http://www.atomicathletic.com/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=73
Good read about curls.
[quote]Sabastian525 wrote:
I have added two measured inches to my arms just doing weighted chinups and dips 2x/week, so yeah, I’m gonna keep doing it until growth stalls. THEN maybe I’ll consider preacher curls or triceps kickbacks, pinky out, to “balance out the pectorals” or whatever.
-Sab[/quote]
That’s fantastic, would you like to share some pictures with us?
The routine looks fine. Just keep your diet and sleep in line and you’ll make decent gains.
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Would it be reasonable to say to yourself, okay, I only have 45 minutes to train, 3x a week, so I’ll just not do any exercises for my thighs since they will get “hit” from the walking i do in and out of the gym.
Sadly, I’ve actually heard people saying this or something similar (‘I go jogging so I don’t have to train legs’).
In the given context, we’re talking about two different things, though. Walking doesn’t hit the thighs with sufficient intensity to promote strength and size gains. Heavy presses, chins and rows on the other hand do with regard to the biceps and triceps.
Apart from that, legs are a larger muscle group and the relevant exercises (e.g., squats, deads etc.) also play a far greater role in athletic performance as well as whole body strength and mass development. Again, apples and oranges.[/quote]
See, the thing is that in a lot of cases chins and rows don’t hit the biceps with sufficient intensity to promote strength and size gains either. Or, if they do, then they don’t provide sufficient stimulus to the muscles of the back. Yes, it’s possible to do arm dominant chins and rows, but you’re then going to have to also perform back dominant movements as well. Not really any more efficient when you think about it.
Also, legs don’t necessarily play a far greater role in athletic performance. How about arm wrestlers? Would you say that legs would be more important for optimal performance for them? Or what about rock climbers, or gymnasts who specialize in the rings or pommel horse?
Now I know what you were trying to say. But the accuracy of that statement really depends on the context.
Also, just so no one accuses me of avoiding leg work, I don’t. I was simply trying to get people to realize that things aren’t always as black or white as some might have us believe (not saying this is you Michael).
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Would it be reasonable to say to yourself, okay, I only have 45 minutes to train, 3x a week, so I’ll just not do any exercises for my thighs since they will get “hit” from the walking i do in and out of the gym.
Sadly, I’ve actually heard people saying this or something similar (‘I go jogging so I don’t have to train legs’).
In the given context, we’re talking about two different things, though. Walking doesn’t hit the thighs with sufficient intensity to promote strength and size gains. Heavy presses, chins and rows on the other hand do with regard to the biceps and triceps.
Apart from that, legs are a larger muscle group and the relevant exercises (e.g., squats, deads etc.) also play a far greater role in athletic performance as well as whole body strength and mass development. Again, apples and oranges.
See, the thing is that in a lot of cases chins and rows don’t hit the biceps with sufficient intensity to promote strength and size gains either. Or, if they do, then they don’t provide sufficient stimulus to the muscles of the back. Yes, it’s possible to do arm dominant chins and rows, but you’re then going to have to also perform back dominant movements as well. Not really any more efficient when you think about it.
Also, legs don’t necessarily play a far greater role in athletic performance. How about arm wrestlers? Would you say that legs would be more important for optimal performance for them? Or what about rock climbers, or gymnasts who specialize in the rings or pommel horse?
Now I know what you were trying to say. But the accuracy of that statement really depends on the context.
Also, just so no one accuses me of avoiding leg work, I don’t. I was simply trying to get people to realize that things aren’t always as black or white as some might have us believe (not saying this is you Michael).
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Agreed. Do you have any suggestions or set/rep schemes for arm work that I could perform in under 10 mins?
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Sorry, but if you feel chinups stimulate your bicep to grow enough, then you aren’t doing them correctly.
And theres nothing wrong with doing dips for the triceps, but do you truly believe both your triceps and your pectorals are going to develop in balance just from this one exercise?
To the people in this thread saying you don’t need to do any direct arm work, I would challenge you to show us what impressive arms you have developed from this philosophy.[/quote]
What a silly post! Have you never seen an olympic gymnasts arms? I am pretty sure they don’t spend their time in the gym doing kickbacks and preacher curls.
I would challenge you to actually try some chin up’s then come back and report, infact search for this one: Gymnasts Extended Set Chinning Program, it’s from Poliquin. I doubt you’ll have the balls for it.
