The Bodybuilder Bunker

Training Bodybuilding
601

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Xeneize wrote:
This is seriously the best damn thread on the entire site. If I only have time to read one thread a day, this is it. It just feels like testosterone.

I’m learning so much from your discussions. Great stuff.

One question, since grip and forearm work seems to be one of the current topics:

How much strongman-type stuff do you guys incorporate, as in farmer’s walks, sleds, plate pinching and generally carrying heavy shit around?

ive never done any of that stuff. you could go for it but i think youd get more bang for your buck doing heavy movements where you need to suspend the bar. look at it like this, fat guys always have huge calves why? because theyre constantly suporting a heavy load. so i think it would make sense that if you wanted to make your forearms big you should make them support a very heavy weight as well.

I agree, heavy support exercises are great for grip/forearm work. But, what do you think most of the “strongman exercises” are? They’re supporting/holding onto heavy weights. Farmers walks are pretty much the epitome of that. Just pick up as heavy a pair of dumbbells as possible and walk around with them until your grip fails (also a pretty good calf exercise btw).

I’ve done a fair amount of strongman type exercises in the past and will say that they are tremendous for building grip strength. They are also good for building size, though honestly I think that doing some direct work as well (wrist curls, reverse BB curls, etc…) is also a good idea if maximal size is your goal.[/quote]

right, but with things like deadlifts, RDLs, rack pulls etc you get the same effect on the forearms as you would with the strongman type exercises but youre also targeting other muscles like the whole back and hams. thats why i said i think youd get more bang for your buck out of those versus the strongman.

602

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Alright new topic…

Say Dennis Wolf called you and asked you to give him advice on develeoping his lower lats. lol

What exercises and how would you execute them to give you the best results in overall lower lat development.

I have fairly wide upper lats but with my height my lower lats make me look less wide. What is everybody’s opinion on fixing the tiny lower lat syndrome? lol

Gerdy

I’d have to tell him he must have the wrong number. [/quote]

Is this not a good topic to bring up? I here people all the time talk about building back mass, and developing their backs, but never about what they do to pull up certain parts from their back instead of just saying do deadlifts/pull ups and you will be fine. No biggie tho, wrong number is a wrong number…my bad.

Gerdy

603

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

[/quote]

I have to agree. I think new trainees should focus on the big lifts and lift heavy. If you want to throw in a couple of bicep curls, so be it. But they shouldn’t be the focus of a training session.

I had a guy come up to me in the gym the other day asking me how he could work the “outside” of his bicep. He had to have had 10" arms. I just told him that I don’t do much direct arm work and I stick to the big movements and keep it heavy. I don’t think that’s what he wanted to hear. haha

604

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

[/quote]

I wont say they can’t do it ever. But if they are gonna do it, it should be at the end of workout IF (and they probably shouldn’t) they have enough energy from doing big movements. Plus, if you can row and chin solid weight, your biceps will get bigger. I do think its important to do tri work always, so you can get better at presses. But, I’m talking dips, and close grip presses, and skullcrushers. Not cable/rope pulldowns and bullshit.

Speaking from my personal experience: I never did direct bicep work for the first 4 years of lifting. Because I was too busy with my football team squatting, benching, incline benching, jerking (insert gay comment), snatching, power cleaning, deadlifting and doing DB arnold presses. Now thats all I did for 4 solid years. And got progressively stronger.

I’ll say that at 17, going into my senior season, I was benching 315 as a max, squatted 415 as a max, pulled 405 as a max, and cleaned 255.

(Disclaimer: Call bullshit if you want but I was alot heavier and I don’t have those lifts anymore, gettin’ there again though)

Then, when I stopped ball I wasted 8+ months doing iso bullshit work, making little progress in the strength department etc. I didn’t squat or deadlift for about 8 months. And haven’t power cleaned since, (gym doesn’t allow it but new gym this summer yay!!)

When I got my head on straight as far as training and nutrition, I started adding things like bicep curls, and guess what, my biceps blew up quickly in comparison to where they were.

That being said, my own experience tells me that if you get a big solid strong base, then brining up little secondary muscles is pretty easy with a bit of extra iso work.

Now I’ve been doing curls maybe a year right. And my arms are much bigger than guys my age who I’m friends with who’ve been doing preacher curls since they were 14, but never spent a large about of time pick truly heavy shit up off the floor or clean it up to their chest.

Long ramble, short answer, get considerably strong before you spend too much time thinking about direct arm work. Only pay extra attention to it if its gonna help you bring up your presses and rows.

