View Full Version : "Muscle Revolution" by Chad Waterbury
Symbiont
Dec-12-06, 10:45 AM
http://www.t-nation.com/img/prod_icons/muscleRev.jpg
Anybody familiar with this book? I'm a big fan of the "Waterbury Art" myself, so I just placed an order for this book. I've used Waterbury programs in the past with superb results, this book has basicly all of his training programs up to date, and the 12-week Total Strength Program, which I think is his most advanced program to date etc. etc. // etc.
I'm just curious // has anyone ordered it // read it // planning to order it // any thoughts about it ?
Chad Waterbury's interview about it (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1353217) & Some reviews (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1367231)
Ok, now die. :good:
mr popular
Dec-12-06, 04:04 PM
how much progress did you make on his other programs?
i might consider getting it if people are actually gaining serious strength and mass with it...
Symbiont
Dec-12-06, 05:35 PM
how much progress did you make on his other programs?
:dumbell:
When I was seriously bulking up (well, I still am), I gained around 22 pounds in six months with Total-Body-Training (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=508031) (TBT) program. Also, I had very notable strength gains using it. I like it alot, it's very versatile cycling program, yet simple. You should try it out.
:dumbell:
Tsumaru
Dec-12-06, 05:40 PM
My friend has the book, but I don't think he's followed any of the programs specifically. Wait...he's a member of this forum. Maybe he'll post about it. =P
I'm thinking of stealing it off him for a read, too. I'm quite fond of CW's stuff. Though generally I work with his principles, not following the programs strictly.
chobos bak?
Dec-13-06, 04:07 AM
i geuss it looks ok i need a new program
I'll read it once someone PMs me with a link to the eBook.
Ashtar
Dec-15-06, 02:44 PM
Chad Waterbury says split routines only work for people on steroids.
compleks
Dec-15-06, 02:49 PM
That's an odd statement. Taken out of context I'm sure.
Well obviously. His pro-full body arguments are logical enough and fairly obvious and non-controversial.
Ashtar
Dec-19-06, 10:29 AM
I think fullbody arguments make sense because they're not as confusing as split routines. Not really out of context, he says it right out. Split routines don't work for normies. I guess it depends on what work he's thinking they're for.
I have the E-Book. Definitely worth a read.
That's an odd statement. Taken out of context I'm sure.
Chad Waterbury: Total body workouts are superior for anyone with average genetics who's trying to add more than ten pounds of muscle across their entire body.
A total body workout will recruit more total motor units; it trains the body the way it's designed to work (as a whole unit and not segmental structures); and it allows someone to train with a higher frequency. And that's why many of the early bodybuilding greats advocated total body sessions. They advocated them for the same reason I do: because they work.
But as soon as steroids came into play, everything changed. Many bodybuilders realized that steroids allowed them to follow body part splits and still gain plenty of muscle. Since people are often like water — they search for the path of least resistance — it's no surprise that body part splits became popular.
Any workout comprised of heavy squats, deads, presses, and pulls poses a formidable challenge. Have you ever spent time around professional bodybuilders and took note of their fitness levels? Many can't climb a single flight of stairs without gasping for breath, so it's no surprise that they often have an aversion to total body workouts.
Elite bodybuilders typically don't follow total body programs because they don't need to. They don't need to add significant amounts of muscle across their entire body; they typically only need to build up specific areas. That's why body part splits work for them. And they don't need the fitness levels of someone like a MMA fighter, rugby player, or strongman competitor. How many of the top strongman competitors follow body part splits? I'll tell you: none.
I'll pose another question: How many coaches who predominantly work with natural trainees advocate body part splits? Very few. How many coaches who train drug-using bodybuilders with incredible genetics advocate body part splits? Most of them. That truism alone should tell you something about the impact that steroids and genetics have on the issue.
Chad Waterbury is full of shit, a fact that is reflected in his flabby physique, haha.
How many of the top strongman competitors follow body part splits? I'll tell you: none.
http://marunde-muscle.com/kirit.html
How many top body builders forego the compound lifts that you are about to justify Pudzianowski's training schedule with? I'll tell you: none. The reason people do body part splits is because their training is sufficiently damaging to each body part to require days of rest. It's easy to do the same lifts every day when your volume is only a tenth of what it would be on a body building schedule.