To the OP, you should factor in some incline press into your routine perhaps split with chins (I sometimes do this and it works well), you can even do this in a commercial gym since you only really need to set-up the incline bench for yourself and you can jump in on the chinning bar.
This is what Sentoguy was alluding to and what I’ve asked myself a handful of times here… If you are doing chins for your arms aren’t you robbing your back of some stimulation? Let’s say an exercise requies 100 “units” to be performed and for the purposes of this only the biceps and back are doing work in the chin. Let’s say a normal chin(for the back) is 80 units back, 20 biceps. If you shift the focus onto your arms and shift it to I don’t know 50 back and 50 biceps, are you really helping yourself? You can’t get the best of both worlds, you know the old saying “jack of all trades”? That’s how I tend to view people who want to do back movements for their biceps. Pretty good at hitting everything, but not particular great at hitting anything.
I hate the gymnast example. They train for hours upon hours for years and years to develop that sort of physique. Someone doing chins 2-3 times a week for a few sets is not going to get the same benefits as somehow who might spend 2-3 hours on the rings a day.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Also, legs don’t necessarily play a far greater role in athletic performance. How about arm wrestlers? Would you say that legs would be more important for optimal performance for them? Or what about rock climbers, or gymnasts who specialize in the rings or pommel horse? [/quote]
Although I agree that athletes should tailor their training to fit their sport, I would argue that everyone who lifts weights should train their whole body (while targeting specific muscle groups). Anabolic hormones (specifically testosterone and growth hormone) are released by strenuous resistance training, and more muscles being exercised means more anabolic hormone. Training your legs with squats, for example, dumps a huge amount of anabolic hormones into your system (compared to, say, bicep curls), and all these hormones will “spill over” and cause growth all over the body (or at least to the other parts being trained). So, even if you don’t specifically want big legs, training for them is going to help you get bigger and/or stronger wherever you really do need it.
Also, asymmetric training not only leads to unbalanced physiques, it increases the risk of injuries and I think it ultimately sabotages results. A lot of people believe that the body will only tolerate a certain amount of asymmetry before it slows down or stops growth altogether, which is why some trainers can’t get out of plateaus until they bring lagging muscles up to par.
I’m not against focusing on certain parts of the body, but that’s not the same as neglecting certain muscle groups. I’m not saying that not doing curls is neglecting arms, because chins and rows hit the biceps pretty well, but I can’t think of a situation when avoiding leg work is actually going to benefit anyone.
[quote]sgran002 wrote:
Agreed. Do you have any suggestions or set/rep schemes for arm work that I could perform in under 10 mins?[/quote]
There are a couple of options.
- Super sets, you could superset a biceps exercise (any variation of curls would work, as would arm dominant pulls) with a triceps exercise (either a triceps isolation or a triceps dominant push like close grips, reverse grips, vertical torso dips, etc…).
Perform a set of one exercise and then immediately perform a set of the other. Depending on goals, time, recovery abilities you could either then rest (say 1 minute) and then repeat the process for the desired number of times, or you could just keep going back and forth until the sets are completed.
- You might try a HIT approach. In other words, do a couple warm up sets (you don’t need much rest between these as they shouldn’t be taxing, just used to prepare the body for the heavier set, nor do you need to do full sets of repetitions), rest a minute or so, and then perform one all out set to failure of the chosen biceps movement. Then repeat for the triceps movement.
Time allowing you could even add an intensity technique to this (rest-pause, drop sets, forced negatives, etc…)
There are probably others but there are two ideas.
You could also decrease your volume on day 1. You really don’t need to do 5 sets of 8 reps to see progress. 3-4 would be plenty and that would give you time to do some sets for other muscle groups (that day seems to be completely lacking in pulling musculature involvement, which may be the idea, just mentioning it). For instance on that day you might want to do a post-fatigue format where you’d do dips and then immediately follow that with a set of a triceps exercise (or chest or shoulders depending on what muscle group you felt didn’t get enough stimulus).
