http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459341

Maybe I'm lazy...I don't like overcomplicating things. Granted, that program isn't hard to follow, but what's wrong with simply doing compounds with low reps and high intensity, increasing regularly? That's basically what this workout is, but there's an extra degree of complexity thrown into it. Does anyone think this offers superior gains to warrant the "ok..it's day 13, so that must mean I do 65% and 5 reps, instead of 80% at 10 reps" business?

IMO it's something to consider or take elements from for fairly advanced trainees who are no longer seeing gains from simple linear progression.

But of course there are many training strategies out there. Everything will work for a while but not for ever and this is no exception.

I found it interesting, but for me there was not much to incorporate into my periodization or for me to change my training philosophy. But then again I never actually follow a prescribed training program. Only use the ideas and philosophy when designing my routine.

I found it helped me break some ruts. My bench improved some.

It's also only a 4 week or so program. Not the sort of thing you do forever.

It depends on how long you've been training and how much progress you've made. At the beginning, you can just add weight to the barbell to make progress, but, as your body matures, intensity, volume, etc. needs to be cycled to continue to see progress. As long as you can make gains in the simplest possible way, you should work in that manner. You're right that there's no need to overcomplicate things just for the sake of it. (Likewise, oversimplification should be avoided as well.)

ABBH is a fairly simple program as things go. Kinda a beginners program, but one that intermediates can still do well with.

The RM rules are basically to make sure you are progressing in a reasonable manner through the program and have targets to hit. You don't just go through the motions without progressing or selling yourself short on where you can be.

I found that set off the shelf programs taught me a lot about what I was capable of doing as a beginner/intermediate. However, you can make progress by lifting like you say, you just need to make sure you're balancing your movement patterns to head off imbalances and the injuries they can cause. For instance, balancing bench work with pull work volume, or quad dominant movements with similiar or higher posterior chain work. That's quite a lot of things to watch out for as a beginner.

Not to mention what chic said above about cycling and variability.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459341

Maybe I'm lazy...I don't like overcomplicating things. Granted, that program isn't hard to follow, but what's wrong with simply doing compounds with low reps and high intensity, increasing regularly? That's basically what this workout is, but there's an extra degree of complexity thrown into it. Does anyone think this offers superior gains to warrant the "ok..it's day 13, so that must mean I do 65% and 5 reps, instead of 80% at 10 reps" business?

Nothing necessary about it. Lots of stuff works. But I did get a kick out of this bit:

"Chad, youforgot to include direct arm work in that program!"

No, I didn't. The best increases in upper arm hypertrophy are achieved through compound exercises such as dips, chin-ups, bench presses and rows. Therefore, no direct arm work is prescribed in this program.

It's a strange phenomenon. Every trainee who's been around the iron game for more than a year knows that big arms are built from compound exercises, but people are still convinced they need direct arm work! So I'll give you the choice. I don't recommend the direct upper-arm work option, but I know some people will add direct arm work anyway, so I might as well make sure they do it right.

I like Waterbury's stuff, I tried ABBH and it did wonders for me 2 summers ago, my first real permanent gains came from that. It is hard but very satisfying.

Sometimes for us beginners it is helpful to have a routine spelled out that works instead of making one's one high-intensity, compound heavy workout.

What I think you're calling an extra degree of complexity is really just a system that uses more than one form of volume progression. As you said, doing compounds and increasing regularly is really what the program is all about.

You have basically 4 different workouts that are broken up by movement plane and muscle groups. Two of the workouts use rep progression (from 10x3, to 10x4, to 10x5) and the other two use load progession for equal reps. That's about it.

The list format for the program probably makes it look more complicated than it really is. When you organize the program into a table, it's really straightforward. Don't compare day 1 to day 3; compare day 1 to day 9 and 17.

You can download a PDF and spreadsheet of the workout HERE (http://216.17.22.84/...CW_Programs.zip) (exercises listed are examples)

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459341

Maybe I'm lazy...I don't like overcomplicating things. Granted, that program isn't hard to follow, but what's wrong with simply doing compounds with low reps and high intensity, increasing regularly? That's basically what this workout is, but there's an extra degree of complexity thrown into it. Does anyone think this offers superior gains to warrant the "ok..it's day 13, so that must mean I do 65% and 5 reps, instead of 80% at 10 reps" business?
There's nothing wrong with doing compounds and increasing regularly, so long as you are making progress. Many trainees, especially beginners, don't know how to properly utilize progression. A program like ABBH lays it out for you, and I can attest to its effectiveness. It's just one of thousands of ways one can train.