Biceps Hypertrophy from Only Deadlifting?

Not just some stabilization and only or mostly depending on whether supinated or not.

If the biceps and triceps aren’t pulling on the radius and ulna, what would stop the elbow from being pulled out of joint?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not just some stabilization and only or mostly depending on whether supinated or not.

If the biceps and triceps aren’t pulling on the radius and ulna, what would stop the elbow from being pulled out of joint?[/quote]

The brachialis and brachioradialis :slight_smile:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:
Avoiding arm training… yeah i did it. My arms didnt grow. I incorporated curls and extensions within 6 weeks. Besides… who doesnt like doing arms and walking out the gym with guns twice as big as when you went in? If i could just do arms and it would make my entire body grow, i would do concentration curls and kickbacks till the cows came home. Or kangaroos if your in OZ.[/quote]

I can’t say I do not like training them, I just preferred to train the big muscle groups. Relatively speaking, my arms are terrible. They are ~17.5". Looking back, I wish I had trained them more directly over an extended period of time and I cant imagine how long it will take for them to catch up. Prof X and others are right, you should probably train them directly, and not use the example of the few genetic freaks to justify not working them.

Whats next - bigger chest,back,shoulders and legs without any direct work?

Yeah you’ll get some progression by hitting the big lifts but seriously - saying DIRECT armwork has no value is mental. I may not do a lot of arm work compared to some but why would you not train body parts? and then expect some serious growth by not doing anything?

i fucking hate this shit. why are we trying to find out how to build our bodies via what some random study says and not what actual experience and results tell us?

how many bodybuilders (keyword bodybuilder and not just some dude looking to get ‘fit’) have huge arms and yet don’t train them?

we’ve been through this so many fucking times. and yet still there will be some author coming and preaching his ‘advice’ based on the latest and greatest science study. I somehow doubt the scientists doing the studies are even jacked.

[quote]stephen.connor wrote:
I was reading the 5 A ha moments article and was surprised to read the below. What are people’s thoughts on the systemic response theory?

Ah-ha! #5: Hypertrophy is a systemic response and effect, not a localized one.

All the talk about bodypart training versus full body routines, isolation exercise versus compound exercise, etc. is based upon a fundamentally flawed concept: that hypertrophy is somehow completely regional-specific.

Here’s a study that examines this in a bit more detail:

Rogers et al

The Effect of Supplemental Isolated Weight-Training Exercises on Upper-Arm Size and Upper-Body Strength

Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
NSCA Conference Abstract (2000)

The researchers compared the effects of a weight training program on 5RM strength and arm circumference and divided the subjects into two groups. Group 1 performed four compound upper body exercises, while Group 2 used the same program but included biceps curls and triceps extensions.

The results showed that both groups significantly increased strength and arm size

However, the addition of direct arm training to group two produced no additional effect on strength or arm circumference after 10 weeks of training.

The additional localized training did not result in anything that the bigger compound exercises didn’t provide.
[/quote]

Who wants to bet that both groups were untrained participants…I would also bet that if the training continued, at some point the group which continued with direct arm work, permitting nutrition was in order would end with larger and stronger biceps.


If your dick is bigger then your arm you might want to start doing direct arm work…

[quote]Ryu wrote:
Whats next - bigger chest,back,shoulders and legs without any direct work?
[/quote] Never seen any of those “vibration training” commercials on some teleshopping channel? “Stand on this plate/wear this device and you can do whatever you want while it trains all your muscles to give you your dream body. You only need to use it for 5 minutes, 3 days a week!”

Okay, over here people replace those vibration things with power-cleans or whatever exercise they’re just fucking smitten with and claim that it’ll make the whole body grow huge, but it’s largely the same principle. Even the 3 days a week is generally mentioned in both cases :slight_smile: [quote]

Yeah you’ll get some progression by hitting the big lifts but seriously - saying DIRECT armwork has no value is mental. I may not do a lot of arm work compared to some but why would you not train body parts? and then expect some serious growth by not doing anything?

[/quote]

Especially since it doesn’t even take a lot of arm work per session… It’s not like you have to do 20 work-sets for your arms to make them grow stronger (hey, that would probably not do you any good anyway).

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
stephen.connor wrote:
I was reading the 5 A ha moments article and was surprised to read the below. What are people’s thoughts on the systemic response theory?

Ah-ha! #5: Hypertrophy is a systemic response and effect, not a localized one.

All the talk about bodypart training versus full body routines, isolation exercise versus compound exercise, etc. is based upon a fundamentally flawed concept: that hypertrophy is somehow completely regional-specific.

Here’s a study that examines this in a bit more detail:

Rogers et al

The Effect of Supplemental Isolated Weight-Training Exercises on Upper-Arm Size and Upper-Body Strength

Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
NSCA Conference Abstract (2000)

The researchers compared the effects of a weight training program on 5RM strength and arm circumference and divided the subjects into two groups. Group 1 performed four compound upper body exercises, while Group 2 used the same program but included biceps curls and triceps extensions.

The results showed that both groups significantly increased strength and arm size

However, the addition of direct arm training to group two produced no additional effect on strength or arm circumference after 10 weeks of training.

The additional localized training did not result in anything that the bigger compound exercises didn’t provide.

Who wants to bet that both groups were untrained participants…I would also bet that if the training continued, at some point the group which continued with direct arm work, permitting nutrition was in order would end with larger and stronger biceps.

