[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
A whole damn lot of powerlifters with big biceps curl… And every single one of them does heavy tricep work, too.
[/quote]
Sure, but it is not a requirement to build arm mass.
In fact, curls cannot build arm mass effectively because the bicep is the limiting factor of all upper body movements. One needs to be able to move more weight with the biceps to see any significant amount of hypertrophy than would be possible with a pressing or pulling exercise. Over a very short period of time adaptation will diminish the results. It is far more effective to just press and pull very heavy weight and change the angle of the lifts to counter adaptation.
Using gear does change the rules, however. And notice, I am not saying this is for BBers. I already recognize they have different needs and goals. I am strictly talking about adding mass not about making the bicep look defined, per se.
The majority of people like myself who participate in “aesthetic training” are not trying to cut to 3% bf nor do we care about the definition of the bicep.
Fortunately for LIFTICVSMINIMUS, I’m sure this entire argument could be won by showing us a picture of the awsome physique he’s built with his alternative methods.
…Or the physique of someone who has won one of those retardedly easy “bodybuilding competitions” without ever training like a bodybuilder or working out his arms?
Or maybe he should just… eat less fat… because it appears to all be going to his head.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
A whole damn lot of powerlifters with big biceps curl… And every single one of them does heavy tricep work, too.
Sure, but it is not a requirement to build arm mass.
In fact, curls cannot build arm mass effectively because the bicep is the limiting factor of all upper body movements. One needs to be able to move more weight with the biceps to see any significant amount of hypertrophy than would be possible with a pressing or pulling exercise. Over a very short period of time adaptation will diminish the results. It is far more effective to just press and pull very heavy weight and change the angle of the lifts to counter adaptation.
Using gear does change the rules, however. And notice, I am not saying this is for BBers. I already recognize they have different needs and goals. I am strictly talking about adding mass not about making the bicep look defined, per se.
The majority of people like myself who participate in “aesthetic training” are not trying to cut to 3% bf nor do we care about the definition of the bicep.[/quote]
Who is talking about cutting to 3%bf and bicep definition? Has it ever occured to you that going from 25lb8 db curls to 90+lb6-8 db curls will build big biceps?
And what advanced lifter still pulls involving his biceps a lot? Normally, people learn how to use their arms as hooks and pull with their back…
“curls cannot build arm mass effectively” ? They build bicep mass, you still need triceps. Obviously.
All this bs YET AGAIN. Show us your Dave-Tate-like arms, developed through tbt and avoiding arm-work like the plague, and then we might just believe you.
there are no pics of you guys on here that i’m aware of. and full body workouts do not have to exclude iso exercises. that is a bs criticism…just like it is bs to say that splits don’t have compounds.
full body workouts that FOCUS on compounds, progression and frequency can build mass very effectively. not sure why that fact pisses you guys off so much.
and yes, i’ve done several dc blasts and love it. it’s basically a frequency/intensity based 2-way split. it has more in common with fb than it does some 4-5 way split where each bp is trained once per week and volume is the dominant parameter.
anyways, i doubt c-c, mr. pop, josh or any of you guys that are being dogmatic have given the approach a proper shot. and to be clear i’m not saying that splits suck.
finally, using upper tier ifbb pros as “evidence” of anything is a joke–the logic is flawed and to ignore that THE difference between those guys is that they use. i’m not passing judgment but to ignore that fact and act like it’s their training split that’s to be credited is naive.
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Fortunately for LIFTICVSMINIMUS, I’m sure this entire argument could be won by showing us a picture of the awsome physique he’s built with his alternative methods.
…Or the physique of someone who has won one of those retardedly easy “bodybuilding competitions” without ever training like a bodybuilder or working out his arms?
Or maybe he should just… eat less fat… because it appears to all be going to his head.[/quote]
Nope. I do not post pics of myself on line because I wish to remain anonymous. You will just have to consider me discredited by virtue of me “pussing out”.
Funny how you totally miss the point of everything I have written. It is “retardedly” simple to be a BBer; however,t is NOT easy to do it. I have never said otherwise. The fact that many a “retard” have in fact become BBers is proof that it is achievable by anyone that has the discipline to do it.
I’ll be the first to admit I do not have “what it takes” to be a real BBer and I don’t care what other meatheads think of that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Fortunately for LIFTICVSMINIMUS, I’m sure this entire argument could be won by showing us a picture of the awsome physique he’s built with his alternative methods.
…Or the physique of someone who has won one of those retardedly easy “bodybuilding competitions” without ever training like a bodybuilder or working out his arms?
Or maybe he should just… eat less fat… because it appears to all be going to his head.
Nope. I do not post pics of myself on line because I wish to remain anonymous. You will just have to consider me discredited by virtue of me “pussing out”.
Funny how you totally miss the point of everything I have written. It is “retardedly” simple to be a BBer; however,t is NOT easy to do it. I have never said otherwise. The fact that many a “retard” have in fact become BBers is proof that it is achievable by anyone that has the discipline to do it.
I’ll be the first to admit I do not have “what it takes” to be a real BBer and I don’t care what other meatheads think of that.[/quote]
Apparently, all those retards are quite a bit smarter than you. And a whole lot of them have one or several degrees…
Why don’t you just go back to the politics forum instead of embarrassing yourself here over and over again.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
If you believe it’s good for gaining mass why isn’t it good for looking like a bodybuilder?[/quote]
Because in order to get big one has to eat tons of food and will undoubtedly gain some fat. I believe increasing one’s work capacity to get stronger will in fact also make one grow; especially, one that is used to more traditional BB style of training.
