However I was explaining to my younger brother that for a beginner, building a solid foundation of overall mass and strength is important, and that to do this compounds are preferable.
He asked me why he shouldnt do curls and why he should work rows and chins instead.
I explained that for overall beginner strength and mass its all about bang for your buck and recruiting the most motor units and that your individual muscle size is linked to your overall muscle mass.
i.e your arms will grow faster if you work your legs etc.
he asked me why…and I was stumped.
Ive read it so many times that ive just accepted it as ‘the way’ or ‘the truth’.
Im not asking for debate on iso vs compound…I know this is explained somewhere…I looked for it but im having trouble finding an article that goes deeper than my existing knowledge.
can someone link me to or explain the reasoning behind the link in overall muscle mass to specific muscle groups and their size?
He wants to follow my advice…but I think he wants to know the specifics so he can defend himself against all the nubs in the gym doing endless biceps days.
[quote]chutec wrote:
He asked me why he shouldnt do curls and why he should work rows and chins instead.[/quote]
There’s the problem right there.
For overall size, it isn’t an either/or situation. Work the compound exercises first, then finish up with an isolation movement. The rows and chins are asparagus and brussel sprouts, curls are warm chocolate chip cookies.
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.[/quote]
P.S. - Yes, I know this goes directly against my own advice above. C’est la vie.
Why does it have to be “instead”? There’s no good reason a beginner shouldn’t do curls, as long as it’s not at the expense of something else. In fact, if you look at the old Ian King Top 10 Mass Makers article ( http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/ians_top_10_mass_makers&cr= ), curls are on there because he doesn’t believe that chins and rows are sufficient to balance all of the tricep work from the presses. Put him on a Poliquin split: Chest/Back, Legs, Off, Shoulders/Arms, Off. Then he can curl to his heart’s desire every 5th day.
toddthebod, dont worry I mis phrased my question a bit.
I would still advise him to do both, I just needed to show him some gritty detail as to why he should be staarting with big compounds, and why the people who dont use them and instead spend hours doing isolation only wont get very far very quickly.
( and this does not apply to those who obviously know their shit and are advanced enough to make isolation work for themselves. im talking fresh faced Uni students who just want big guns)
The reason is because building muscle is essentially a battle with homeostasis, and in order for your body to change you need to produce a great demand to do so.
That means forcing it to adapt under the strain of heavy weights, and good luck doing that with small exercises.
As others have said of course you want both, but the old bodybuilding mantra “big muscles first, smaller muscles last” still holds true today.
Exactly as growing boy said. Whenever someone asks me for advice, I tell them to squat on monday, bench on wednesday, and pull on friday, and anything else they do is up to them. So they can do all the curls they need to be satisfied, they will still get the important work done.
If you are worhty of giving advice the answer to the “why” questions will lie in your arm size anyway!
<<< However, the addition of direct arm training to group two produced no additional effect on strength or arm circumference after 10 weeks of training. >>>[/quote]
I volunteer to supervise the next iteration of this study so that they can be saved from further embarrassing conclusions.
All I know is that I did a 3 day/week full body for a few months using all big compounds, and while getting stronger, I didn’t look much different. Switched to a push/pull/legs with plenty of iso exercises at the end, and what do ya know, I almost look like I left weights after 10 weeks. Don’t know if its the routine or the fact that each muscle group gets at least four days recovery…but who cares, it’s working finally!! My diet is the same.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
The reason is because building muscle is essentially a battle with homeostasis, and in order for your body to change you need to produce a great demand to do so.
That means forcing it to adapt under the strain of heavy weights, and good luck doing that with small exercises.
As others have said of course you want both, but the old bodybuilding mantra “big muscles first, smaller muscles last” still holds true today.[/quote]
Somebody explained it to me basically the same way, and I couldn’t agree more. Muscle growth is a total body adaptation, and the more big muscles grow, the more the smaller ones as well.
However I was explaining to my younger brother that for a beginner, building a solid foundation of overall mass and strength is important, and that to do this compounds are preferable.
He asked me why he shouldnt do curls and why he should work rows and chins instead.
I explained that for overall beginner strength and mass its all about bang for your buck and recruiting the most motor units and that your individual muscle size is linked to your overall muscle mass.
i.e your arms will grow faster if you work your legs etc.
he asked me why…and I was stumped.
Ive read it so many times that ive just accepted it as ‘the way’ or ‘the truth’.
Im not asking for debate on iso vs compound…I know this is explained somewhere…I looked for it but im having trouble finding an article that goes deeper than my existing knowledge.
can someone link me to or explain the reasoning behind the link in overall muscle mass to specific muscle groups and their size?[/quote]
It is due to the anobolic hormones and environment created, and the gain of mass from the tibialis anterior (shin) right through to the sternocleidomastoid (neck) from doing those heavy squats - which all this metabolically active weight will be used in curling, pushing or pulling a barbell.
