[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
If a guy went into the Powerlifting forum & asked: Will doing 3 sets of 8-10 reps make me stronger, the answer he’d get would basically would be yes, though you’d gain strength MUCH, MUCH faster doing doubles & trebles etc. The same could be said of this argument
The OP never specified ‘optimal’ OR indeed in relation to what level of training experience, he merely asked is it possible, end of story. [/quote]
Who do you know that has well developed, huge and impressive arms without doing direct arm work? I’m confused as to why you’d advocate building your body in a less than optimal way. It’s one thing to regurgitate things that you read somewhere about not needing direct arm work to build big ass arms it’s another to be speaking from experience. We have plenty of guys with big arms posting in here saying they do direct arm work and they have PICTURES to back it up. You and others in here are spewing the anti direct arm work crap and all either have small arms or no pictures to back up what you’re saying. No one is stepping forward to back up the “fact” that you don’t need direct arm work to build big arms. Why do you think that is?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
The OP never specified ‘optimal’ OR indeed in relation to what level of training experience, he merely asked is it possible, end of story. [/quote]
Isnt that the whole argument?
Is it possible to stimulate your bniceps while standing on your head? sure. Optimal? no.
I dont think anyone disagrees that you can stimulate your arms by doing compound movements. It is just not the way to get the best arms possible.[/quote]
Yup…he never asked was it ‘optimal’ to only do compound movents, he merely asked if it was possible.
Which is the reason I cited dudes NOT training their calves & forearms as examples of the potential for building a body part up significantly without the need for direct, ‘optimal’ stimulation.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
If a guy went into the Powerlifting forum & asked: Will doing 3 sets of 8-10 reps make me stronger, the answer he’d get would basically would be yes, though you’d gain strength MUCH, MUCH faster doing doubles & trebles etc. The same could be said of this argument
The OP never specified ‘optimal’ OR indeed in relation to what level of training experience, he merely asked is it possible, end of story. [/quote]
Who do you know that has well developed, huge and impressive arms without doing direct arm work? I’m confused as to why you’d advocate building your body in a less than optimal way. It’s one thing to regurgitate things that you read somewhere about not needing direct arm work to build big ass arms it’s another to be speaking from experience. We have plenty of guys with big arms posting in here saying they do direct arm work and they have PICTURES to back it up. You and others in here are spewing the anti direct arm work crap and all either have small arms or no pictures to back up what you’re saying. No one is stepping forward to back up the “fact” that you don’t need direct arm work to build big arms. Why do you think that is?[/quote]
I’m really not anti-arm training dude.
It’s merely a question of emphasis & people attempting to make a special case for certain body parts.
Here is the OP’s original question
[quote]yustas wrote:
Hello,
I have heard many times (including on this site) that you do not need to do any direct arm work to develop huge arms.[/quote]
The discussion is about whether you can stimulate the arms without direct arm work. you can.
It about whether you can get huge arms without direct arm work, and if you look at what people with huge arms do to get them (direct arm work) the answer is no.
Ok.
Not saying these dudes have huge arms at all, but gurentee most fellas talking shit, with bigger guns tape measured, would have smaller arms in the same condition…
Now direct arm work is nescessary for most people.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Ok.
Not saying these dudes have huge arms at all, but gurentee most fellas talking shit, with bigger guns tape measured, would have smaller arms in the same condition…
Now direct arm work is nescessary for most people.[/quote]
WTF? Who was “talking shit” and what was the purpose of your post? Who the fuck cares if there are guys here with arms 5" bigger but who aren’t as lean. It isn’t like they will lose 5 fucking inches off their arms dieting down so your point is irrelevant. Not to mention most of us specifically wrote they were “well developed” but very small with lagging body parts like triceps.