at least 45%).

So, I think the article loses credibility due to focus of it's target audience. However, I think a lot of women fit the mold he gives in goals. Are those goals good or bad? I've really got no opinion, but I'm wondering if this style of training is better than typical strength based cutting programs designed for guys (say his Waterbury Summer Project)?

I'm wondering if this style of training is better than typical strength based cutting programs designed for guys (say his Waterbury Summer Project)?
For Britney Spears? Sure.

For me or people like me? Definitely not.

To say that a specific training program works better for women than traditionally male training programs is narrow-minded and lazy. As was mentioned in this thread (http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=31696), trainers need to take the time to ask clients about their goals and their motivational style, not try to find a cookie-cutter program.

When I first moved to town and took a look at the gym here, the guy asked me "Do you want a personal trainer?" Then, before I had a chance to answer, he looked me up and down and said "No". I guess he realized that he had no trainers that were capable of tailoring a program to my unique needs.

I was afraid the tone of the article would get in the way of the content of training. It is on t-nation, not their women's site. That makes me wonder what the goal exactly was.

I agree that a lot of women are training for what he says asthetically, not to really build muscles (guys have their own issues, that's a whole different thread and I'm not meaning this as a slight on women). I think there are lots of myths out there that most here agree should be done away with. I agree on the obliques training for instance, even for guys wanting to build a more promenient V taper look. It will end up making you a bit thicker (doesn't bother me, but that's not a goal I have).

CW is a pretty well regarded trainer and he brings up a lot of points I haven't really heard addressed before about training women. The "flip" diet was an interesting observation that I've been seeing other things point me toward in regards to macros for men vs women. I'd bet for guys, the protein recommendation he'd give would be higher (at least 45%).

So, I think the article loses credibility due to focus of it's target audience. However, I think a lot of women fit the mold he gives in goals. Are those goals good or bad? I've really got no opinion, but I'm wondering if this style of training is better than typical strength based cutting programs designed for guys (say his Waterbury Summer Project)?

I think there are women who are trying to do, aesthetically, what he's talking about, but Shape magazine can get you there. Negrita Jayde did this in a much more appealing way in Supervixen (out of print, last I looked). She talked a lot about widening the shoulders, upper body and the hips to make your waist appear smaller. I think Waterbury's got some interesting points in his flip diet, generally, about changing it up and also when going low on carbs to eat a lot of healthy fats.

My daily calories on his diet would be 1230. :blank:
For the first time in my life I've gotten my period 3 months in a row, so I don't think I'm ever going that low on calories again. :p

Aesthetically speaking, what he's talking about is very hard to do for women over 35, and is likely to make someone look stringy. (A lot of the women I've seen use personal trainers aren't college age or mid twenties, which is really the age range I'd see responding to this form of training.) It also really requires that someone has a slight frame and the genetics for that shape. If this aesthetic had been described as accentuating feminine curves, rather than as trying to look like an adolescent (or a miracle of genetics like Jaime Pressly), it would apply to more people.

I do think women have to experiment more with "out of the box" diets of any kind. I believe it's more difficult for us to lose fat than it is for men, and I've had to be very persistent over the past several years, especially with allergy interference. I would never even try to use any of his programs, and I know I wouldn't pay anyone for a diet. I can't imagine I could afford such individual treatment!:lol:

If I were to advise any woman about where to go for weight loss, fitness, or body shaping advice I would always recommend stumptuous.com (http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/index.php) as a starting point, and then to adjust from there. I think that, while Krista emphasizes weight training and strength, she seems to have a real respect for people with other body shaping goals.

I think that anyone who tries this form of training and isn't the right shape or age already might be a little disappointed in the results.

There are an awful lot of ways to get from here to there...;)

P.S. if *I* tried this program, I'd still be a short redheaded mesomorph, that's what I predict.:D

To say that a specific training program works better for women than traditionally male training programs is narrow-minded and lazy. As was mentioned in this thread (http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=31696), trainers need to take the time to ask clients about their goals and their motivational style, not try to find a cookie-cutter program.

I agree that this goal isn't every woman's goal. But CW also addresses that, and I don't think he's implying it is (although a lot of women do have this kind of goal). So I don't see how it's lazy to say that women's goals are often (if not most of the time) different than men's goals, and thus training should be a bit different is lazy or narrow minded.

For guys, there are several training styles depending on your goals. Athletes train for their sport depending on the needs of the sport. Some guys trying like John Stone does, with asthetics as the primary goal with strength secondary (I believe he's said as much recently). Others want to be strong. Yet others want to just be lean and go toward the cardio route. Some just train for general health.

Then there are the bicep curls and bench set who never work legs, back, etc.

So, why is it narrow minded to write about what a lot of his clients want that are female, and devote a program toward that goal? I don't think he's implying this program is for every woman out there.

I think some of the core substance is covered up by all the guy talk. I suspected it would get a negative reaction here, which is kind of why I posted it. I knew when I read it it wasn't going to convince many women because of the tone, pics, etc. I think they went about something reasonable (if controversial) on a site primarly focused to men and written to that audience instead of writing something that might make a broader group of women consider the points raised.

I have talked to friends (women) who do have the goals he's targeting. Quite a few actually, and in talking about working out, they generally just want to "tone" and not get "bulky". They tend to migrate toward cardio, abs, and machines anyway, so I think this would be a better direction for some of their goals than what they are doing.

I don't want the impression here to be that I want every woman to look like 18 year old Britany, either. There are lots of ways for women of different ages to be "attractive", with attractive obviously being an extremely subjective term to begin with.

I just scratch my head and wonder why that article was put up on t-nation.

I think there are women who are trying to do, aesthetically, what he's talking about, but Shape magazine can get you there. Negrita Jayde did this in a much more appealing way in Supervixen (out of print, last I looked). She talked a lot about widening the shoulders, upper body and the hips to make your waist appear smaller. I think Waterbury's got some interesting points in his flip diet, generally, about changing it up and also when going low on carbs to eat a lot of healthy fats.

My daily calories on his diet would be 1230. :blank:
For the first time in my life I've gotten my period 3 months in a row, so I don't think I'm ever going that low on calories again. :p

Aesthetically speaking, what he's talking about is very hard to do for women over 35, and is likely to make someone look stringy. (A lot of the women I've seen use personal trainers aren't college age or mid twenties, which is really the age range I'd see responding to this form of training.) It also really requires that someone has a slight frame and the genetics for that shape. If this aesthetic had been described as accentuating feminine curves, rather than as trying to look like an adolescent (or a miracle of genetics like Jaime Pressly), it would apply to more people.

I do think women have to experiment more with "out of the box" diets of any kind. I believe it's more difficult for us to lose fat than it is for men, and I've had to be very persistent over the past several years, especially with allergy interference. I would never even try to use any of his programs, and I know I wouldn't pay anyone for a diet. I can't imagine I could afford such individual treatment!:lol:

If I were to advise any woman about where to go for weight loss, fitness, or body shaping advice I would always recommend stumptuous.com (http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/index.php) as a starting point, and then to adjust from there. I think that, while Krista emphasizes weight training and strength, she seems to have a real respect for people with other body shaping goals.

