This study matches CT’s article but it appears to be a bit ahead of him.
As I read through this one it occurred to me that perhaps the research isn’t bad, but there hasn’t really been anything new. For the most part, the stuff that was true in 2005 (when I started paying attention) is still true today. I guess the idiot part of me that always wants something new is waiting for something ground breaking to come up but it seems that what I was taught initially still holds its weight.
I’d like to see a study that compares a 3 day per week total body routine to a traditional bro split like 6 days a week with a legs/push/pull split. There’s plenty of experience in the logs here so I guess if there was a huge difference then we might know by now. I’ve tried a lot of stuff and it seems to come down to getting the work in one way or another.
I’ll keep reading. Thanks for giving me something constructive to do (although I should be flipping through the slides of my continuing education nutrition course).
EDIT
So close! This one kind of covers exactly what I said above but the parameters of each routine are too different. I also like how they do multi-exercises, test the 1RM bench and back squat, and then measure the biceps brachii for hypertrophy lol! I wonder how the quads and pecs changed.
I also notice that experienced doesn’t necessarily mean currently trained. I’m experienced but if I took 2 months off and then completed a study the results would be skewed because I’d be regaining a lot of what I had before the break. I don’t consider that improvement; it’s just getting back into shape.
In that second study they all improved their squat 1RM by an average of 28kgs (strength group) and 22kgs (hypertrophy group) in 8 weeks. When’s the last time you saw an “experienced lifter” do that? I guess experienced just means that they’re familiar with working out. It’s either that or these people were all sandbagging it in the gym on their own.
Tbh very little is new. Humans haven’t changed much so studies from 2013 onward rarely add anything ground breaking. The ground work is probably in older research which is now considered well estabalished and thrown into textbooks.
Every study has limitations but that doesn’t give any information about its strength. A study can only be used to interpret and make conclusions within the bounds of those limitations. With a bit of thinking we can still extrapolate tho with some degree of certainty.
It’d be nice to have perfect studies with all variables controlled, groups/samples that reflect trained populations and longer than a month or two. Unfortunately the reality is that this is expensive, time intensive and would add little to the research itself hence why there are few such studies around.
In the end we use what we have and be smart in interpretting it.
There was a post on here about a study “showing” no resistance curls produced similar hypertrophy to regular curls. Study was as poor as it sounded and the conclusion was extrapolating a bit too far.
For being a ‘physician’, you come across as quite dense. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense could have answered your initial question for themselves without much trouble. You essentially asked the question ‘why do different people in the fitness industry disagree about things?’ That qualifies as a dumb question, buddy. And dumb questions get the kind of answer I gave.
I’ll humor you though and give you a practical training answer. If you are not a competitive bodybuilder, and you have not developed a physique that is far better than even my own, you are not helping yourself in any way by trying to develop your brachialis specifically. I’m telling you this from my own experience. I used to get bogged down in minutia. Smart people can often fall victim to this, overthinking things and believing that there is some sort of perfect exercise or program or approach to training. There simply is not. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be. The best thing you can do is simply train your arms often, generally in the higher rep ranges (8+ per set), and just throw in some variation to keep you from getting bored. I absolutely would not devote extra time to developing a muscle so small as the brachialis. You’ll just be spinning your wheels. The most effective bicep exercises are any variation of curls (they all work almost equally), pull ups, and rows. Do all these things, and you will eventually see in yourself what I’m describing, that worrying about the little things is silly and unproductive.
I’ll also add that the most effective bicep movements, to me, are the most comfortable ones. If any particular movement happens to be something you read as being recommended, but it bothers your wrists, elbows, or anything else, it is not the right movement for YOU. Figure out the most comfortable grips and positions for yourself, and choose those exercises. Not the ones that supposedly develop the muscle group in a particular way that you deem favorable.
I don’t know why you feel the need to put someone down to make your point, especially when your point was well stated. (Which it was.) Not to beat it to death, but… I was not surprised that different people have different opinions. What did surprise me is that both of the articles I’m referring to were this site’s “headline articles”. Yet, they seemed to be promoting diametrically opposed strategies while decrying the other. I expected this site’s publishers to at least review what they’re putting out there. Also, physiology is physiology; it’s not opinion. (Just like you wouldn’t accept someone’s “opinion” on whether gravity is real.) I was expecting that the so-called “experts” who write these articles would have some actual basis (physiologic, anatomic, kinesiologic, or whatever) for their teaching. Apparently, most of it is just anecdotal with some technobabble thrown in to appear reasonable.
you think the site’s publishers and editors should streamline viewpoints to a single perspective? I strongly disagree with that.
There are 2 prevailing theories you could use, both of which have a physiological backbone to them, but will lead you to 2 different solutions in bodybuilding. One is that isolation work, and targeting muscles in a very specific way, is the key to building a quality physique. At the other end of the spectrum, we have advocates of mostly compound movements, and bang for your buck exercises. And both approaches can work. The REASON they can both work is that growth factors are not limited to the contraction and extension of muscles. Hormonal factors are hugely important. And different lifting approaches affect hormones in different ways. You’ll likely get a more favorable hormonal response to compound lifts, causing all the muscles in the body to have a higher growth potential, even if not directly targeted. So the question is, does this factor outweigh the benefits of directly targeting very specific muscles in isolating movements.