Once again, just some ideas.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]MarcusPhaeton wrote:
Although I agree that athletes should tailor their training to fit their sport, I would argue that everyone who lifts weights should train their whole body (while targeting specific muscle groups). Anabolic hormones (specifically testosterone and growth hormone) are released by strenuous resistance training, and more muscles being exercised means more anabolic hormone. Training your legs with squats, for example, dumps a huge amount of anabolic hormones into your system (compared to, say, bicep curls), and all these hormones will “spill over” and cause growth all over the body (or at least to the other parts being trained). So, even if you don’t specifically want big legs, training for them is going to help you get bigger and/or stronger wherever you really do need it.
Also, asymmetric training not only leads to unbalanced physiques, it increases the risk of injuries and I think it ultimately sabotages results. A lot of people believe that the body will only tolerate a certain amount of asymmetry before it slows down or stops growth altogether, which is why some trainers can’t get out of plateaus until they bring lagging muscles up to par.
I’m not against focusing on certain parts of the body, but that’s not the same as neglecting certain muscle groups. I’m not saying that not doing curls is neglecting arms, because chins and rows hit the biceps pretty well, but I can’t think of a situation when avoiding leg work is actually going to benefit anyone.[/quote]
Hi Marcus,
I completely agree with you, nor was I trying to suggest that one should neglect leg training. If that’s what you took my post as saying then I apologize for my lack of clarity.
I mentioned at the end of my post that one should not avoid leg training, and that I myself do not do so either. I was only trying to clarify that leg size/strength isn’t necessarily more important to upper body size/strength in all cases.
Of course, this is the “bodybuilding” forum and really the whole concept of sports performance really doesn’t have all that much relevance in that context. IMO bodybuilders (those who’s primary goal is maximal muscular bodyweight) should not neglect training any body part. Now what that means is a somewhat individual matter and one must find what movements work best for them as well as what they can and cannot get away with as far as training goes.
Although 4 days per week, Poliquin provided a time-constrained program in a Question of Strength a long, long time ago. Here it is:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=459365
Hope this helps.
I don’t think doing direct arm work is necessary.
Just about every upper body exercise I do (bench press, rows, military, chin ups) hits my biceps and triceps.
It’s a waste of time to focus on arms. If you lift the compound lifts heavy and often and eat, your arms WILL Grow!
[quote]wooldog wrote:
I don’t think doing direct arm work is necessary.
Just about every upper body exercise I do (bench press, rows, military, chin ups) hits my biceps and triceps.
It’s a waste of time to focus on arms. If you lift the compound lifts heavy and often and eat, your arms WILL Grow![/quote]
Yes, perhaps. But will they ever reach the level of arm development of someone who does their heavy compounds and directly trains their arms? We’re not talking about sports here where performance is the primary goal. We’re talking about bodybuilding, where building muscle is the primary goal.
You may say that YOUR arms grow from doing only compound lifts, but I could name on one hand the number of elite bodybuilders who neglect direct arm training. Meanwhile the number of bodybuilders who train their arms directly (both elite and just advanced) is staggering.
Therefore, anecdotal evidence clearly suggests that direct arm work is necessary (for all but the most genetic elite in terms of arm musculature) if one ever wants their arms to reach their potential.
Do you feel that your arms are comparable to those of Arnold, or Sergio, or Scott, or Priest? All of those guys trained their arms directly, even though they all had incredible arm genetics as well. If so then congratulations, you’ve got some phenomenal genetics. If not, then maybe just maybe paying attention to those who have come before you and actually succeeded in the activity that you seek improvement in might be a good idea. 
I’m not a “bodybuilder”; my arms aren’t comparable to an Arnold. But I don’t want them to be. I’m trying to gain some nice overall size, but I wouldn’t want to be that big.
I’d rather pack muscle on in other areas.
[quote]wooldog wrote:
I’m not a “bodybuilder”; my arms aren’t comparable to an Arnold. But I don’t want them to be. I’m trying to gain some nice overall size, but I wouldn’t want to be that big.
I’d rather pack muscle on in other areas.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone need worry about waking up one day with arms the size of a professional bodybuilder just because they added a few set of curls on top of compound movements. It takes years of training (not to mention steroids) to get arms anywhere near that big, and some people are simply incapable of it.
Trainers satisfied with their biceps development from chins and rows have no reason to curl. But realistically, the rewards from throwing in a few sets of curls are probably justification enough for most people to do them. Adding an inch of muscle to your arms is hard, and if a reasonable amount of curls get you closer to goals, then it’s a no-brainer. Just from the standpoint of muscle-confusion and changing thing up, curls make sense at least some time, don’t they?