I think that anyone who tries this form of training and isn't the right shape or age already might be a little disappointed in the results.

There are an awful lot of ways to get from here to there...;)

P.S. if *I* tried this program, I'd still be a short redheaded mesomorph, that's what I predict.:D

I don't differ in opinions with you on any of that, except maybe that "Shape" is a better direction to go. When I've flipped through that in Dr. offices, etc, I wasn't impressed with a lot of the advice there, either, nutritional or exercise.

However, I haven't put a lot of reading into that mag, so I could be convinced otherwise I suppose.

I don't differ in opinions with you on any of that, except maybe that "Shape" is a better direction to go. When I've flipped through that in Dr. offices, etc, I wasn't impressed with a lot of the advice there, either, nutritional or exercise.

However, I haven't put a lot of reading into that mag, so I could be convinced otherwise I suppose.

I thought the exercises he gave on t-nation were the same caliber as those in Shape, and that the diet advice he gave only *sounded* better because of the percentages and terms you're used to from reading his works.

A person can outgrow Shape pretty quickly.
But men who train women really should read it, because a lot of women like that magazine. I still like it, even though I could use those little dumbbells as bracelet charms now, probably.:)

I've also tried the Body Sculpting Bible for Women. Justitia didn't like it, but I did. I think it would also get a person to that more slim, curvy look too. If you are going to be helping any women with their training, that may also be a book to look into.

I still can't get over 1230 calories.:blank:
:cry:
I would be very tired and sad.

The "flip" diet was an interesting observation that I've been seeing other things point me toward in regards to macros for men vs women. I'd bet for guys, the protein recommendation he'd give would be higher (at least 45%).


Probably not. The biggest mistake people make in ketogenic diets is too much protein and not enough fat. I would imagine he would want to hold that 60% fat and 10% carbs. Same thing for the carb-up day - more protein exists at the expense of carbs .

CW may be a decent trainer, but IMO he screwed the pooch with this article. Even the best have some stupid ideas. This is barely a weight training program at all - DB shoulder press and romanian dls? Oh, and 50-rep shoulder raises? Then a bunch of tubing exercises, bodyweight lunges, and swiss ball exes?

Women should train substantially the same as men - for the goals of the program. I cannot imagine anyone on T-nation devising a program where they recommend men do 50-rep db lateral raises...regardless of the goals of the man.

Actually, I just figured it.

He's constantly recommended the t-dawg diet (http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=243tdawg2) in his cutting programs (10x3FFL, WSP). It has me at 2170 calories (15x weight in lbs, -500 calories after a week). It recommends 1.5 g protein per lb, or 1060 calories for me from protein.

1060/2170=48%. I've done this, and it works pretty well for me.

So, why is it narrow minded to write about what a lot of his clients want that are female, and devote a program toward that goal? I don't think he's implying this program is for every woman out there.

I have talked to friends (women) who do have the goals he's targeting. Quite a few actually, and in talking about working out, they generally just want to "tone" and not get "bulky". They tend to migrate toward cardio, abs, and machines anyway, so I think this would be a better direction for some of their goals than what they are doing.

I guess I just got really annoyed when I started reading the responses to the post and saw so many trainers say "Great stuff. I'm going to do it." Maybe CW didn't intend it that way, or maybe he did.

I'd like to see the transformation pics on exactly what kinds of results his clients got on this program. I'm betting they're not so impressive.

Body for Life has been quite successful in getting the message across that you can reshape your body through heavy weight training.
To me CWs program reads like a joke. I don't believe that the amount of muscle overload in this program is sufficient enough to lead to body composition changes. Rather, all it will do is turn a person into a smaller version of themselves. I spent most of my 20s engaged in programs like that, and ended up continually disappointed. To see more "tone" you must increase your lean body mass relative to your fat mass, and this program just doesn't cut it. If it's a step up from an aerobics class, it's a small step up.

As I mentioned before, I'm clearly not part of his intended audience, and because of this, it may be difficult for me to relate to those who are. Maybe it could build firmer glutes, maybe it could make an appreciable difference in the delts, but, knowing what I know, it doesn't sound likely to me.
I don't see how it's lazy to say that women's goals are often (if not most of the time) different than men's goals, and thus training should be a bit different is lazy or narrow minded.
Why is it lazy? That's like me saying "Canadians are different from Americans and therefore I should treat Gordo and Silver and HevyMetal different from wh0areume and cajunman and 1FastGTX." It's the wrong way to go about it. Compartmentalizing people with different characteristics and goals because of an alternate common characteristic is narrow-minded.

I don't have a problem if a particular woman walks into a gym and says "I want a program that will give me the body of Jessica Simpson", but I think it's a tragedy for a trainer to make the assumption that most women who work out have the same goal in mind, and to arrange your whole plan of attack on that assumption. It sounded like a lot of people who responded to that article were planning on doing exactly that.

This is barely a weight training program at all - DB shoulder press and romanian dls? Oh, and 50-rep shoulder raises? Then a bunch of tubing exercises, bodyweight lunges, and swiss ball exes?
:nod: I spent years doing side leg lifts and bodyweight lunges hoping to alter the appearance of my thighs, and it didn't do a thing. But shortly after I learned the correct way to do squats, lunges, and dumbbell step-ups with a challenging weight, it didn't take long to see changes.

I went back AGAIN to look at it and see there are TONS of comments now, and major debate.:lol: I think the biggest problem with this article is that it took an awful long time to get to the point.:lol: And of course it reads like it was written expressly to hold the attention of horny young men. Also, the whole Britney thing was a poor choice of example because of the growing process probably being the main factor in changing her shape.

There are a number of things I'd agree with-- I think I do gain muscle very quickly. Lifting heavy does seem to make my waist bigger, but it's not ab work for me, it's deadlifts. The very very good thing about gaining all that muscle is that I then don't have to go all the way down to 1230 calories to lose fat, which would make me very sick, as I know from experience. When I stop doing deadlifts, my waist gets smaller comparatively quickly. I also think cycling the diet and using a lot more fat than people are used to works very well.

I think that although women can gain a lot of muscle, the amount of muscle they'll gain will still never be huge amounts without MAJOR work and then maintenance. It's still not a big worry.

I still think the exercises are very similar to those in Shape or Self.:nod:

I've seen all the ideas presented in that article in a variety of books, but in a more clearly written and easily digested format. He could probably edit that very nicely so that it's not as long winded, or potentially offensive.:tu:

As some of the comments suggest and CW confirms, the article is meant to be more about recognizing that you can emphasize certain muscles to give a more "ideally" feminine appearance. The routine offered is completely secondary to that and demonstrates exercises that can achieve this.

