[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Okay I don’t think i am quite getting the stuff going on here…
…if someone’s goal is to build muscle mass… then why wouldn’t they train in the way that has been show by overall results to induce hypertrophy the fastest?
If someone’s goals are to build up their muscles symmetrically, why would they ignore training a particular muscle and hope that it gets developed with everything else. WHy do people believe taht if i dobicep exercises after my back work, it will somehow cause a cataclysmic event in my body where i will fail to add size or strength?
You grow muscle by lifting heavy weight, yes. But why limit yourself? Even powerlifters do arm work, and they train for ‘performance’. Is the act of training my biceps directly going to somehow take away from my real world strength? If i want large arms… why would I neglect training them? To do powercleans?
I myself use a PLing bench style. My chest is still without a doubt the primary mover, infact, in every single press where my chest is included it takes the brunt of the work. WHy would I just do bench and dips and hope that my triceps will grow optimally as well when i could add some direct arm work after my chest (or whenever) and KNOW and SEE the benefits?
When I train back my goal is to (you guessed it) train my back. I don’t to pullups for my biceps. My biceps also don’t get much stimulus from rows. Therrefore it makes sense for me to do curls in order to make sure my biceps get hit.
I just don’t see why people need to think in extremes. Why do you need to act as if direct arm work is borderline evil? It just doesn’t make sense. You need direct arm work to cover all your bases and in order for your compounds to actually keep improving after a certain point. Whatever happened to training not only the heavy compound work… but your arms too?[/quote]
“Everything works, nothing works forever.”
I don’t know, maybe that statement isn’t true.