605

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

[/quote]

Too be honest I’ve never been serious about direct arm work, I always did just enough but according to everyone here in the case of triceps it’s necessary because it will add to pressing strength…quick question, what’s considered enough mass? 15" and above?

606

[quote]PGA wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

I’m on the fence on this one. I’m speaking about biceps specifically here. They seem to not grow as much with indirect work (rows, pulls, etc) as tris do with pressing movements. There’s definitely a work difference between the two.

But early on, I would say no it’s not really necessary, but what can it really hurt? Dedicating an entire day to them early on, I say hell no. Doing them as a supplemental movement to rows and such, sure, why not? Then when the foundation is built, work on the imbalances if the person sees them.[/quote]

There is no reason to EVER avoid training them directly. This is a new fad. You train everything. Ignoring specific body parts makes no sense at all. I understand the original drive behind this idea was to get guys to stop ONLY worrying about curls and bench press, but clearly the innocent intent of that message is now lost being replaced by many who seem to think training them directly actually HURTS someone’s progress.

I trained them directly from the start and it did not become a negative in my training at all.

607

I’d say 16 and above…!

But my vote would be no. Big moves. Heavy. Basic. Compound. All the stuff we know now.

Joe

608

[quote]Qaash wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

Too be honest I’ve never been serious about direct arm work, I always did just enough but according to everyone here in the case of triceps it’s necessary because it will add to pressing strength…quick question, what’s considered enough mass? 15" and above?[/quote]

Does there really need to be a number associated with it? I mean, 15" arms a guy who is 5’7" is going to be completely different than a guy who is 6’3" right? Or am I wrong?

609

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

maybe its because i havent been lifting as long as some of you vets but i dont understand why you wouldnt want to do direct arm work. i mean if you have no mass wouldnt the idea be to put on as much as you can? i could see someone not training for BBing who has already put on a decent amount of size not doing direct arm work but arms make up a decent portion of the overall body. to me the concept of not working something because you want to to make it bigger is backwards logic i.e you have small arms so dont work them to make them bigger.

maybe im just interperting it wrong?[/quote]

I think you are interpreting it wrong.

The key is to not let it take away from the big more important lifts.

People need to understand something about training:

And I think this is VERY IMPORTANT.(This is another golden concept from Dante)

Training is a balancing act, anytime you add something to your training (in this case direct arm work) you ARE taking away from something else, in some way. Thats just the nature of the beast. And if it even remotely takes away from big lifts, in the early stages of a trainees lifting career ( a couple years is still the early stages), then that is not a good thing.

So no, its not about not doing it, particularly the backwards logic you mentioned, is jus about making sure its fits into a training scheme in the role of its importance.

610

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

[/quote]

Hmmm… well, I think it somewhat depends on the individual. If they’re coming from an athletic background and have good neuromuscular coordination/connections then I see no issue in having them do some direct arm work.

When I first started I did 1 exercise for each major muscle group, so that meant 1 for biceps, 1 for triceps and 1 for forearms. I know that Rippetoe’s Starting Strength has you doing some direct arm work as well (though I know he doesn’t have you start out with it from the beginning).

I think the focus should be on developing the big exercises (bench/military, squat, and deads/rows/power cleans), but as long as the person is spending ample time on those, I don’t see any problems with them also throwing in a couple sets of direct arm work.

Now, if the person was neuromuscularly/athletically challenged, then I might hold off on having them do direct arm work. After all, the fewer skills you work on, the better you will get at them.

611

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is no reason to EVER avoid training them directly. This is a new fad. You train everything. Ignoring specific body parts makes no sense at all. I understand the original drive behind this idea was to get guys to stop ONLY worrying about curls and bench press, but clearly the innocent intent of that message is now lost being replaced by many who seem to think training them directly actually HURTS someone’s progress.

I trained them directly from the start and it did not become a negative in my training at all. [/quote]

Who heartily agree, but when we’re talking about newbies, I’m thinking about the new T-Nation demographic, and almost all of the HS kids who only look to do bi’s and tri’s and design a routine around that.

612

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGA wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

I’m on the fence on this one. I’m speaking about biceps specifically here. They seem to not grow as much with indirect work (rows, pulls, etc) as tris do with pressing movements. There’s definitely a work difference between the two.

But early on, I would say no it’s not really necessary, but what can it really hurt? Dedicating an entire day to them early on, I say hell no. Doing them as a supplemental movement to rows and such, sure, why not? Then when the foundation is built, work on the imbalances if the person sees them.

