[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
[/quote]
Really? Powerlifters don’t do significant tricep work?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn’t be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn’t shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.[/quote]
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of ‘going overboard’ on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem’s shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you’ll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you’ll just have him running in one BIG circle
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Try a very modest cut and ensure that your lifts don’t suffer, especially curls, dips, etc. If you are able to at least maintain the same lifts for a couple of weeks, cut a little deeper. What you don’t want to do is immediately jump into a deep cut for months and watch your hard earned gains melt away.
No, he shouldn’t be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn’t shrink and he would have some real size on him.[/quote]
yup
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn’t be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn’t shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of ‘going overboard’ on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem’s shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you’ll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you’ll just have him running in one BIG circle[/quote]
I think this checkpoint concept is correct. However, these checkpoints are dictated by common sense, no one can tell him when they come. You just continually check the mirror and make adjustments accordingly. I do not advocate bulk/cut cycles…I know this gets REALLy old but consistency with minor adjustments along the way is all you need to do.
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of ‘going overboard’ on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem’s shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you’ll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you’ll just have him running in one BIG circle[/quote]
The shorter your bulk/cut cycle, the less overall growth you are going to see. I think people are more likely to “go overboard” on bulking by eating far more than they need to eat, than by eating far longer than they need to eat. As long as the bulk isn’t a blatant gorge of excess calories every day, he should be able to bulk for a much longer period of time and see more muscle growth before needing to cut.
OP, you should get your barbell curl/close grip bench and other DIRECT ARM EXERCISES up to a respectable strength level (for reps), then maintain that strength during your cut.
[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn’t be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn’t shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of ‘going overboard’ on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem’s shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you’ll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you’ll just have him running in one BIG circle[/quote]
That was why I wrote that he should be gaining at a rate that allows him to not need to cut down every few months or weeks.
Did I really need to get more specific than that?
Honestly, if people are so clueless that they eat themselves into true obesity before putting the breaks on, this is not the activity for them. No one is going to be there to hold their hand for the rest of their life.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.[/quote]
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
[quote]Pologazz wrote:
I recently completed a mass gain cycle and went from 172 to 202 pounds in around 5 months. The problem is I have to fight hard for every inch of muscle I get on my arms. The mass cycle helped me add just enough size to make my arms look respectable.
When ever I cut I lose size on my arms extremely fast , which really makes the bulk up a pointless and a waste of time.
My question is what would be the best approach to cutting while not losing muscle mass on my arms ( i understand that some loss will occur ). I hoping to get some insight with guys who have had this similar problem.
[/quote]
Since you’re only complaining about your arms I wonder what would happen if you stepped up your arm training, cutting back on other areas that you are satisfied with?
I have not had the opportunity to read any of the other posts so forgive me if this was already mentioned.
All The Best,
Zeb
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most “pressure” on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again…
seeing as i’m new i’m a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain?
Back exercises are called BACK exercises for a reason. They work your back. If they would work your biceps directly, they’d be called bicep exercises. Doing pulling and pushing exercises won’t get your arms up to par, unless those pulling and pushing exercises are called curls, dips and close grip bench presses.
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
This is getting retarded. I’m a big guy. I can row much more than the 315lbs you just spoke of. I also train biceps directly. Why the hell do some of you think in such a limited fashion that you believe this is some type of “either or” situation where you either row OR curl but never both?
I used to train with powerlifters…who also fucking trained biceps and triceps directly. That may be why they were so fucking huge.
Again, please post pics of your own well developed arms that you do not train directly.[/quote]
i train the bis and tris directly and indirectly. my point was that most of the mass that a powerlifter gains, at least for triceps, would be due mainly to pressing/compound movements instead of the accessory work they do that directly targets the triceps such as pushdowns or skulls.
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
…the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved.[/quote]
No. The amount of strain your biceps/triceps experience is directly related to the amount of work they are doing. Obviously, you’re going to get more growth by doing 100 pounds of direct work with your biceps than by doing 300 pounds with a row (250 back and only 50 pounds biceps).
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
[/quote]
You need to post pics of your well developed arms, like the Prof. said before you continue to make yourself look foolish. You don’t get big arms from ignoring direct arm work unless your some sort of freak of nature. Shit isn’t there a video of Matt Kroc doing SRC?
And like the Violent Irish fellow said, dude powerlifters do Tri work.
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
[/quote]
Just because you can row more than you can curl does NOT mean the biceps are taking more of the load during a row. If your biceps are taken most of the load when you are doing rows for your back YOU ARE DOING THE ROWS REALLY FUCKING WRONG.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
You need to post pics of your well developed arms, like the Prof. said before you continue to make yourself look foolish. You don’t get big arms from ignoring direct arm work unless your some sort of freak of nature. Shit isn’t there a video of Matt Kroc doing SRC?
And like the Violent Irish fellow said, dude powerlifters do Tri work.[/quote]
last post in this thread and then i’m out. i do direct bi/tri work and also do indirect work as i train dc. my whole point was that, maybe not for biceps, but at least for tris, you can do more and put more pressure on them and progress more through a compound as opposed to an isolation movement.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Really? Powerlifters don’t do significant tricep work? [/quote]
Hahaha yeah man I LOL’d when I read that.
