[quote]mtd25 wrote:
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?[/quote]
I’m 6’1" and I always have my pinky fingers on the rings.
Here’s Dave Tate’s take on isolation exercises for beginning/small trainees.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1545068
I think it’s #25, or 26.
I do stand corrected however. He doesn’t explicitly name biceps.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Here’s Dave Tate’s take on isolation exercises for beginning/small trainees.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1545068
I think it’s #25, or 26.
I do stand corrected however. He doesn’t explicitly name biceps.
[/quote]
I see Dave’s point and agree to a certain extent. Someone starting out would be better served trying to build their pecs with incline presses, dumbbell presses etc than a pec deck or cable crossover. Arm work in my opinion is basic bodybuilding. That doesn’t mean 1 arm cable preacher curls with a 30 degree twist at the contraction, to me that means doubling the weight(in good form of course) that someone can barbell dumbbell or preacher curl. People don’t need to spend set after set with superfluous exercises when close grips, dips, extensions can get the job done for triceps.
The only muscles I think don’t need to be trained for everyone are the abs if they are a heavy weight trainer and don’t have a significant weakness there. Most everything else needs stimulation either directly or indirectly.
Someone can probably grow decent arms with just chest/shoulder pressing and rows and pulldowns/chins, but we aren’t after decent here are we?
[quote]mtd25 wrote:
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?[/quote]
At 5’7" my index finger on the ring.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Here’s Dave Tate’s take on isolation exercises for beginning/small trainees.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1545068
I think it’s #25, or 26.
I do stand corrected however. He doesn’t explicitly name biceps.
I see Dave’s point and agree to a certain extent. Someone starting out would be better served trying to build their pecs with incline presses, dumbbell presses etc than a pec deck or cable crossover. Arm work in my opinion is basic bodybuilding. That doesn’t mean 1 arm cable preacher curls with a 30 degree twist at the contraction, to me that means doubling the weight(in good form of course) that someone can barbell dumbbell or preacher curl. People don’t need to spend set after set with superfluous exercises when close grips, dips, extensions can get the job done for triceps.
The only muscles I think don’t need to be trained for everyone are the abs if they are a heavy weight trainer and don’t have a significant weakness there. Most everything else needs stimulation either directly or indirectly.
Someone can probably grow decent arms with just chest/shoulder pressing and rows and pulldowns/chins, but we aren’t after decent here are we? [/quote]
I don’t think a new trainee should be doing basic body building. He should be doing basic mass building if he wants to be a body builder.
But hey - I’m not saying I’m absolutely right. I just have my opinion, and I knew I could get a reaction from ProfX.
I should have clarified further. When I say bodybuilding I don’t mean bodybuilding training, just the thought process and goal of a bodybuilders physique.
I believe everyone should “powerbuild” at least the first 1-3 years of their training. If most aspiring bodybuilders were forced to train with a group of established power lifters(400+ benches 600+ squats and deads) for a year we’d have a lot more intermediate/advanced guys walking around then beginners flip flopping between routines and wondering why their genetics suck.
Not saying everyone has to powerlift, but training for strength over time would benefit people way more than whatever they are doing right now most likely. It sounds so stupid and common sense, but it’s not happening so it bares repeating every so often.
Dave Tate is also a powerlifter, while that doesnt mean he doesnt know anything you may want to take what he says with a grain of salt as his sport/profession doesnt involve building a balanced and aesthetic phyisque its just about moving weight and beating numbers. so is it merely coincidence that the powerlifting guy is the one saying “dont train arms directly”?
it seems in bodybuilding theres 2 things, things that will hurt you and things that will help you. if training your arms isnt going to hurt you then by reason of elimination it can only help you. i also think its pretty obvious that a person training all major compounds and doing arm work is going to surpass someone doing only major compounds especially considering how much longer it takes a newbie to recover from compound lifts would you really want them training deadlifts and squats twice a week?
to me its like saying dont ever train your calves just focus on squats.
The subject of whether direct arm work is necessary for beginners for optimal growth is a hotly debated topic on many message boards; so what I’m about to contribute will hardly shed any light on the topic.
Just to recap some of the valid arguments in favor of avoiding direct arm training:
Fewer exercises ingrains in the minds of beginners which are the cornerstone/basic/prime ones
More time on fewer exercises allows for quicker mastery of the basics
Current studies show no significant difference in the results of beginners who do include direct arm training with those who don’t (Note: I have issues with these studies, but I’ll save it for another time)
More time efficient to skip smaller body parts
That said, from my point of view I would include it even in a rank beginner’s program because:
it only takes a few extra minutes to add in a couple of sets of biceps and triceps.
for many of us, beginners included, we enjoy the sensation of a good pump in our arms. In other words it adds to the enjoyment of training.