Chad Waterbury is full of shit, a fact that is reflected in his flabby physique, haha.
He has a reply for that too. I'll see if I can find it haha.
What are your stats anyway? Do you even work out or are you one of those "all mouth, no muscle" types?
Waterbury: My stats? Are you referring to me standing or lying horizontal?
Just like the "who do you train?" question, I don't think my aesthetic stats matter. I'm a performance coach and that's my market, so my athletic stats might matter to some people. And no one has the ability to intuitively know how well I can perform by simply looking at me.
Second, whether I can deadlift 700 pounds or 400 pounds isn't as important as knowing how much I improved my initial performance. Bill Kazmier said the first time he trained the deadlift he pulled something like 500 pounds. And this was as a teenager! Now imagine if he'd been strength training for the following six years and his deadlift performance went up to 600 pounds. If he told people on the street that he could deadlift 600 pounds, they'd think it's outstanding. But it wouldn't be outstanding because his theoretical six-year gain from baseline would've only been 20%.
Now, compare that to a guy who could only pull 185 his first time, and who improved his performance up to 400 pounds after 18 months of training. Which is more impressive?
Now, let me apply a similar thought process to my physique. Why are my aesthetics so important? What's most important is how much I've improved over the 6'3", 165 pound weakling that I started with.
And what if I got sick and was bedridden for three months? Would I be a less effective coach after I got out of the hospital because I lost muscle and gained fat while sick?
The only measurements that are relevant to a coach is how big his brain is and what kind of results he gets with his clients. What's not important is how big his biceps are.
If I positioned myself as a bodybuilding coach, my aesthetics might play a bigger role because a bodybuilder wins or loses based on how he looks, nothing more. Athletes don't win fights, games, or medals based on how they look. Does Fedor look like a bodybuilder? Hell no, but he's one of the baddest mothers to ever compete in mixed martial arts.
I have a friend who watches UFC fights but he really knows nothing about training and performance. After the second Ortiz/Shamrock match, he said to me, "How could Shamrock have lost? He looked much more ripped than Ortiz!" That's a scary thought process right there.
I've spent the last few years using myself as a crash test dummy. I've fluctuated between many different weights and body fat percentages. My highest weight was around 290, but my body fat was in the mid to upper teens. I simply wanted to know how it felt to be that big. But it wasn't long before I realized that I didn't like carrying around that much weight.
Now I'm at my ideal weight and body fat percentage and I maintain a lean physique year-round. And most important, my strength, stamina, and mobility are at an all-time high.
So tell me mattt, just how much did he improve!?
He basically just dodges the question completely.
I've never taken any steroids. I don't need to. I know how to train. If I wanted twenty more pounds of muscle, I'd have it. But I don't because my current proportions and fitness levels allow me to excel in the sports that interest me — mainly fighting.
Hahaha
http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/06-193-training/image001.png
That's basically what I looked like last year. :(
Chad Waterbury can do whatever he wants
mr popular
Jun-23-07, 10:45 PM
I don't want a physique like Chad Waterbury. haha therefor I take practically none of his advice on training.
I think he's a quack.
dark_knight_will
Jun-24-07, 02:18 AM
chad waterbury seems like a fag. besides those new to lifting make heaps of improvement in their lifts no matter wat they do because the body goes from doing nothing to lifting
rock_ten
Jun-24-07, 04:29 AM
I don't want a physique like Chad Waterbury. haha therefor I take practically none of his advice on training.
I think he's a quack.
do you not think its important what his clients look/perform like?
Personally I wouldn't give a shit what a coach looked like or even performed like. All that matters is how good he can make me look and perform.
Using the former as the sole predictor of the latter is fairly retarded.
There is no best program.
rock_ten
Jun-24-07, 06:32 AM
There is no best program.
That's sufficiently ambiguous to be true.
But for any one person/lifestyle/goals/other factors, there must be an ideal "best" training scheme.
Or do you mean that "different things work for different people/lifestyles/goals/other factors".. in which case, it really goes without saying, and no one here claimed otherwise.