In that light, I think the article is great. I also think almost everyone has missed the point, not through their own fault but because of the way Chad presented it, specifically by including what really is nothing more than a Shape routine that you all find villainous.

He forgot lattissimus dorsi.

He also notes in a comment that the lats can make some women look more feminine, but it also has potential to make a women less feminine, which is why he mentions it but doesn't include it. I can think of more than few girls I've know who were competitive swimmers and, as they got better, started looking less appealing for that exact reason.

Why is it lazy? That's like me saying "Canadians are different from Americans and therefore I should treat Gordo and Silver and HevyMetal different from wh0areume and cajunman and 1FastGTX." It's the wrong way to go about it. Compartmentalizing people with different characteristics and goals because of an alternate common characteristic is narrow-minded.

That's not the same thing. There are no big physiological differences between Canadians and Americans. And he isn't saying this is for every woman, only women who want a specific type of body. So I still have a problem finding this lazy.

I agree with Butterflyer again in that this isn't clear in the piece. I just can't figure out why this is on t-nation and not their other site, edited for women.

*shrug*

what really is nothing more than a Shape routine that you all find villainous.




???
The only thing potentially villainous about it being like a Shape routine would be that there was such a big build up and made out to be a true revelation. It was a really loooooooong article! Shape articles tend to be quick and to the point.

In that light, I think the article is great. I also think almost everyone has missed the point, not through their own fault but because of the way Chad presented it, specifically by including what really is nothing more than a Shape routine that you all find villainous.

I didn't miss the point. He buried the point with all of his bullshit assumptions about women and how they want to look.

I think I said it better (http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showpost.php?p=385501&postcount=6).
I like to concentrate more on back and shoulders and glutes, because these are the areas that I want to bulk up. As for my biceps, triceps, quads, and calves, I don't want them bigger, I just want them defined, so I don't overload them as much or as frequently.

But I'm not so overbearing that I say all women should work out like that. That's my recommendation for women who have the same goal as me.

It's possible he saw my post from a week ago, copied my philosophy, and wrote an article on it, presenting it as his own.:mad: :lol:

Maybe that's why I'm so pissed off.:confused:

(from page 4 of that link)
I mean, how many times have you heard a guy in a movie theatre say, "Damn, those big lats sure make that chick look super hot!"
In the movie theatre, no, but plenty of people have said that about my progress pics. I agree, big lats are not for everyone, but a lot of people agree they can contribute to a more feminine appearance.

*I* think he posted it on that website first to get exactly the feedback he's getting. An awful lot of people have said things along the lines of "he means this"-- this will help in editing. People asked for clarifications of number of reps, what was meant by bodyweight or 14RM, etc. And men have reacted badly to the Britney Spears example as well, so all that feedback will really help in editing and perhaps getting the article published elsewhere. Is that possible?

In the movie theatre, no, but plenty of people have said that about my progress pics. I agree, big lats are not for everyone, but a lot of people agree they can contribute to a more feminine appearance.

Your lats are definitely a plus!:tu:

At any rate, it was indeed a thought provoking article. That's always good.

Your lats are definitely a plus!:tu:

At any rate, it was indeed a thought provoking article. That's always good.

That's kinda why I posted it. This site has a definite different focus than t-nation, which can be quite harsh in the forums and is not very friendly to newbie trainees (men or women). I think there are some good points that are hidden by a style that will NOT appeal to most women, which seems strange in an article on women's training.

It's difficult for me to have a completely fair discussion here, because I am a huge Waterbury fan and believe he is one of the best, if not the best, (at least on the 'net) when it comes to training/dieting/exercise. That said, I'm not sure where all the hate is coming from. First things first, Chad did say:

"With regard to those females, I'd say 90% of them sought to transform their body into the early Britney-type look."

Is he wrong? I'd bet not. He uses the younger Britney and the current Jessica Simpson and Jamie Pressly as examples for what the majority of women would aim for (never did he say all women). I'd say that's pretty damn accurate given my discussion with young women. It may not cater to an "older" crowd as much, but then again that's not the audience he's writing to.

We've already established on these forums that most women here aren't fans of the aforementioned women. It's either they look too fake, too airbrushed or whatever else people can try and come up with. Look, forget the few pictures some of you believe are airbrushed. Go look at these women for real where airbrushing is not possible and if you want to say they don't have ideal, or close to ideal bodies, then you're out of your mind. It might not be what your version of ideal is, but it certainly is for the majority of people and I've got about 97 out of 100 guys (of all ages) and women I know who can back me up here.

Now, I'm probably getting off topic, but it's just enough already. Every time someone says Jessica Simpson or some other great looking celebrity has a body that many women aspire to, we get the same comments each time. "Well, I don't want that body, so how can they say that all women want that?". It's simple: they didn't say all women. There are exceptions to everything, this being no different.

As for the program? Let me get to that. I don't know the effectiveness of it. I do know that I've helped numerous females come up with weight training programs that would be suggested by women here. You know how many stuck with it? Zero. At first I thought it was none of them were dedicated enough. However, I soon realized that's not it at all, because if you stick them into a Curves or Ladies Workout Express, they don't miss a day. Most women don't want to go to the gym to do deadlifts, military presses, bench press and barbell rows. That's why I've never had to ask any woman how many sets she's got left on the bench or with the barbell. A program like what Chad suggests or what you'd find in Shape, or what have you, is much more along the lines of something a woman is actually going to stick with because they enjoy it, and afterall, that is the key.

As for the 50 rep presses... I'm not usually one to disagree with you Cajun, but on the WSP I had days where he prescribed sets of 100 reps for each exercise. I had never been more ripped than at the conclusion of that program, so I'm not going to argue with what CW prescribes. It's not like he's some clown that's clueless. The guy has years of experience, a Masters (or is working on it) in the field and countless clients to speak of. We may wish to believe we know all there is to know, but it's hard to argue with a guy who has that much under his belt (that was not directed at you Cajun, just everyone in general saying "I would never do or recommend this or that"). I also know Thib from t-nation, I believe it is, is a fan of finishing off workouts with a 100 rep set or something like that. Basically, the old adage "don't knock it til you've tried it" applies and if you have tried it, perhaps it just isn't what works for you.

And last - as for the "cookie-cutter" aspect. The guy is writing one article to get a point across. It's impossible to cater the workout to every single woman out there, so you have to come up with one that would work for your average person, and I believe he did exactly that.

Anyway, I think this is why I stopped posting here for the most part, I get too heated. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone, just trying to offer some other insight. :tu:

It seems the Waterbury "defense" boils down to: "hey, it's CW and I really like CW"...let me ask you, if you saw this program, WITHOUT CW's name on it, on T-nation, would you say "hey, great program, that belongs on this website"? Or would you say "what is this crap?"