The answer to that question isn’t particularly clear, and it doesn’t seem to be the same from person to person, because of all of our genetic differences. So let’s take bicep development as our example. I know I’m a person who responds extremely well to compound movements, and so I’m less likely to do dumbbell curls than I am 2-arm cable or barbell curls. My entire bicep region has been developed through very basic, non-isolation movement. And I have maintained a good balance between the individual muscles… But this isn’t always the case for everyone. Some people won’t see the same results I’ve seen from lifting. Some people will really need to target a particular muscle to make it grow. So in short: standard bicep curls probably develop my brachialis better than, say hammer curls. But other folks who don’t seem to see the overall balanced development from compound work may end up taking the opposite approach and finding it favorable.
I’ve read MRI studies indicating that the absolute best exercise for targeting the triceps specifically is decline dumbbell tricep extensions. I used to do these a lot. I’ve found that my triceps grow faster when I rely on bench press and dips.
You need to get out of the trappings of your profession and start seeing things as less black and white.
I can assure you the article are reviewed by people who know what they’re doing. They’re written by experts and edited by a team that’s been doing it for almost 20 years.
Can you post links to the articles you’re referring to? While some articles might appear to be advocating opposite methods, a lot of time they’re actually just emphasizing different aspects of a similar approach.
It’s worth remembering that full body training works and body part splits also work. Low-carb diets work for fat loss, higher carb diets also work for fat loss. 3x10 can build muscle, 10x3 can also build muscle. Anyone who doesn’t understand that there’s no single “best” way to do anything fitness related has a very limited, very naive, very ignorant outlook.
EDIT: It’s super-weird that you’ve been a forum member since 2008 and this is the first time you’ve posted. Have you just been avoiding any kind of hammer curl this whole time because you weren’t sure which was best?
“Tip: For Bigger arms, Do slow Hammer Curls” by Christian Thibaudeau 10/12/15
and
“Tip: Train the brachialis first” by John Meadows 2/18/16 – He seems to be describing the same exercise that the other author is strongly advocating. However, he ranks it lowest of the brachialis exercises and says to “use sparingly”, although he doesn’t say why.
I have found numerous articles in scientific journals which say that muscles have a genetically predetermined maximum size (not counting steroids). Despite working out for several years and trying many different routines, my biceps seem stalled. The first article gave my crummy genes another chance. As the brachialis grows it will push up the biceps and give your arms a fuller appearance. This is what I’m looking for.
Obviously, I could just try the Rope Hammer Curls and see if it works. But since I don’t have a lot of free time, I don’t want to waste my effort.
Let me also add that I am not “limited”, “naive”, “ignorant” or any other disparaging adjectives you come up with. Of course I know that there is no “best” way. If the articles were simply giving alternatives, I’d have no issue. But they say OPPOSITE things. That implies that they have no well-reasoned, objective basis for their “tips”. It’s all just anecdotal.
I don’t understand why some people in this forum seem to only be able to give advice while they put someone down. Maybe your right; maybe I am “naive”.
A link posted on the 13th of this month on your FB page with the heading “The hip thrust is the go-to move for building athletic speed and power, in addition to building a great butt. Here’s how to do it.”
And then, this posted on July 27th.
Sure can. But I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.
What that looks like is Bret Contreras wrote something in 2014 based on the real world results he saw and then he wrote something in 2017 based on continued research and evidence he saw, and a lot of what he saw then and now is similar. The biggest difference is that, as he said in the '17 blog: “Based on the latest research, barbell hip thrusts performed off of a bench as a sole lower body exercise do not appear to benefit sprinting speed in adults.”
So, if you want to go be “broscience” and anecdotal evidence, hip thrusts work great for a lot of things. If you want to go by science-science, hip thrusts are great for a lot of things (including glute size, squat assistance work, horizontal jump performance and “non-sprint” running speed), but it might not be good for improving sprint speed.
so you’re going to continue to dwell on the fact that your feelings are hurt, rather than addressing any of the substance of my last post? Sounds like you didn’t really come here for a constructive conversation in the first place. I took the time to develop an extensive post to directly address your issues, and all you can do is bemoan the use of 3 adjectives that I didn’t use in the first place. Why you would place those adjectives in quotes when oyu’re the only one using them is curious.
They do not say opposite things. In fact, the principles explained in both articles could literally by used at the same time to do slow hammer curls as the first exercise of an arm workout.
Looking at Meadows’ article and applying a smidgen of common sense, it appears that his preferred exercises are listed in order of using the most weight. You’ll be strongest at crossbody hammers, then regular hammers, and so on down the line.
Looking at Thib’s article, the emphasis is on a long time under tension and a long peak contraction. This will be easier to achieve with cables but can absolutely be done with dumbbells.
*you’re. And, yes. I have no idea how you could’ve found this site nine years ago, presumably/hopefully been training all this time, and still been confused by this non-issue.
