Which website is more useful to you & your training?
In fairness to T-mag/T-nation (whatever the hell their name is now), they have posted a considerable amount of useful information over the years, and for free. Granted, some of their training information is crap, but that’s true of any periodical. If you don’t believe me read the NSCA publications or (God forbid) bodybuilding magazines and you’ll see what I mean. I think T-mag’s average article is far superior to other bodybuilding publications.
On that note, please keep in mind that T-mag and CF.com are aimed at different training demographics. T-mag is still primarily a bodybuilding site.
Unfortunately, when it comes to publishing training articles on a regular basis, one has to overcome the fact that there really isn’t much new under the sun. Therefore, T-mag has been in the habit of marketing new flavor-of-the-month gurus from time to time to keep things interesting. I don’t think they have much choice in the matter. However, they have a problem if they invest too much in a particular guru. It makes it more difficult for them to cut ties (like they did with Nelson Montana) if problems arise (like with John Davies).
Before any heads spin off, that was supposed to be a humorous vote.
Don’t look at me, I didn’t vote for them. I just said they’re not all bad.
Flash,
T-mag used to be a good publication and good source of training material. Its not a coincidence that this was same time the publication revolved around CF and CP. But I could care less what they did in the past, I care what material they are posting now. And for the last few years, its been sub-par. You have guys like Waterbury, Lowery, Shugart, etc. writing terrible articles that a lot of people see and think these guys know what they are talking about only because they write for t-mag. Its sad how poor the actual content has become and now they have to deflect the shit they are putting out by degrading others who actually have a true knowledge and understanding of training and nutrition.
I’m just venting, nothing personal Flash.
what you say, i think, refers to the comments made by Flash that they have to work this way because they need “new” info; some below-standard articles will come out of this; compared to some other sites, there is SOME info in there
PS have a look for CF’s articles, for example; are they still there? 
ok fair enough, but when 90% of the new articles coming out are pure shit, you need to draw the line somewhere.
and yes, they still do have some CF stuff up on their site.
well, i am not following that site very closely, but if this is the case, then, yes, why bother anyway… 1 out of 10 is never worth it…
I agree. Their stuff has been pretty boring the last 2-3 years, and I really haven’t paid much attention to them since this site came up. But as Nick correctly pointed out, that was my point about trying to consistently churn out “new” ideas when quite frankly there aren’t any. I think real advancement comes from marginal refinements in understanding and applying well known methods, which is more suitable for a forum discussion like on this site. In fact, I think the forums are the most informative part of T-mag’s site.
My comments were intended as an overall assessment, since their archives are still available, and that’s where the good stuff is.
yea i agree with all of that. maybe i’m just disgruntled because I bought the Davies football book when i was young and naive! The reason I bought the book was because he wrote for T-mag. If you’re a newbie to training and you come upon that site, from the outside it looks like you’re getting quality training info. In reality, you’re not. There are very few articles that are good and the good articles are written by the same 2 or 3 authors. For example, the Neanderthal series by Cressey and Robertson is fantastic…the problem is, quality articles like this are RARELY published.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
yes, that’s right; i was going to say that; you learn much more from the forum and real-world situations, rather than the “every month a new” “theory” articles…
what you said Flash about going back to “basics” and refining/applying accordingly is very true!
Chris T is still there. If you see any good material there, it’s worthwhile- and the info is presented free, so what’s the problem. The trick is to develop a filter so you can tell what is reasonable and what is horseshit. This is true EVERYWHERE, not just at T-mag and not just in the field of sports.
No, no, no, it goes:
“Fool me once John Davies, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Try to fool me again with your damn lies you mother f#%@er and I’ll rip your f#%@in’ head off and sh!t down your neck!”
Or at least I think that’s how it goes…
Apologies for the potty mouth.
I like Chris T but I think some of his articles haven’t really been up to par lately either.
And Charlie, I know NOW what is usually BS and what isn’t, but it took me a good 2-3 years (until I found this site and elitefts) to figure all that out!
SpeedKills,
nice try!
it doesn’t rhyme though…
try again!
Sorry, my dad was the Series Chief Drill Instructor for the Marine Corps at Parris Island and I’ve memorized the DI scene in Full Metal Jacket. If you haven’t heard it, you had better make sure you do before you die!!
The problem Charlie is what I like to call the Excessive Shit Deficit (ESD) which, not to be mistaken with Zatsiorsky’s ESD, implies that the amount of useable information pales in comparison to the tremendous volume of shit output. Accordingly, we are left with many ‘information sources’ that are deficient due to their tremendously high output of unuseable shit. Thus, in order for these shisters to decrease the Exessive Shit Defecit they must increase their output of useable shit.
Laughing Out Loud!
That is some funny shit right there!
So, to sumarize, we need a formula.
If S (shit) + I (useful information) = A (audience approval), and A is a constant, then as I drops, S must rise.
Corollary:
If S rises to the level of ESD and A remains constant, then the makeup of A has changed (A= ^IgC [ignorance coefficient])