If your goal as BBer is to get bigger this is a good method to change up what you normally do. Though, it would need to be augmented to “cut” and do isolation work as a competitive BBer would require. In that respect it could not be substituted for traditional BB splits. I only suggest it would be good because it would force a BBer to change his training protocol.
All things being equal, I truly believe size is related to performance.
If you want to be tough and strong quit thinking like a bodybuilder.
And what do bodybuilders think?
[/quote]
Just read some of the stuff that is being written.
Sure competitive BBers are stronger than average people and even some athletes but they are not performance oriented.
BBers have the advantage in that they can always train under optimal conditions whereas, traditional athletes are training so that they can perform in suboptimal conditions. That is what makes an athlete versus a BBer, in my opinion. I think BBers can benefit from that – not that they need to.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Scott M wrote:
If you believe it’s good for gaining mass why isn’t it good for looking like a bodybuilder?
Because in order to get big one has to eat tons of food and will undoubtedly gain some fat. I believe increasing one’s work capacity to get stronger will in fact also make one grow; especially, one that is used to more traditional BB style of training.
If your goal as BBer is to get bigger this is a good method to change up what you normally do. Though, it would need to be augmented to “cut” and do isolation work as a competitive BBer would require. In that respect it could not be substituted for traditional BB splits. I only suggest it would be good because it would force a BBer to change his training protocol.
All things being equal, I truly believe size is related to performance.[/quote]
Last time I checked most successful bodybuilders bulk up quite a bit during the off-season… (Do you actually know ANYTHING about bodybuilding?) And why the fuck would we want to change our entire training protocol? We can swap exercises for a while or other simple things when we stall… Some people of course just love to switch stuff around, but these people also make minimal progress in size from what I can see…
Size related to performance? I dimly recall stating about, oh, 99999999 times that lifting more weight for enough reps= bigger muscles.
How does bodybuilding training decrease performance? (seeing as performance to us = lifting more weight for reps).
If you want to be tough and strong quit thinking like a bodybuilder.
And what do bodybuilders think?
Just read some of the stuff that is being written.
Sure competitive BBers are stronger than average people and even some athletes but they are not performance oriented.
BBers have the advantage in that they can always train under optimal conditions whereas, traditional athletes are training so that they can perform in suboptimal conditions. That is what makes an athlete versus a BBer, in my opinion. I think BBers can benefit from that – not that they need to.[/quote]
What a load of bullshit. We train to get stronger for reps, that is performance to us. And we’re increasing our performance as it relates to bodybuilding all the time.
Train to perform in suboptimal conditions? Oh, so you want me to start squatting on a bosu-ball or what? Jesus, just stop with your bullshit already.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Size related to performance? I dimly recall stating about, oh, 99999999 times that lifting more weight for enough reps= bigger muscles.
How does bodybuilding training decrease performance? (seeing as performance to us = lifting more weight for reps).
[/quote]
Who that visits this site doesn’t have access to the same information that you purport to have? You guys act like you have some secret that anyone cannot find out on their own.
Sorry, your definition of performance is wrong.
P = w/t
One can only increase performance by doing:
more work in the same amount of time
same amount of work in less time
or more work in less time (not the best option)
For ease of calculation work can be measured by volume.
Think about a sports car versus a mack truck. Both could theoretically have the same “performance” but both would differ in the amount of work that can be done and the time it takes to do it. The human body is the same in that regard.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Train to perform in suboptimal conditions? Oh, so you want me to start squatting on a bosu-ball or what? Jesus, just stop with your bullshit already.
[/quote]
Why would you if you didn’t need to? Stop for one second and realize I am not talking to you but to the aesthetic trainers in general. Get a life.
Someone like me who is not a pro BBer, who likes to do other activities besides lift heavy weights but still likes to look aesthetically pleasing would benefit from performance training.
You’re kind of fun to irritate because you irritate so easily.
And yet the guys who curl the 90’s 100’s with decent form for exactly one set of 6-8 reps always have bigger biceps than the idiots who try all the fad bs about decreasing rest-periods all the time (and as a result end up curling far smaller weights), adding volume/density etcetc…
99.9 percent of truly huge people lift a lot of weight for enough reps AND DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT REST PERIODS (as long as they are long enough to recover between sets), DENSITY OR OTHER SUCH THEORETICAL BS THAT SLOWS DOWN YOUR STRENGTH GAINS.
Who that visits this site doesn’t have access to the same information that you purport to have? You guys act like you have some secret that anyone cannot find out on their own.
[/quote] Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion? [quote]
Think about a sports car versus a mack truck. Both could theoretically have the same “performance” but both would differ in the amount of work that can be done and the time it takes to do it. The human body is the same in that regard.[/quote]
And the mack truck is bigger and “stronger” than the sports car… It can move more weight. The sports car is faster and accelerates faster as well. But no bodybuilder cares because we usually want to get bigger, so why emulate a sports car? Seems like the mack truck is the way to go.
Thanks for totally proving my point with that sports-car and mack truck analogy.
[quote]josh86 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
josh86 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A bunch of stupid bullcrap.
You are an idiot…seriously.
Hush!
You are a bodybuilder so you wouldn’t know the difference.
I’m sick of people telling others not to do curls and other direct arm work so they end up like the OP of another thread on the front page with a 48" chest and only 15" arms.[/quote]
I would make a good example of why you should do direct arm work. I used to avoid curls and tricep work, and where did it get me? I ended up with a 45" chest, a 655+lb rackpull, and arms less than 14" around.
After finally focusing on direct arms work, they grew an inch in less than a month…
Why is it that people think exercises that are supposed to hit your BACK will make your biceps grow? If they are, then you’re obviously doing something wrong…