People can want to look like whoever they want to look like. I could care less. But for a "bodybuilding" website to publish a "training routine" for women to look like women who don't particularly look like they train with weights is beyond comprehension. Pics of Britney Spears at 17 or 18, pics of Jaime Pressley (who swims and does ballet, maybe Pilates), and Jessica Simpson (who's training routine for her body is found HERE OF ALL PLACES (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-07-27-simpson_x.htm))...let me just say, when USA Today scoops CW by over a year on a "training routine", maybe it's time to rethink the basis for the article...

What next? Maybe for the guys an article on how to achieve that "Leonardo Dicaprio" look? The "Patrick Dempsey" physique? Maybe a "Johnny Depp" training article? Equating this article to the "Brad Pitt Fight Club" articles is ridiculous - at least Pitt looks like he lifted weights (which he did to prepare for the role).

I think there is a real societal "media message" evident in the popular magazines that states "men should workout hard with heavy weight" and that "women should workout with light weights, and not as hard"...when was the last time you heard a man grunt in the gym? A woman? When was the last time you saw a man positively fail a rep? A woman? How often do you see a man use more weight than he should? How often do you see a woman use less weight than she's capable? The "serious" training websites should be the ones who blast this bullshit to smithereens, not perpetuate it.

Just my 0.02. Please check out my pics of female PL babes in Justitia's clean & press thread. Thank you.

(..and I have done 100 rep sets I think. Have to check old training diaries. Did them before the existence of T-nation.)

I have never trained anyone but myself. However, the comments that CW's workout for women is not challenging are inaccurate. He's using 8RM and 14RM in 2 of the 3 workouts. That's a pretty standard hypertrophy intensity zone.

It was very long winded thou, not one of CW's best articles that's for sure. I'm a fan of his work btw. :)

It seems the Waterbury "defense" boils down to: "hey, it's CW and I really like CW"...let me ask you, if you saw this program, WITHOUT CW's name on it, on T-nation, would you say "hey, great program, that belongs on this website"? Or would you say "what is this crap?"

I've seen many routines that didn't look as effective, but looked similar that I've said I could see this working if followed through with.

People can want to look like whoever they want to look like. I could care less. But for a "bodybuilding" website to publish a "training routine" for women to look like women who don't particularly look like they train with weights is beyond comprehension. Pics of Britney Spears at 17 or 18, pics of Jaime Pressley (who swims and does ballet, maybe Pilates), and Jessica Simpson (who's training routine for her body is found HERE OF ALL PLACES (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-07-27-simpson_x.htm))...let me just say, when USA Today scoops CW by over a year on a "training routine", maybe it's time to rethink the basis for the article...

You might not've mentioned the women CW discussed, but others did. And that USA Today link offers no insight on how to design a routine to achieve similar results, or why you would do what Jessica did. It merely states she did lots of leg work and her trainer helped sculpt her upper body and kept her on a very strict diet. Nobody reading that article could construct an effective workout based on it.

And if Pressly does swim and do ballet/pilates, it's just further proof that a woman can achieve what many consider an ideal physique without hitting the iron in the same way you or I might.

What next? Maybe for the guys an article on how to achieve that "Leonardo Dicaprio" look? The "Patrick Dempsey" physique? Maybe a "Johnny Depp" training article? Equating this article to the "Brad Pitt Fight Club" articles is ridiculous - at least Pitt looks like he lifted weights (which he did to prepare for the role).

Maybe... if that was what most guys aspired to. But they don't, and you know that, so it's sort of a poor analogy. The women mentioned in CWs article have bodies that many women would kill to have, and guys would kill to have in their beds. Does it matter that these women don't "look like" they lifted weights? No. What matters is the end result. If women can achieve the bodies they want without having to perform exercises they don't enjoy, why shouldn't they? Sure women on JSF are different, but not many women I know are looking to develop the physiques of women figure competitors or bodybuilders. And as a guy, I don't want the ones I'm dating to either. Personal preference of course, but I'd place a hefty wager I'm not in the minority.

I think there is a real societal "media message" evident in the popular magazines that states "men should workout hard with heavy weight" and that "women should workout with light weights, and not as hard"...when was the last time you heard a man grunt in the gym? A woman? When was the last time you saw a man positively fail a rep? A woman? How often do you see a man use more weight than he should? How often do you see a woman use less weight than she's capable? The "serious" training websites should be the ones who blast this bullshit to smithereens, not perpetuate it.

This is all true, and nowhere did CW say "women, make sure you're not working too hard. Whatever you can lift, subtract 10%." He actually prescribed some very similar rep/set schemes that I did on one of his programs geared towards men.

Just my 0.02. Please check out my pics of female PL babes in Justitia's clean & press thread. Thank you.

I just did, and the only one who I'd give a 2nd look was Jan Morello. Furthermore, nothing about her physique (viewable in the picture there at least) said "I lift heavy weights". I'd definitely say "she must work out" if I saw her, but I wouldn't think she did much different than any other girl I know with a body like that.

(..and I have done 100 rep sets I think. Have to check old training diaries. Did them before the existence of T-nation.)
I wouldn't doubt it, as I am confident you are very experienced and knowledgable in training. I wasn't saying it was a revolutionary idea. Just that the high rep scheme does have its place.

I think I can begin to understand. Either karatetricker explained it pretty well, or I've had some time to calm down.:p

I do know that I've helped numerous females come up with weight training programs that would be suggested by women here. You know how many stuck with it? Zero. At first I thought it was none of them were dedicated enough. However, I soon realized that's not it at all, because if you stick them into a Curves or Ladies Workout Express, they don't miss a day. Most women don't want to go to the gym to do deadlifts, military presses, bench press and barbell rows. That's why I've never had to ask any woman how many sets she's got left on the bench or with the barbell. A program like what Chad suggests or what you'd find in Shape, or what have you, is much more along the lines of something a woman is actually going to stick with because they enjoy it, and afterall, that is the key.
I can't argue with that; that's what Butterflyer said too.

It's not like he's some clown that's clueless. The guy has years of experience, a Masters (or is working on it) in the field and countless clients to speak of. We may wish to believe we know all there is to know, but it's hard to argue with a guy who has that much under his belt
That's what's so annoying about the article. He's presenting it as a body shaping article (that's how I see it, anyway) and I really feel it's inadequate in that respect. I think it's irresponsible for a strength training professional to recommend to women such relatively low loads. I can't say for sure that his program doesn't work, but I did many times try a routine very similar to that one with very unsatisfying results. Had he come from a different training type background, I wouldn't have the same complaints about his suggestions. Still, I can't shake that feeling that he's trying to lead a revolution in getting women away from the heavy lifting equipment, and that saddens me.

I just did, and the only one who I'd give a 2nd look was Jan Morello. Furthermore, nothing about her physique (viewable in the picture there at least) said "I lift heavy weights". I'd definitely say "she must work out" if I saw her, but I wouldn't think she did much different than any other girl I know with a body like that.