Ashtar
Jun-24-07, 07:05 AM
Total body workouts are superior for anyone with average genetics who's trying to add more than ten pounds of muscle across their entire body.Lol what a bunch of BS. There's no evidence at all that this works better for people with 'average genetics'. Genetics get whipped out nowadays as a sales pitch. People fail at ANYTHING and go 'oh it must be my genetics' and then someone sells them a 'genetic-specific' whatever.
A total body workout will recruit more total motor units; it trains the body the way it's designed to work (as a whole unit and not segmental structures); and it allows someone to train with a higher frequency. And that's why many of the early bodybuilding greats advocated total body sessions. They advocated them for the same reason I do: because they work.Further BS. First off, a full-body exercise (like a squat) recruits more motor units because it uses more muscle groups, that's all. The body was not 'designed' at all, people who argue like something is designed is an idiot. They need to say specifically: our bodies' structure probably responds in a healthier fashion to tasks humans have traditionally done and evolved adaptations to. Training those tasks is also more suited to using our strength in the real world.
In a single muscle group, there's no evidence that using full body routines versus splits lets you train more of that muscle, or more frequently. It's pulled out of the air to make the idiots seem like experts. Chad Waterbury writes for T-mag and has other great articles, and when you're in a great place and have done great stuff people tend to worship you, and then you can start BSing whether you know it or not. Christian Thibadeau, for example, wrote some good articles, and then no one but me called him on his TOTAL BULLSHIT 'reverse squat' with a lat pulldown, which is the biggest BS in history.
But as soon as steroids came into play, everything changed. Many bodybuilders realized that steroids allowed them to follow body part splits and still gain plenty of muscle. Since people are often like water — they search for the path of least resistance — it's no surprise that body part splits became popular.That, or we actually have means to isolate nowadays, unlike the past.
Any workout comprised of heavy squats, deads, presses, and pulls poses a formidable challenge. Have you ever spent time around professional bodybuilders and took note of their fitness levels? Many can't climb a single flight of stairs without gasping for breath, so it's no surprise that they often have an aversion to total body workouts.Right, because bodypart splits never use squats, deads, presses or pulls. Chad = idiot. The whole 'bodybuilders lack endurance' argument is the sort that Matt Furey uses too.
Elite bodybuilders typically don't follow total body programs because they don't need to. They don't need to add significant amounts of muscle across their entire body; they typically only need to build up specific areas. That's why body part splits work for them. And they don't need the fitness levels of someone like a MMA fighter, rugby player, or strongman competitor. How many of the top strongman competitors follow body part splits? I'll tell you: none.This has a point, but it's different from his previous attempts to make points that fail utterly. A lot of newbies want to build specific areas too, and you actually can build muscle using a bunch of isolation exercises. It's just tough because when you're a noob, especially with isolation exercises, jumps are dramatic and you can't microload as well as you can with fullbody stuff that can go heavy. Furthermore, why mention sports at all? Yeah, using things requiring stabilizations and sports-like movements help sport, but it has nothing to do with building muscle. Muscle adapts to stress, it's a lot simpler than motor skills.
I'll pose another question: How many coaches who predominantly work with natural trainees advocate body part splits? Very few. How many coaches who train drug-using bodybuilders with incredible genetics advocate body part splits? Most of them. That truism alone should tell you something about the impact that steroids and genetics have on the issue.Further ignorance, you don't know who does or doesn't use steroids these days. You only know who's big, who's strong, that sort of thing. You can still cycle to avoid tests in a natural competition the same way they do in sports, and a lot of naturals might want to compete against druggies to see how they fare.
How much have you improved, Tyciol?
benmoore
Jun-24-07, 07:57 AM
CT over CW anyday!
Professional bodybuilders have relatively poor aerobic endurance because they weigh almost 300lbs, inject trenbolone, and their cardio usually just consists of brisk walking; not because they use split routines.
As usual I didn't bother reading Tyciol's post, but could someone post some examples of Chad Waterbury's clients?