I think beginners just starting out should focus on increasing their numbers on the big lifts. That alone will provide decent gains in the arms.
However there comes a point where this is not sufficient and direct arm work is necessary.
The advice that I see passed around this site without a semblance of thought in my opinion is a one way ticket to set up many beginners to fail because of lack of success.
Yes new people should focus on basics, no one is going to argue that, however focusing on the basics at the exclusion of hitting muscles that aren’t hit adequately with them will develop a somewhat odd physique. If a person trains to look good(ie bodybuilding forum) then not many people care if they grew 2 inches on their quads if they barely had any improvement on their arms shoulders or chest. Maybe the “T-boys” will give praise but not the girl on the street or whatever the motivation is for the person training. The basics for many like myself tend to develop an odd physique. Large traps legs and ass, smaller arms and shoulders. That doesn’t feel good and it doesn’t look good to most.
Nobody knows each others genetics. Myself I barely need to do any triceps work at all because they get hit adequately from pressing movements…score one for the compounds only crowd. However they would be “good enough” from my chest and shoulder pressing, but I don’t want good enough triceps, I want big footballs hanging off my arm and do triceps dominant exercises as well. My biceps DO NOT get adequate work from rows and chins and require direct work(even special exercises) or else they stay the same… score one for the do isolation exercises where neeeded crowd. Someone who didn’t know this about me can’t tell me rows and chins will give me good biceps(although they will try) because they just don’t know and assume everyone develops the same way.
Some are giving advice without the slightest thought as to age experience injuries etc and don’t mind. If the OP has a bulging disk and all he hears is SQUATS AND DEADS!!! then we aren’t really helping him are we? The burden falls on both sides, the person asking questions to give some background information, goals, etc… but the people giving “advice” should also have some responsibility in giving advice that falls within the OPs goals and with what other information they give.
[quote]wooldog wrote:
I’m not a “bodybuilder”; my arms aren’t comparable to an Arnold. But I don’t want them to be. I’m trying to gain some nice overall size, but I wouldn’t want to be that big.
I’d rather pack muscle on in other areas.[/quote]
Which is of course your choice to make. My suggestion is simply not to try to push that decision on others. You’re not a bodybuilder, ok, but remember that this is the “Bodybuilding” forum. So, the unspoken truth is that threads in this section are about bodybuilding.
Had you posted that exact same post in the “Strength Sports” section, then I wouldn’t have responded the same way, or used the same comparisons. What your post lacked was context, not merit.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
The advice that I see passed around this site without a semblance of thought in my opinion is a one way ticket to set up many beginners to fail because of lack of success.
Yes new people should focus on basics, no one is going to argue that, however focusing on the basics at the exclusion of hitting muscles that aren’t hit adequately with them will develop a somewhat odd physique. If a person trains to look good(ie bodybuilding forum) then not many people care if they grew 2 inches on their quads if they barely had any improvement on their arms shoulders or chest. Maybe the “T-boys” will give praise but not the girl on the street or whatever the motivation is for the person training. The basics for many like myself tend to develop an odd physique. Large traps legs and ass, smaller arms and shoulders. That doesn’t feel good and it doesn’t look good to most.
Nobody knows each others genetics. Myself I barely need to do any triceps work at all because they get hit adequately from pressing movements…score one for the compounds only crowd. However they would be “good enough” from my chest and shoulder pressing, but I don’t want good enough triceps, I want big footballs hanging off my arm and do triceps dominant exercises as well. My biceps DO NOT get adequate work from rows and chins and require direct work(even special exercises) or else they stay the same… score one for the do isolation exercises where neeeded crowd. Someone who didn’t know this about me can’t tell me rows and chins will give me good biceps(although they will try) because they just don’t know and assume everyone develops the same way.
Some are giving advice without the slightest thought as to age experience injuries etc and don’t mind. If the OP has a bulging disk and all he hears is SQUATS AND DEADS!!! then we aren’t really helping him are we? The burden falls on both sides, the person asking questions to give some background information, goals, etc… but the people giving “advice” should also have some responsibility in giving advice that falls within the OPs goals and with what other information they give.
[/quote]
Great post Scott.
EDT is great for those with a certain amount of time to train. Read the articles in the archives by Charles Staley.