Well, Jan Morello is the only one in her 20's. (Priscilla Ribic and Jen Rey are mid-30's.)
Very briefly, the section I bolded says it all. Women can in fact lift very heavy weights and not look like monsters/they lift heavy weights. See Natalie Woolfolk's pic (action pic, no glamour shot sorry). 139 lbs, clean and jerk 264 snatch 220 something. Strong girl. Lithe physique - certainly no more "muscly" than any of the girls in the article. Yet VERY STRONG...and 22 years old ;) . (Now ask yourself how many times you read an article on women's weight training and see an accompanying pic like Natalie's...)

Perhaps T-nation is looking to be a "fitness" website as opposed to a "weight-training" website...but I am not surprised at all that many serious women weight trainers disliked the article.

(Enuff. I have posted more in the women's forum lately than in the strength training forum. Time to get out of the ladies' hair...)

Women can in fact lift very weights and not look like monsters/they lift heavy weights.
I was going to post this in Justitia's thread, and still might.

Most of the females here don't look like monsters to me either: http://www.defrancostraining.com/pics/pics_female.htm

:)

You all are in a heated debate, and there's another debate over on JPFitness about the article (http://forums.jpfitness.com/showthread.php?t=20232). Chad Waterbury has actually posted in that debate to help clarify some things about the workout, and explain better who the workout is designed towards.

Here's what he said:
For those who are interested, here are a few important points about my SFT article:

1. I was in no way, shape, or form implying that all females should want to look like the girls I mentioned. But many of the females who've hired me over the years want that type of look. Without the right genetics, most will never achieve that look, but with the right training methods, they can make the most of what God gave them.

2. The article is not meant to imply that females shouldn't lift heavy or do ab work. My point was that hard-training females can overly develop certain muscle groups if they don't customize their training to their goals. Doing a zillion crunches and side bends everyday will thicken the waist of 90% of the females out there. This is not a fallacy, I've seen it for the last decade (more on this later). If they want to build the muscles that most guys typically want to build, that's how they should train. If they don't want to build up those muscles they shouldn't emphasize them in training.

3. My job is to take intermediate-advanced people to the next level. I don't work with overly fat females who've never trained before. For them (the beginners), that article is irrelevant.

4. I train everyone from MMA fighters to figure models to powerlifters. So my articles are aimed at many different audiences. The SFT article is aimed at a market that T-nation doesn't typically cater to, so I'm not surprised that a backlash on my name ensued. But I'm still bemused by the fact that so many people took personal offense to it. After all, if I write an article on improving the bench press, and if someone isn't interested in improving their bench press, they don't bash me on a public forum. But many females are bashing the article because it's not the look they want, or it's not the way they want to train.

5. In my world, overly developed muscles on females is a real problem. Many world class trainers for female movie/TV stars have mentioned the same things I mentioned in my article. If a girl like Jennifer Garner gets too bulky, she won't get a role. So her training must not emphasize muscle groups that tend to make females look less feminine (upper traps, obliques, vastus medialis, etc.) Again, that article is not for women who have never trained.

A female who frequents T-nation hired me at the beginning of the year to prepare her for a figure competition. When she came to me her proportions were completely out of whack because her trainer didn't know what in the hell he was doing. Her shoulders were too narrow, her waist was too wide, and her thighs looked like pencils. He had her doing endless side bends, crunches, and very little posterior chain work. So I had to reshape her figure with many of the same exercises/methods I mentioned in the article. I made her shoulders wider, her waist thinner, and her hips/butt wider. That gave her an hourglass figure and she won the competition. I encourage anyone who's interested to read her comments on the following post. Her handle is AG1:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1306564On a side note, JPFitness may be the best fitness forum on the web (sorry John!). It's frequented by Berardi, Waterbury, Cosgrove, Schuler, Hartman, and a slew of other CSCS's that are highly respected.

In my world, overly developed muscles on females is a real problem.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

That's just ridiculous.

How would you feel if I said:

"Overly developed intellect in males is a real problem. If my garbage man gets too smart, he won't pick up my garbage anymore."

I like creative ways to get fit, and I like reading about fitness. I think if that Waterbury article had been written with a female audience in mind, and he hadn't been so mean to Britney Spears*, I would not have had to read it 3 times to appreciate the information.:) But I guess you don't write with a female audience in mind when you post an article to t-nation, huh?

*I usually don't mind celebrities being used as examples, but people seem to get very harsh when they don't look absolutely air-brushed perfect or that perfect size. That does make me kinda mad. I thought she looked good in the other 2 pictures used there, just a slightly different kind of good.

Well, Jan Morello is the only one in her 20's. (Priscilla Ribic and Jen Rey are mid-30's.)
Very briefly, the section I bolded says it all. Women can in fact lift very heavy weights and not look like monsters/they lift heavy weights.
Ahh yes, and that my friend goes right along with the point I've been trying to make. I in no way meant that women shouldn't lift heavy weights. Hell, I have that much more respect for ones that do. The point I was making was that lifting heavy weights and/or lifting the way most of us guys do is not the only way a woman can train in order to get a body that most people would consider ideal (it's not the only way a guy has to train either -- look at gymnasts). My point was merely that what CW gave as a routine to help develop a physique like one sported by Jessica or Jamie would certainly do the trick, probably as effectively as whatever other routine you'd insist a woman use. The difference? His routine is one that most women are more likely to stick to because it's not intimidating, it focuses on the legs, glutes and hips - areas women want to work on - and it is probably more enjoyable for women not into throwing the iron around, which from my experience is most.

"Overly developed intellect in males is a real problem. If my garbage man gets too smart, he won't pick up my garbage anymore."


What you said doesn't make any sense. A better example would be "If my garbage man weighs 600 lbs, he will lose his job because he can't perform it to an acceptable level."

Like it or not, actors and actresses are picked primarily for looks and acting skills. If a woman is too bulky, she will lose out on acting roles because its not what the general populace likes. As an example, my friend (who works out regularly) finds Jessica Biel ugly because of her muscle tone, but he likes Jessica Simpson. Enough people like him and she'll lose out on roles to other actresses that fit the popular body style more. For CW and other trainers, if their client loses out on a role due to the figure the trainer helped develop, then the trainer will lose the client AND get a bad reputation. That's bad for his career, too. If his clients come to him and aspire to look like Britney or Jessica Simpson, then he'll work with them to get that look. If they want to be a power lifter or body builder, he can help with that too.

Maybe you are taking more issue with what the majority of his female clients want than the fact that he's pointing it out and how he helps get them there?

Maybe you are taking more issue with what the majority of his female clients want than the fact that he's pointing it out and how he helps get them there?

I think that gets to part of what's controversial here. Is it that the goal he addresses is offensive to some women (even leaving out the tone of the article)?

Is it that some women would like to have small waists without any serious muscle definintion or big strength gains something that is different in general goal than a lot of the women here that are seriously into fitness and health for their own benefits, not strickly the asthetics?