There is no reason to EVER avoid training them directly. This is a new fad. You train everything. Ignoring specific body parts makes no sense at all. I understand the original drive behind this idea was to get guys to stop ONLY worrying about curls and bench press, but clearly the innocent intent of that message is now lost being replaced by many who seem to think training them directly actually HURTS someone’s progress.

I trained them directly from the start and it did not become a negative in my training at all. [/quote]

I completely agree with X and think it would be foolish not to. The “you can’t flex bone” statement could be argued for any muscle group on a begginner and just seems to be an excuse for not training.

613

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

maybe its because i havent been lifting as long as some of you vets but i dont understand why you wouldnt want to do direct arm work. i mean if you have no mass wouldnt the idea be to put on as much as you can? i could see someone not training for BBing who has already put on a decent amount of size not doing direct arm work but arms make up a decent portion of the overall body. to me the concept of not working something because you want to to make it bigger is backwards logic i.e you have small arms so dont work them to make them bigger.

maybe im just interperting it wrong?

I think you are interpreting it wrong.

The key is to not let it take away from the big more important lifts.

People need to understand something about training:

And I think this is VERY IMPORTANT.(This is another golden concept from Dante)

Training is a balancing act, anytime you add something to your training (in this case direct arm work) you ARE taking away from something else, in some way. Thats just the nature of the beast. And if it even remotely takes away from big lifts, in the early stages of a trainees lifting career ( a couple years is still the early stages), then that is not a good thing.

So no, its not about not doing it, particularly the backwards logic you mentioned, is jus about making sure its fits into a training scheme in the role of its importance.[/quote]

right right i would never place curls above back or leg work but i dont see how having a day of arm work is a negative thing if youve taken care of everything else. ive had times where things came up and i had to cut out a training day so id usually just take out something like arms or shoulders to make room for the more important groups like legs and chest/back.

i agree with what Prof X is saying, i think its good to stress the importance of hitting the more important muscles which is probaly what Tate meant by saying that and then it got mixed as “dont ever train biceps if youre new”. the aim of bodybuilding is to make everything bigger and stronger and it doesnt seem logical that you could achieve that through ignoring a muscle group. i have a tough enough time improving my arms and i could never imagine completely neglecting them.

614

I stand by my balancing act statement.
And ‘lagging’ body parts come up quick if you already are a strong trainee. Don’t throw them out the window, but use them to help with your big lifts. I.E. train heavy (alot of people think arms has to ben 3x12 or 2x20 for the pump).

If train your arms heavy, they will tremendously contribute to your push/pulls. More so than if you sit around doing Alternate DB curls for 20 reps per set.

And I bet your arms won’t be anything to scoff at when your other lifts are big.

615

[quote]Dirty Gerdy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Alright new topic…

Say Dennis Wolf called you and asked you to give him advice on develeoping his lower lats. lol

What exercises and how would you execute them to give you the best results in overall lower lat development.

I have fairly wide upper lats but with my height my lower lats make me look less wide. What is everybody’s opinion on fixing the tiny lower lat syndrome? lol

Gerdy

I’d have to tell him he must have the wrong number.

Is this not a good topic to bring up? I here people all the time talk about building back mass, and developing their backs, but never about what they do to pull up certain parts from their back instead of just saying do deadlifts/pull ups and you will be fine. No biggie tho, wrong number is a wrong number…my bad.

Gerdy[/quote]

It was just my smart ass way of saying that I have no clue what to tell someone who is obviously light years past me.

Not that it’s a bad topic - I just don’t know.

616

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
GetSwole wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

maybe its because i havent been lifting as long as some of you vets but i dont understand why you wouldnt want to do direct arm work. i mean if you have no mass wouldnt the idea be to put on as much as you can? i could see someone not training for BBing who has already put on a decent amount of size not doing direct arm work but arms make up a decent portion of the overall body. to me the concept of not working something because you want to to make it bigger is backwards logic i.e you have small arms so dont work them to make them bigger.

maybe im just interperting it wrong?

I think you are interpreting it wrong.

The key is to not let it take away from the big more important lifts.

People need to understand something about training:

And I think this is VERY IMPORTANT.(This is another golden concept from Dante)

Training is a balancing act, anytime you add something to your training (in this case direct arm work) you ARE taking away from something else, in some way. Thats just the nature of the beast. And if it even remotely takes away from big lifts, in the early stages of a trainees lifting career ( a couple years is still the early stages), then that is not a good thing.