I did 2-3 months of total body training 3 times a week in addition to a calorie surplus and it went well, I could increase my lifts and gained more than 5 kg of relatively lean mass, still was about 8 % bf. But I guess I just would not do it again, because if your lifts like the squat and deadlift are "high", in my case 2,1 x bodyweight squat and 2.7 x bodyweight for the deadlift, at least I have a hard time doing that 3 times a week. I can manage it, but increasing those lifts isnt going to be easier with that frequency.
rock_ten
Jun-24-07, 10:27 AM
I did 2-3 months of total body training 3 times a week in addition to a calorie surplus and it went well, I could increase my lifts and gained more than 5 kg of relatively lean mass, still was about 8 % bf. But I guess I just would not do it again, because if your lifts like the squat and deadlift are "high", in my case 2,1 x bodyweight squat and 2.7 x bodyweight for the deadlift, at least I have a hard time doing that 3 times a week. I can manage it, but increasing those lifts isnt going to be easier with that frequency.
You needn't be training heavy all the time. Your lifts are above average but nothing that's going to stop you training them very frequently. If those are 1RM's, then you'd only be training with like 60-85% of them, most likely.
A guy I've been talking to recently went from 505-585 deadlift in ~6 months, he deadlifted 5 days a week, mostly using sets of 5 (two per day), working up from about 50%1RM over the course of about 15+ workouts until doing heavy triples, then dropping back to light weights and working back up...
Each time you start light and build up momentum towards your previous bests, then push past them for a few workouts, then drop back and do it again.
Just an interesting example. I doubt 5 days per week is the best way to go when weights are heavy, I'd probably cut frequency as the weights increased. But it can certainly be done - just reduce volume-per-workout to compensate.
Just don't injure yourself and do the exercise frequently and you will get stronger
As usual I didn't bother reading Tyciol's post, but could someone post some examples of Chad Waterbury's clients?
I despise questions like this for a myriad of reasons. First off, who I'm training, or have trained, really means nothing.
There are many coaches out there who found a golden goose, and it wasn't because of anything other than pure luck. So these coaches often reference this golden goose in every conversation they have. But the fact of the matter is that these same coaches have rarely produced champions other than the goose. A commercial health club personal trainer with nothing more than a GED and a weekend fitness certification could've taken Arnold to the top because he was one such goose.
Second, imagine "Mr. X" comes to me and is considering hiring me as his coach. Now, if he asks me for my clientele resume, how relevant is it to what Mr. X needs? Just because I took Mr. Y to the top doesn't mean that Mr. X is the same animal. That's why many bodybuilding coaches have failed to successfully train strength athletes. And that's why many strength coaches have failed to successfully train bodybuilders.
It's important to hire coaches who understand the multi-faceted aspects of physiology and biomechanics, and who've worked with people like yourself. For a natural, skinny-fat 19 year old to hire a professional bodybuilding coach who only works with steroid-infused, genetic freaks would prove to be a lesson in futility. And that's why it's important to hire coaches with plenty of training experience in various realms.
I know many of the top coaches, and I can tell you that the ones who get the best results are the ones who've worked with the greatest variance of fitness levels. These coaches get the best results because they understand how to overcome the limitations that virtually everyone has. A coach who's only worked with elite athletes is rarely the best coach.
My first highly-conditioned client was a Muay Thai fighter, but I spent most of my early years coaching people with average genetics. I had to pull out every trick in the book to get those average people to excel. So when the time came that I could work with elite people, I'd developed a deep bag of tricks. This never would've happened if I hadn't worked with average non-athletes.
Third, I've never positioned myself as a bodybuilding coach. I'm a performance coach who discovered effective ways to build muscle by first seeking to improve a person's strength performance. I take that knowledge and apply it to competitive bodybuilders whenever it's necessary, but it's not my market.
Finally, if I listed every competitive bodybuilder or fitness professional that I'm currently working with or have worked with, what would that prove? Nothing. There are coaches who've paid high-level athletes to say they've been trained by these same coaches. How sad is that?
A coach who goes around bragging about who he trains is nothing more than an insecure person who knows he doesn't have the knowledge to back up his contrived status. Focusing on people instead of principles is a sure sign that a coach only has one trick in his bag. Plus, a professional coach respects a client's privacy, and I hold tight to that policy.
What impresses me most is when I see a trainer do extraordinary things with an ordinary person. What doesn't impress me is seeing a coach do ordinary things with an extraordinary person.
LMAO
That's sufficiently ambiguous to be true.
But for any one person/lifestyle/goals/other factors, there must be an ideal "best" training scheme.
Or do you mean that "different things work for different people/lifestyles/goals/other factors".. in which case, it really goes without saying, and no one here claimed otherwise.