Is it the vainity implied here in some women that is upsetting?

In reality, lots of women DO have those goals and couldn't care less if they can deadlift their body weight. Is that good? IMO, it's their business, just like it's the guy's business who only does curls and bench that he has no legs.

Interesting discussion, which is why I wanted to see what people thought on this one. :tucool:

His routine is one that most women are more likely to stick to because it's not intimidating, it focuses on the legs, glutes and hips - areas women want to work on - and it is probably more enjoyable for women not into throwing the iron around, which from my experience is most.

First, people should train (a) in line with their goals, and (b) in line with their tastes. Contrary to the perception of some, I am not a raving, drooling madman screaming “put some weight on the bar and squat!!” (at least not always ;) ) – if someone wants to run, swim, do Pilates, yoga, whatever…have at it. I have no problem with someone doing a workout routine to look like Jaime Pressley consisting of swimming and Pilates. But is T-nation the place for an article on it? This is what I mean when I say perhaps the focus is shifting to a “fitness” website as opposed to a “weight-training” one – or is that just for the women? I don’t expect to see a squat periodization routine on Runner’s World; I don’t expect to see a marathon training program on Swimmer’s World, and I really don’t (or didn’t) expect to see a workout similar to Shape Complete with Jaime Pressley reference! (http://www.shape.com/getfit/7825) on T-nation…Whatever. Not my website.

Of course, CW now says that routine is for “intermediate-advanced” women trainers – certainly not the types I’d think would be intimidated by throwing the iron around. Maybe I missed that in the original article - that this was not for beginners, and was specifically for intermediate-advanced women trainers who needed more bulk in certain areas and to detrain others, and this was a short-term program...

What I think gets the women's hackles up is the article does not read as a professional trainer article - with the accompanying pictures, it seems more written for guys in the manner of “pssst…train your woman this way…” - or is just written as a way to throw in gratuitous ass shots of Pressley and Simpson and anonymous roller skate girl. It also tends to implicitly perpetuate the myths associated with female weight training. I’ve been around T-nation since it started (many moons ago), and it has always been the awkward teen unsure of how to respond to the females around it…and the resulting environment can be difficult for women athletes and weight-trainers. It is walking a razor's edge to simultaneously take female trainers seriously and treat them as peers and equals while at the same time parading around shots of girls in butt-floss. Many serious, knowledgeable female athletes and trainers have left T-nation because of frankly the at-times juvenile pre-pubescent attitude of the place (many just ignore it)…okay, it’s good for shiggles, occasionally some good info, but does T-nation aspire to be a “serious” strength training source? Ask yourself, how much "eye candy" you find in the Elite/Westside articles, JOPP, PLUSA, MILO, the Weightlifting Yearbooks, etc...and how much you see in your average magazine rack BB magazine? :confused:

I think a similar response could be gotten from guys if CW wrote an article on how to get a Brad Pitt Fight Club physique.

Not something most of the serious guys on this site would aspire to, lean but unmuscled.

However, there are lots of guys (and newbies that come here) that have that Fight Club aspirations. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it isn't a look I'd want. Nice starting point to add muscle to, but not what I want to be.

I'd ventured to say most all women reading this site for the first time or Waterburys article on t-nation are much more interested in the goals that Waterbury had in mind.

I'd ventured to say most all women reading this site for the first time or Waterburys article on t-nation are much more interested in the goals that Waterbury had in mind.

Actually I'd venture that those type of women would never even make it to this site or a site like T-Nation.

Personally I think he's getting the backlash (and the backlash from the women here) is because it is a physic type that we would like to see go away. The current desire for a teenage body by middleage women just tends to make me ill. Not to mention the nutrition and lifestyle one has to lead to maintain a look like that, frankly just sucks! Watching women starve themselves and train badly all in the name of looking like the women mentioned in the article.

While I'll bye the fact that his workout might just give the women he works with the body they are working for, I guess it saddens me to see a site like T-nation starting to publish the stuff. I would rather see trainers looking for ways to design a women's body in such a way that it can look sexy and strong at the same time and then working with client to help redefine a women's definition of what looks good. If he needed a workout such as this for his celebrity clients.. fine, just wished he kept it to himself.

Actually I'd venture that those type of women would never even make it to this site or a site like T-Nation.

You're likely correct, which is probably why the article almost seemed geared towards men who would "pass on" the info to women they knew or trained.

Personally I think he's getting the backlash (and the backlash from the women here) is because it is a physic type that we would like to see go away. The current desire for a teenage body by middleage women just tends to make me ill. Not to mention the nutrition and lifestyle one has to lead to maintain a look like that, frankly just sucks! Watching women starve themselves and train badly all in the name of looking like the women mentioned in the article.

While I'll bye the fact that his workout might just give the women he works with the body they are working for, I guess it saddens me to see a site like T-nation starting to publish the stuff. I would rather see trainers looking for ways to design a women's body in such a way that it can look sexy and strong at the same time and then working with client to help redefine a women's definition of what looks good. If he needed a workout such as this for his celebrity clients.. fine, just wished he kept it to himself.

The rest of this doesn't make much sense. Just because as many women as I have fingers want the current physique considered ideal to go away, certainly does not mean an article explaining how to attain it is unwarranted when there's far more people who would appreciate such knowledge.

This is an amazingly interesting thread. The debates are bringing out all kinds of thoughtful issues. It usually is very nice to have a "firm" conclusion... that is, a "that's that" feeling. But there is nothing conclusive in the debates on this thread and that seems to make it all the more informative. I just want to express my appreciation for everyone for chiming in and chiming in again...

And of course, as usual, thanks for maintaining the civility that is our customary standard here on JSF.... :)

I am sorry I don't have anything myself to add to the discussion but I wanted to express my appreciation as a listener. :)

I don't think women having different goals is the problem. I don't personally disapprove of anyone else's fitness goals.

The tone of the article *is* the problem. It's very difficult to separate that out. It is actually not written properly for what he later named as his intended audience.

Why potentially offend the female trainers in the audience instead of presenting this as a solution for working with certain clients? They have to work with the same clients, after all.

If he had been more clear early on about his intentions that it was more aimed towards the trainers of figure competitors (or at least clients who were intermediate-advanced in training) that had gotten too "blocky" or built too much muscle in places they didn't want it, there would be no problem. There was too much stuff about how he can tell what a client wants from the clothes she wears, etc., comparisons of the different stages of Britney Spears, plus pickin' on Britney-- it's all very distracting. Way too much unrelated info.

It was almost like this should have been 2 different articles. :confused:

He may have written it in a disjointed fashion, or in a hurry, but if he paid attention to the comments he received on t-nation, he would know how to edit and rewrite it so that it can reach its intended audience much more easily.