So no, its not about not doing it, particularly the backwards logic you mentioned, is jus about making sure its fits into a training scheme in the role of its importance.

right right i would never place curls above back or leg work but i dont see how having a day of arm work is a negative thing if youve taken care of everything else. ive had times where things came up and i had to cut out a training day so id usually just take out something like arms or shoulders to make room for the more important groups like legs and chest/back.

i agree with what Prof X is saying, i think its good to stress the importance of hitting the more important muscles which is probaly what Tate meant by saying that and then it got mixed as “dont ever train biceps if youre new”. the aim of bodybuilding is to make everything bigger and stronger and it doesnt seem logical that you could achieve that through ignoring a muscle group. i have a tough enough time improving my arms and i could never imagine completely neglecting them. [/quote]

Again, I never said don’t train them, just order them accordingly. But I will say I find a direct arm day for me personally, useless. I kind of find 5 day splits hit everything once a week useless.

I’ll preface that with I’m most likely not advanced enough to utilize that yet. And I think most young trainees aren’t. Our recovery is simply to good and our weights not heavy enough to constitute not squatting or pulling and pressing 2x a week but instead have “delt/bi/tri” day.

My favorite “bodybuilding” style split at my level of devlopement is a push/pull/legs.

My favorite strength/power/performance split is upper/lower.

I did upper/lower for a long time before moving into splits, and I’m glad I did cuz I think their gold for getting strong.

Again, what I’m doing know, push/pull/legs is about the most splitting I think young trainees need to do.

5 day splits are for advanced guys who lift shit heavy weight for plenty of reps and simply don’t have the ability to recover from that in 3 days.

617

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGA wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

I’m on the fence on this one. I’m speaking about biceps specifically here. They seem to not grow as much with indirect work (rows, pulls, etc) as tris do with pressing movements. There’s definitely a work difference between the two.

But early on, I would say no it’s not really necessary, but what can it really hurt? Dedicating an entire day to them early on, I say hell no. Doing them as a supplemental movement to rows and such, sure, why not? Then when the foundation is built, work on the imbalances if the person sees them.

There is no reason to EVER avoid training them directly. This is a new fad. You train everything. Ignoring specific body parts makes no sense at all. I understand the original drive behind this idea was to get guys to stop ONLY worrying about curls and bench press, but clearly the innocent intent of that message is now lost being replaced by many who seem to think training them directly actually HURTS someone’s progress.

I trained them directly from the start and it did not become a negative in my training at all. [/quote]

I don’t think 25 years is a fad - I was taught this when I was first training.

You wanna throw in a couple of sets at the end - no big deal. But if this is your first week in the gym - no way would I have an arm day.

Key word in my question is “beginner”. he’s not going to get a bigger back, or a thicker chest by doing curls and press downs. He will, however, get bigger arms by doing rows, pull downs, BP, and presses.

I knew this question would spark a good discussion.

618

Another question:
Have any of y’all had an injury that kept you out of the gym for a significant amount of time? Say a year or more. If so, how did your lifting/strategy change on your return?

619

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PGA wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s a question:

Should someone just starting out do direct arm work?

I’m in the Dave Tate school on this: “You can’t flex bone.” If you don’t have enough mass to flex, there is no point to direct work on tertiary muscle groups.

I’m on the fence on this one. I’m speaking about biceps specifically here. They seem to not grow as much with indirect work (rows, pulls, etc) as tris do with pressing movements. There’s definitely a work difference between the two.

But early on, I would say no it’s not really necessary, but what can it really hurt? Dedicating an entire day to them early on, I say hell no. Doing them as a supplemental movement to rows and such, sure, why not? Then when the foundation is built, work on the imbalances if the person sees them.

There is no reason to EVER avoid training them directly. This is a new fad. You train everything. Ignoring specific body parts makes no sense at all. I understand the original drive behind this idea was to get guys to stop ONLY worrying about curls and bench press, but clearly the innocent intent of that message is now lost being replaced by many who seem to think training them directly actually HURTS someone’s progress.

I trained them directly from the start and it did not become a negative in my training at all.

I completely agree with X and think it would be foolish not to. The “you can’t flex bone” statement could be argued for any muscle group on a begginner and just seems to be an excuse for not training.

[/quote]

Tate was specifically referring to arms when he said that.

If you are rebuilding a car - the tires really don’t come into play until you get the motor running, and the drive train working.

620

Great thread, havent had time to read it all, but what hand position gives you guys maximal strength on the bench press. I used to keep my ring finger on the ring, but like to change it up so i have my pinky on the inside of the ring.

Again, this is all individual due to size and wing span, but what hand spacing gives you maximal strength on the bench press?