There is no best program.
You needn't be training heavy all the time. Your lifts are above average but nothing that's going to stop you training them very frequently. If those are 1RM's, then you'd only be training with like 60-85% of them, most likely.
A guy I've been talking to recently went from 505-585 deadlift in ~6 months, he deadlifted 5 days a week, mostly using sets of 5 (two per day), working up from about 50%1RM over the course of about 15+ workouts until doing heavy triples, then dropping back to light weights and working back up...
Each time you start light and build up momentum towards your previous bests, then push past them for a few workouts, then drop back and do it again.
Just an interesting example. I doubt 5 days per week is the best way to go when weights are heavy, I'd probably cut frequency as the weights increased. But it can certainly be done - just reduce volume-per-workout to compensate.
I know what I´d have to do if I would want to lift more frequently, but I really prefer lifting heavy than more frequent with less volume.
rock_ten
Jun-25-07, 04:42 AM
I know what I´d have to do if I would want to lift more frequently, but I really prefer lifting heavy than more frequent with less volume.
Those are two different factors you mentioned that don't exclude the possibility of each other, so it doesn't quite make sense.
You mean you prefer lifting less frequently with more volume per workout?
whatever, anyway - do you employ any kind of cycling of your loads or do you push near your limits every time and manage to progress?
I wish someone would bury chad in the water...
Waterbury - The only measurements that are relevant to a coach is what kind of results he gets with his clients.
Critic - May I see some of your clients transformations?
Waterbury - I despise questions like this for a myriad of reasons. First off, who I'm training, or have trained, really means nothing.
It's not a muscle "revolution" anyway ha ha, it's a muscle devolution.
http://trickstutorials.com/forum/showpost.php?p=321133&postcount=1
Those are two different factors you mentioned that don't exclude the possibility of each other, so it doesn't quite make sense.
You mean you prefer lifting less frequently with more volume per workout?
whatever, anyway - do you employ any kind of cycling of your loads or do you push near your limits every time and manage to progress?
As you mentioned before if you´re trying to increase your deadlift with deadlifting you´d have to make a compromise with the load and the volume. Lets just say you´re doing it more frequently than once a week. So maybe 2 or 3 times a week. You told me there is no problem in making progress and deadlifting very frequently, which I actually did not question. I´m just saying that at least I have a hard time doing this. This is because I prefer just lifting heavy. I know what I´d have to do if I deadlift 2 or 3 times a week to make progress. That´s what I´ve done already several months, but I just dont like it that much. And yes, right now I´m pushing near my limits in every workout(roughly: decreasing the number of reps with increasing weight and having 3-5 working sets with 1-3 reps), though the last weeks werent as good as expected.
DeeJay
Jun-25-07, 09:49 AM
so e-book please?
another fine avatar emery
linkrjh
Jun-25-07, 09:54 AM
So as not to affront any of the rules of these boards, could somebody PM me 'regarding' the e-book?
rock_ten
Jun-25-07, 10:09 AM
And yes, right now I´m pushing near my limits in every workout(roughly: decreasing the number of reps with increasing weight and having 3-5 working sets with 1-3 reps), though the last weeks werent as good as expected.
How long do you find yourself able to keep training like that before you burn out/go stale? What happened in the last few weeks? Perhaps you're already over-reached and need to drop right back and cycle up again?
Actually I have a strong feeling that right now I wont make any progress if I keep going like this.
rock_ten
Jun-25-07, 01:58 PM
Actually I have a strong feeling that right now I wont make any progress if I keep going like this.
Don't ignore that feeling. That's what I've been doing for most of the last 4 years.
Returning to progress should be a simple matter of dropping your weights (and total load) way down, and working back up over a period of probably several weeks, then spend a few workouts pushing onto new ground. 3-4 weeks cycles are preferable to me, personally. The actual structure of it all is completely adjustable, of course. Do you ever periodise or cycle your training, or have you progressed linearly up to now?
Ashtar
Jun-28-07, 12:59 AM
mattt: very little, but I'm not trying to coach or give people advice or sell books on how to do things.