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
last post in this thread and then i’m out. i do direct bi/tri work and also do indirect work as i train dc. my whole point was that, maybe not for biceps, but at least for tris, you can do more and put more pressure on them and progress more through a compound as opposed to an isolation movement. [/quote]
Gone so soon?
Our point is, if you are using exercises designed for something specific (bench presses are not TRICEPS exercises specifically) yet acting like that is enough stimulation for the muscle group that isn’t even targeted, then you will end up experiencing LESS development than if you did those “compound movements” along with direct training for the target muscle group.
It makes no sense to put yourself at a disadvantage simply because that is “in” at the moment.
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
You need to post pics of your well developed arms, like the Prof. said before you continue to make yourself look foolish. You don’t get big arms from ignoring direct arm work unless your some sort of freak of nature. Shit isn’t there a video of Matt Kroc doing SRC?
And like the Violent Irish fellow said, dude powerlifters do Tri work.
last post in this thread and then i’m out. i do direct bi/tri work and also do indirect work as i train dc. my whole point was that, maybe not for biceps, but at least for tris, you can do more and put more pressure on them and progress more through a compound as opposed to an isolation movement. [/quote]
The discussion was not compound vs isolation it was direct vs not direct training. CGBPs are compound but are still considered a direct tricep exercise. Also pretty much all forms of lockout training for the bench press are direct tricep work. I don’t think anyone here who knows WTF they are doing would ever say that tricep rope pulldowns are more effective than CGBPs for building the triceps, but CGBPs are direct tricep work.
If something had to be isolation to be a direct lift for that muscle I couldn’t think of a single way to “directly” train my back lol
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
forlife wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a “direct” exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb’er does, but they get big tri’s by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you’re not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups.
my point was not an either or type of scenario, but that in doing both direct and indirect work, the bis and tris will be recruited more through compound lifts than they would through direct work (curls, pushdowns, etc). obviously you are able to move more on a cgbp than you are on a tricep pushdown. even though on the cgbp you have the assistance of the chest and shoulders to some degree or another, your triceps will be still under more strain than they would on a pushdown seeing as more weight is being moved. i also should have mentioned that with stuff such as rows and pulldowns and their variations, the biceps are recruited to a greater or lesser extent.
there’s a reason why basic programs that are geared toward upping overall strength don’t discuss direct bi and tri work. an example is this: StrongLifts 5×5 workout: Get Stronger by Lifting 3x/Week.
You need to post pics of your well developed arms, like the Prof. said before you continue to make yourself look foolish. You don’t get big arms from ignoring direct arm work unless your some sort of freak of nature. Shit isn’t there a video of Matt Kroc doing SRC?
And like the Violent Irish fellow said, dude powerlifters do Tri work.
last post in this thread and then i’m out. i do direct bi/tri work and also do indirect work as i train dc. my whole point was that, maybe not for biceps, but at least for tris, you can do more and put more pressure on them and progress more through a compound as opposed to an isolation movement. [/quote]
That obviously wasn’t your original point in your first post, but running with your backtracked train of thought: nobody disagreed with you on triceps work. The knowledgeable members of this board always(gasp, here too) tell people to include CGP’s or RGP’s or Weighted Dips or In-Human’s as the primary movement for triceps mass, and then more movements afterwards to target other/individual heads for maximum, and balanced, development.
Those movements, while compound, definitely target the triceps as the primary movers if done correctly, which is the goal when working TRICEPS.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
last post in this thread and then i’m out. i do direct bi/tri work and also do indirect work as i train dc. my whole point was that, maybe not for biceps, but at least for tris, you can do more and put more pressure on them and progress more through a compound as opposed to an isolation movement.
Gone so soon?
Our point is, if you are using exercises designed for something specific (bench presses are not TRICEPS exercises specifically) yet acting like that is enough stimulation for the muscle group that isn’t even targeted, then you will end up experiencing LESS development than if you did those “compound movements” along with direct training for the target muscle group.
It makes no sense to put yourself at a disadvantage simply because that is “in” at the moment.[/quote]
did want to say thanks for making work go by faster lol. seeing as i dc and have been for a few years not (so i’m not just spouting the “in” stuff) and do only compound movements for tris (not so much bis as dc does have direct bi work), i am a believer in the fact that at least for tris, compound works better and you can progress better. from my personal experience, the more i can row, the better the biceps have grown which is why i said what i did about rowing and bicep growth.
alright, this is my last post in this thread
[quote]dropshot001 wrote:
the more i can row, the better the biceps have grown which is why i said what i did about rowing and bicep growth.[/quote]
Maybe because you are doing direct bicep work, they are progressing in size; meanwhile you are doing rows, and they are progressing in strength?
My biceps have grown in the last month, as has my calf raise strength, correlation?
Edit: that’s partially a joke, I also want to clarify that I am aware that there is some bicep stimulation that occurs on back day, it happens, but it should not be your only work or you will have lagging arms.