Just because as many women as I have fingers want the current physique considered ideal to go away, certainly does not mean an article explaining how to attain it is unwarranted when there's far more people who would appreciate such knowledge.Training with the goal to resemble Jessica Simpson is an unhealthy goal, psychologically, and strength-wise. That's why I want it to go away.

Training with the goal to resemble Jessica Simpson is an unhealthy goal, psychologically, and strength-wise. That's why I want it to go away.

Where is that smilie of the guy eating popcorn??

:p popcorn:

Training with the goal to resemble Jessica Simpson is an unhealthy goal, psychologically, and strength-wise. That's why I want it to go away.
I understand why you and others here wish it to go away. However, it's irrelevant in the context of this discussion (the article being aimed at the majority of females) since you're in a very small minority outside of some fitness forums.

I also don't see how training with the goal of looking like Jessica Simpson is unhealthy, in any way - physically or mentally. Unless you're born with it, which some but not many people are, you're going to have to work your ass off one way or another to achieve her physique, just as she has. Just as I would have to in order to achieve the ideal physique in my opinion - Ryan Reynolds (since Blade III of course).

If there was an article for guys aimed at the majority, I'd place a hefty wager it'd be how to build a body like Brad Pitt from Fight Club. On these forums, an article like that would get laughed at. Everyone would go off about how he was so small and scrawny. Sure, he wasn't The Rock, but he looked great to your average person and again, it's what appeals to the majority outside of this small internet fitness world.

Just my $.02


EDIT: Hopefully it's understood this is merely a friendly debate. I'm sure we'll all have to agree to disagree at some point, but I never mind a good argument/discussion. :)

I also don't see how training with the goal of looking like Jessica Simpson is unhealthy, in any way - physically or mentally.

The Difference Between Women and Men
Using these forums as an example, take a look at the comparisons between advice given to women who are already in the ideal weight range according to BMI versus advice given to men who are already in the ideal weight range.

Women who are near the lower end of the normal weight range are encouraged to approach the underweight level, or dip down right into it, whereas men who are right in the middle of the normal weight range are told that they should bulk up lest they look like a concentration camp victim. These are purely aesthetic recommendations, but I think it's necessary to look into potential nutritional deficiencies that may occur due to these tendencies.

Especially if CW's diet plan is based solely on macronutrient ratios, and not on certain food groups, the amount of calories he is recommending women to consume in order to reach these goals could easily result in health deficiencies.

What you said doesn't make any sense. A better example would be "If my garbage man weighs 600 lbs, he will lose his job because he can't perform it to an acceptable level."

If a woman is too bulky, she will lose out on acting roles because its not what the general populace likes.
An actress who has overly developed muscles won't lose a job because she is incapable of performing it, but rather because some person has arbitrarily decided that she looks undesirable. I'd be happier if the world's vision of a healthy woman was the factor to shift, rather than expecting women to shift their dietary and exercise programs to meet unreasonable standards.

(I realize It's not gonna happen, I'm just saying "I'd be happier.")

An actress who has overly developed muscles won't lose a job because she is incapable of performing it, but rather because some person has arbitrarily decided that she looks undesirable.

I agree she can perform the job, but a studio exec doesn't think that way. They say "Female X can get us 50% better ticket sales because men find her sexier than female Y" To a studio exec, X can perform the job they want (maximize profit of a movie), and Y cannot. The same standard applies to men in Hollywood, albeit to a lesser degree. Both sexes who don't exhibit the maximum sexiness to bring in money will still get roles, but not the blockbuster headlining roles they wanted.

Maybe the garbage man can still perform the job at 600 lbs, but he may be really slow and take frequent breaks.. That wouldn't be acceptable for his bosses, and he'd lose the job to somebody else.

I agree that the body image of women is all screwed up due to Hollywood and would like it to be healthier, but unfortunately its not going to happen and CW and other trainers have to look out for their own bottom line.

Unless you're born with it, which some but not many people are, you're going to have to work your ass off one way or another to achieve her physique, just as she has.

Please. Let's be honest here. Jessica Simpson has the body she has because she is all of 26 years old, she is in an industry that selectively discriminates for that kind of body in the first place, and her breasts at least she has because she spent the $$$ on them. What amazing physical transformation has she undergone?

I would much rather admire the physiques of people who truly worked their ass off for it - with decades of training (Bill Pearl, Dave Draper, Frank Zane, hell Jack Lalanne still going strong, Norb Schemansky competing with the young bucks in his '40s, Albert Beckles, Vince Taylor, etc.) or by achieving remarkable physique changes (many members of this website) or women who maintain their health and fitness into their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond - than admire the physique of a young woman who looks the way she does NOT because she "works her ass off" but because she is young (and has not had kids) (and the fake breasts don't hurt as far as making the waist look smaller).

(ETA: In all fairness, I'd rather have a girl trying to look like Jessica Simpson than Nicole Richie, the Olsen twins, or any of the other "Twiggy Redux" girls that look like they need to eat a sammich. So knock on wood...)

[U]
Especially if CW's diet plan is based solely on macronutrient ratios, and not on certain food groups, the amount of calories he is recommending women to consume in order to reach these goals could easily result in health deficiencies.

This would be true if you followed that diet forever. I have followed his Waterbury Summer Project, which had us on a diet that limited total carbs to be lesser than 100 gms. Additionally, there was a caloric deficit since this was a cutting plan. It allowed one cheat day per week. The diet combined with the training worked wonders. However, it was good only for the eight weeks. Any more time on the diet, and I wouldn't have enjoyed it.

If people are viewing this is a one workout and one diet forever, then it could lead to health deficiencies. As someone said: everything works but for a limited time. Chad's plan will for a specific goal.

This would be true if you followed that diet forever.

If people are viewing this is a one workout and one diet forever, then it could lead to health deficiencies. As someone said: everything works but for a limited time. Chad's plan will for a specific goal.
Bingo.

Jessica looks incredible for a few months out of the year while shooting a movie. The rest of the year, she might still look pretty good, but likely not quite as perfect. It's unreasonable for any woman to expect to maintain that look long term.

I think any training program that you can't follow long term is lacking, possibly this one even moreso than others. I don't want to go back and read that article again, but did he specifically say this was a short term thing?

I expect there were some long term gains from WSP for you. What kind of long term gains could be expected from this feminized version? Not nearly the same as you would get from a BFL program, I would think.

Still, I can't shake that feeling that he's trying to lead a revolution in getting women away from the heavy lifting equipment, and that saddens me.

That implies that women are doing heavy lifting NOW, which I just don't see at my gym, except for the ones with PT's who've set up programs for them.

Training with the goal to resemble Jessica Simpson is an unhealthy goal, psychologically, and strength-wise. That's why I want it to go away.