I just know that there are a lot of people who give great advice, and that their advice makes a hell of a lot more sense than other people's, and understand basic physics and leverege to know that the lat pulldown 'reverse squat' is the most idiotic exercise in history.
mr popular
Jun-28-07, 05:42 AM
Haha Chad Waterbury sucks. I hate all his little clones.
The guy is full of fucking excuses for why he doesn't churn out impressive athletes with his OH SO INCREDIBLE METHODS OF TRAINING
And to top it all off, the guy's physique is completely unimpressive to begin with.
WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE THIS MAN'S ADVICE, EVER?
anfeyd
Jun-28-07, 01:24 PM
Haha Chad Waterbury sucks. I hate all his little clones.
The guy is full of fucking excuses for why he doesn't churn out impressive athletes with his OH SO INCREDIBLE METHODS OF TRAINING
And to top it all off, the guy's physique is completely unimpressive to begin with.
WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE THIS MAN'S ADVICE, EVER?
Do you have anything saying that his programs suck or that his athletes arent impressive? I'm not arguing im just curious.
Do you have anything saying that Jews aren't demon spawn?
Do you have anything saying that Jews aren't demon spawn?
Noone needs to write articles to prove that, though.
chicanerous
Jun-29-07, 12:20 AM
I have this book and it is useless for my goals.
Christian Thibaudeau, for example, wrote some good articles, and then no one but me called him on his TOTAL BULLSHIT 'reverse squat' with a lat pulldown, which is the biggest BS in history.
Elaborate.
Noone needs to write articles to prove that, though.
That's right
I didn't know Chad Waterbury before and didn't read the last few pages here. But from what I read in his cited interviews, he just seems to evade any question that could possibly need him to show and/or prove his so called and self-claimed achievements.
Ashtar
Jun-29-07, 03:32 PM
Elaborate.
I posted a thread on bodybuilding.com a while ago, with links to the t-mag article. It used to be the first thing that came up googling 'reverse squat' but not anymore *roots through forum search* Here you go:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2700701&highlight=reverse+squat
chicanerous
Jun-29-07, 03:52 PM
I posted a thread on bodybuilding.com a while ago, with links to the t-mag article. It used to be the first thing that came up googling 'reverse squat' but not anymore *roots through forum search* Here you go:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2700701&highlight=reverse+squat
So, what's the part that's bullshit?
It's a great "ab movement" and it does work the hamstrings effectively enough if you anchor the feet and descend deep. Have you tried them? You are right that doing them without a weight that is sufficiently heavy is idiotic.
I do them for the ab and hip flexor benefit, not the hamstrings though, and I do not think of it as any type of effective antagonist for a squat. Then again, when I read the exercise name, I just see it as contextualizing the motion, not describing a function for the exercise.
Ashtar
Jun-29-07, 04:19 PM
You wouldn't be able to work the hamstrings effectively this way. Look at the picture of the woman doing it. It looks like she only has about 60 pounds. The only thing this exercise will actually work is your arms. It doesn't matter how deep you go, or how unnecessarily you anchor your feet.
I agree it can work your abs a bit if you're flexing forward, but it won't work your hip flexors or hamstrings to any significant degree. Basically the further down the body you go, the less work is being done. The limiting factor is always going to be how much you can hold doing a lat pulldown behind the back, which is probably always going to be too little for good stimulation.
The best example is holding that sort of position with a chin bar and wearing ankle weight/holding dumbbell on top of foot, that's all the resistance the hams/hip flexors are actually getting. The lat pulldown bar is being pulled down by your bodyweight, not your legs. You may as well just do knee raises on a chin bar.
Hey Tyciol I negged you!!!!!!! haha!
Ashtar
Jun-29-07, 04:21 PM
Thanks, that puts me one step closer to my goal :D
compleks
Jun-29-07, 04:35 PM
Have you tried them?
He probably spent hours analysing the movement and biomechanics, and even running some equations on it's effectiveness.
Because actually testing the exercise would take far too much effort...
Ashtar
Jun-29-07, 06:06 PM
Yeah I tried them, it's the kind of stuff you do fooling around with lat pulldowns in a gym. I used way more weight than the woman in the pic and felt nothing at all in the legs. Have you guys tried them to defend them? Yeesh.
That being said, you don't need to try them to know they're fekkin useless, a simple second analyzing the biomechanics proves it. You don't need calculations, it's obvious.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.