At the very worst, assuming direct arm training doesn’t produce greater results in beginners, you’ve only lost a few minutes of your time, but gained an element of enjoyment which, to me, is very important.
I know it’s become popular for some authors who are in favor of excluding direct arm training to suggest that if you’re directly training arms that it automatically means that you’re following Jay Cutler’s 32 set routine, but it simply doesn’t have to be that way. There are other options.
[quote]rainjack 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 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. [/quote]
Every guy I’ve known with arms over 18" did not avoid training biceps directly. While they may be out there, I don’t see the value in making this a RULE for beginners. I understand there is a new crop of former couch potatoes out there who apparently never did anything more athletic than reaching for the remote control before they hit the gym, but I honestly don’t see why that would be the focus in a thread like this.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Dave Tate is also a powerlifter, while that doesnt mean he doesnt know anything you may want to take what he says with a grain of salt as his sport/profession doesnt involve building a balanced and aesthetic phyisque its just about moving weight and beating numbers. so is it merely coincidence that the powerlifting guy is the one saying “dont train arms directly”
[/quote]
Dave Tate said, “don’t train arms directly”? I find that hard to believe.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Every guy I’ve known with arms over 18" did not avoid training biceps directly. While they may be out there, I don’t see the value in making this a RULE for beginners. I understand there is a new crop of former couch potatoes out there who apparently never did anything more athletic than reaching for the remote control before they hit the gym, but I honestly don’t see why that would be the focus in a thread like this. [/quote]
How many people today are not couch potatoes? If someone starts training and they have an athletic background, I’m pretty sure they would not qualify as a new trainee, or someone that couldn’t flex.
I think you are doing what you accuse others of doing - only focusing on a few words in what I am saying, and trying to apply it across the board.
It’s not a rule. It’s my opinion. I have not been given rule making authority, yet.
Should someone who wants bigger arms train the arms directly? If you don’t know the answer then you don’t know shit. Seriously, this does not need to be discussed.
[quote]dwilliams wrote:
Should someone who wants bigger arms train the arms directly? If you don’t know the answer then you don’t know shit. Seriously, this does not need to be discussed.
[/quote]
I’m sorry - but who the fuck are you again?
Well, unless people still want to discuss directly training arms, go ahead, but I’ve got a new question.
How much do you guys directly train your traps? Generally, I get a lot out of my deads / rack pulls / cleans, but I’ll still generally throw in three to five sets of (fairly) heavy-weighted shrugs.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
dwilliams wrote:
Should someone who wants bigger arms train the arms directly? If you don’t know the answer then you don’t know shit. Seriously, this does not need to be discussed.
I’m sorry - but who the fuck are you again?
[/quote]
I’m dwilliams, duh!
A guy who knows that you have to train arms if you want bigger arms.
I am resurrecting this 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 it effect your training once you got back to the gym?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How many people today are not couch potatoes? [/quote]
Honestly? Hopefully no one posting in this thread. I agree, if you fall down during slight breezes when walking and find grocery carts extremely difficult to push when there is nothing in them, you just may need to avoid direct biceps training and focus on overall development of basic strength. If, however, you can curl 35lbs on your first day in the gym, train EVERYTHING directly and indirectly.
I thought this thread was devoid of the non-serious lifters?
I have done shrugs off and on, but nothing, and I mean nothing, makes my traps sore like heavy deads and rack deads with a double overhand grip.
Shrugs are alright, but most people do them incorrectly anyway. And for the love of god don’t roll shoulders back in forth in a “shrug”.
[quote]dwilliams wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dwilliams wrote:
Should someone who wants bigger arms train the arms directly? If you don’t know the answer then you don’t know shit. Seriously, this does not need to be discussed.
I’m sorry - but who the fuck are you again?
I’m dwilliams, duh!
A guy who knows that you have to train arms if you want bigger arms.
[/quote]
You jump in at the end of the discussion not knowing what the fuck was even being discussed.
I’ll give you a few minutes to read up. Then you can either rephrase your statement to reflect something that was actually said, or you can offer an apology for being such a dipshit, or you can just slink away and learn that beginners should read and listen 5 times more than they should speak and type.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
I have done shrugs off and on, but nothing, and I mean nothing, makes my traps sore like heavy deads and rack deads with a double overhand grip.
Shrugs are alright, but most people do them incorrectly anyway. And for the love of god don’t roll shoulders back in forth in a “shrug”.[/quote]
Holy shit, you’re not lying. Biggest pet peeve is when a frat-curler walks up to the rack, grabs a pair of 90 lb dumbbells, stands right in front of the rack that he got the dumbbells from, and without moving out of the way, proceeds to do “roll-shrugs.” What the fuck are these even working out, the rotator cuff?