[/quote]

Hey, I bet the reason that group 2 didn’t get bigger increases in arm size than group 1 was…

drum roll

Both didn’t get ANY results at all!

:slight_smile:

The time frame of that study makes me laugh. 10 weeks? Psssh.

Find someone with 20 inch arms who started with 12 inch arms and ask them how long it took to build those. Willing to bet its a time frame measured in years and not weeks.

screw you guys. I am on my 20th minute of my hawaii chair and I am bursting my sleeves.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Not just some stabilization and only or mostly depending on whether supinated or not.

If the biceps and triceps aren’t pulling on the radius and ulna, what would stop the elbow from being pulled out of joint?

The brachialis and brachioradialis :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yup, I should have included them above.

On why the supinated position is more prone to biceps tears: I think it cannot be, for the above reason, that the biceps is unloaded or for matter not pretty heavily loaded in heavily DL’ing. But certainly the balance between which muscles are helping keep the forearm pulled up might be changed by hand position, and of course also the biceps is more stretched in the supinated position.

That is regarding only the topic of the biceps being loaded in DL’s, not whether it’s intelligent bodybuilding to rely on DL’s for biceps growth.

I like doing curls, I don’t care what a study says…

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Hey, I bet the reason that group 2 didn’t get bigger increases in arm size than group 1 was…

drum roll

Both didn’t get ANY results at all!

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Also there’s the consideration that people misinterpret studies.

Most likely what is actually stated in the study was that a “significant” difference was not found.

That does not mean that a substantial average difference may not have been measured, or that the statistics show that it is highly unlikely.

It means only (typically) that there is there is more than a 5% probability that chance alone could have accounted for the difference.

So for example if the group that did do direct arm work averaged 1/4" more gains on the arms, but there was quite considerable variation in both groups in how much was gained, even that amount would likely result in writing “No significant difference between groups was observed.”

It is necessary to understand how words are used in science before coming to conclusions on what was or was not shown.

Actually reading the paper rather than just a summary of it would probably show what the measured results actually were, but even there, where the random variation is large compared to the effect, the correct conclusion is that one can’t determine whether an effect occurred or did not, rather than that there was no effect.

i guess thats why theres so many guys at my gym who dont do leg work and have huge legs

and why so many Oly lifters have huge pecs. oh wait

Conference Abstracts.

IGNORE THEM unless they’ve actually been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Conference work should just be an “oh, okay” response, “that’s nice”, rather than scientific evidence.

If it hasn’t met the standards of peer review, then there may be something fatally wrong with the design and conduct of the study which means IGNORE IT.

There have been studies showing that direct limb work yields better gains than hoping it will get stronger by doing full body training with no specifics. Also, it has been shown that only doing direct limb work gets the same amount of strength/hypertrophy gains when compared to full body training that incorporates direct limb work as well (that’s for the guys who say that a muscle will only get bigger if you train it, and the whole body as well - nonsense).

Kind regards,

Me.

I think the concept of systematic response to training is actually one of the biggest arguments for a bodypart split program (including direct arm work). People supporting full body workouts often say that you don’t get enough frequency on a split program but if the body has a prodominantly systematic response to training than a person on a split is effectively stimulating an anabolic state for their whole body 5 or 6 times a week.

hey no kidding. I stare at my arms and wink. They got hyoge that way.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
screw you guys. I am on my 20th minute of my hawaii chair and I am bursting my sleeves.[/quote]

20 minutes? are you insane? you’re only supposed to use it for FIVE minutes a day, 3x a week. you’re gonna overtrain dude.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Not just some stabilization and only or mostly depending on whether supinated or not.

If the biceps and triceps aren’t pulling on the radius and ulna, what would stop the elbow from being pulled out of joint?

The brachialis and brachioradialis :slight_smile:

Yup, I should have included them above.

On why the supinated position is more prone to biceps tears: I think it cannot be, for the above reason, that the biceps is unloaded or for matter not pretty heavily loaded in heavily DL’ing[/quote] Dunno… I rarely pull with a mixed grip, but when I do I don’t feel much in the bis, they’re sort of semi-relaxed… It’s all brachialis + triceps(locking out the arm and keeping it there) I think. The tears seem to come from
tight/week bis and mostly when people’s arms don’t stay locked out and they transfer stress to the bis (also by hitching/the bar getting caught on the pants of the lifter or whatever might disrupt the proper lifting technique)… When pulling 600-900+, you can imagine why the bicep wouldn’t like that. Also, this is just theory and all, but when your hand is in a neutral or even better, overhand position, your biceps appear the longest (may be due to brachialis as well, what do I know), while they appear the shorter when the hands are supinated…
So perhaps that has something to do with it…

[quote]
. But certainly the balance between which muscles are helping keep the forearm pulled up might be changed by hand position, and of course also the biceps is more stretched in the supinated position. [/quote] I wrote the above before reading this. So yeah, we thought about the same thing it seems. [quote]

That is regarding only the topic of the biceps being loaded in DL’s, not whether it’s intelligent bodybuilding to rely on DL’s for biceps growth.[/quote]
Well, we always have the example of Vegg, who rack-pulled 700 or something like that with 16 inch arms.

If the body doesn’t have a need for huge arms (like say, for curling the 100’s for reps and close-gripping 405+ for reps), then why should it build them up to that size? People seem to just forget about that part.