The problem is, you just can't tell people anything. When I was young(er) and stupid(er) I had people try to explain that I should be working out effectively and eating properly to achieve my goals. But until I saw John's transformation from average to excellent, I was a whiny, excuse making little turd-puppet with all sorts of misconceptions. Now I see the same thing among younger guys I know. They don't have a clue how to get the results they want, and they don't want input. So I figure there's no sense getting wound up about it, they'll learn, or not.

The Difference Between Women and Men
Using these forums as an example, take a look at the comparisons between advice given to women who are already in the ideal weight range according to BMI versus advice given to men who are already in the ideal weight range.

Women who are near the lower end of the normal weight range are encouraged to approach the underweight level, or dip down right into it, whereas men who are right in the middle of the normal weight range are told that they should bulk up lest they look like a concentration camp victim. These are purely aesthetic recommendations, but I think it's necessary to look into potential nutritional deficiencies that may occur due to these tendencies.


I'm disappointed if that's the case. I dig muscular gals. Softball players, soccer players, rugby players.

An actress who has overly developed muscles won't lose a job because she is incapable of performing it, but rather because some person has arbitrarily decided that she looks undesirable. I'd be happier if the world's vision of a healthy woman was the factor to shift, rather than expecting women to shift their dietary and exercise programs to meet unreasonable standards.

(I realize It's not gonna happen, I'm just saying "I'd be happier.")

This lies solely with women themselves, though. Women have the power to decide that they will not follow every ludicrous trend of fashion and fitness that some famous chick sports. They have the power to not seek to please shallow lascivious males who want the airbrushed centerfold from whichever magazine. The power not to foolishly compete with other women whose genetics, age, or lifestyle give them what's considered to be a more appealing look.

The corollary would be the guys who "Don't want to get big, just more lean and toned," because they want to look like Orlando bloom, Brad Pitt, or some underwear model that they think gets more chicks than them. I think that's pretty silly, myself, but I can't change it, so I don't worry about it.

Edit: This isn't the "Shoot down Guava" post, it's just that these thoughts of yours were the ones I found most engaging in this thread.:)

Edit: This isn't the "Shoot down Guava" post, it's just that these thoughts of yours were the ones I found most engaging in this thread.:)
:lol:
Actually, yours and karatetricker's posts have been most effective in demonstrating to me the other side of the argument.

It's true.

In more than a couple of threads where the woman's BMI is lower than 20, they've been mainly encouraged to keep losing weight to look more lean. In more than half a dozen threads where the man's BMI is over 22, he's been mainly discouraged from losing weight to look more lean, and instead encouraged to build more muscle. (A BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is normal. It is the same for both sexes.)

If the "concentration camp" analogy is correct, men are encouraging women to look like concentration camp victims. I say men specifically, because the female members don't usually chime in on the male threads saying "Yeah, bulk up!" and the female members don't usually agree in the women's threads that they need to continue cutting.

Chad knows of the physical benefits of increased muscle mass - better strength, better posture, more available calories for added nutrients, etc, etc, etc, and I feel it's irresponsible of him not to pass on these benefits to one particular gender. I'm disappointed that instead of designing non-weight bearing exercises for his clients, that he doesn't instead teach women that building strength does not add unsightly muscle.

In all fairness, I'd rather have a girl trying to look like Jessica Simpson than Nicole Richie, the Olsen twins, or any of the other "Twiggy Redux" girls that look like they need to eat a sammich. So knock on wood...)

Nicole Richie seeks medical help for thinness (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/27/people.richie.reut/index.html)

Socialite Nicole Richie, whose rail-thin appearance in recent photos has stoked tabloid speculation of an eating disorder, has checked into a treatment facility to address her inability to gain weight, her publicist said Thursday.

"She is working with a team of doctors and specialists whose focus is nutrition," spokeswoman Nicole Perna said in a statement. "It is important to Nicole that she achieves this goal in a healthy way as this is not a treatment for an eating disorder."



...coincidence? Or is Nicole Richie seeking the advice of Dr. Cajun, undergoing "Big Eating Training" at his secret compound? :eek: :confused: :whistle:

...learning the following tools to take her from scrawny socialite to normal human:
1. Sandwiches (proper term: sammich ) should be minimum 2" thick. Thickness of meat must be greater than that of the bread. Sammiches may only be eaten in whole increments, one, two, three, or more. Never "half".
2. Steaks come in pound increments, not ounces. One pound, two pound, etc. 4 oz. is called a "snack" or "something in between meals", and may be carried around in your pocket or purse for when you are waiting in line to get in to Paris Hilton's party.
3. Chicken breasts and pork chops only come in complete increments. Eat one if you are "watching your figure". Two if you are feeling "a mite hungry", and three or more if you are "hmmm...a bit hungry".
4. Brazilian steakhouses = nice places to nosh. Goal is to at least eat a weight in meat equivalent to the weight of your purse, or those giant freakishly over-sized sunglasses.
5. When people say you should drink several glasses of water a day, by "water" they mean "milk". Skim is like decaf coffee - why? 2% is for trying to slim down. Whole is for watching your figure. See if you can buy milk with fat-added at one of those upscale supermarkets.
6. Three meals a day is an absolute BARE MINIMUM!!
7. Stop reading these rules and EAT.....

Nice post cajunman! :lol:

Iceweasel, I'm surprised, I don't think I usually disagree with you, but here, I think I do- to a point.

This lies solely with women themselves, though. Women have the power to decide that they will not follow every ludicrous trend of fashion and fitness that some famous chick sports. They have the power to not seek to please shallow lascivious males who want the airbrushed centerfold from whichever magazine. The power not to foolishly compete with other women whose genetics, age, or lifestyle give them what's considered to be a more appealing look.

I don't know that I agree. I do agree that women can and do exercise the power to not follow "every ludicrous trend of fashion and fitness" however I don't think that the vast majority realise that they actually have this power. I feel like it's a bit to trite to say this, and I'm not blaming Hollywood (although I am, at the same time) but I don't think that it's necessarily the case that women can choose to seperate themselves from an unrealistic image that is plastered throughout the media. It's difficult to look at an impossibly thin celebrity and say "no, I don't have to try to emulate that". I think that we (as people, because it happens to men, too) are so heavily socialised to think that we ought to fit a certain image, that we struggle to seperate ourselves from that image and take action.
I think that the people on this forum are, for the most part, the exception, and perhaps that's why women on this board take issue with the article. The premise of the article is for CW's clients that want that image, I appreciate that, but at what point does the onus shift from the individual, to not subscribe to this Jessica Simpson/Fight Club image, to the source that propogates it?

I ought to clarify, I don't think any of this is wrong, or bad, or whatever- it's not reflective of my goals, in fitness or in life in general, but that's not really the point. I'm not trying to suggest that it's burger joint's fault for the obesity epidemic, but surely there is a connection, right?? So similarly, I'm not saying we don't have a choice to not try look like the latest hot celebrity, but how many people realise that there is an alternative (present company excluded)??

Otherwise, really intersting discussion! I appreciate all the perspectives in here- they're all really interesting!