The More I Work Arms, the More They Shrink

Training Bodybuilding
121

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
I am only 29 years old but I do not think 40 is too old to grow at all. Many people have told me that they had their best gains in their 30s and 40s. I know it has been easier to gain strength now than it was at 20. However, this could be from a better standard of living since I did not know much about nutrition back then and all my life consisted of was being harassed by assignments and tests. I did not sleep as regularly as I do now either.

When talking with Coach Poliquin I learned that the best years of growing are between 32 and 35. So at 40 your growth potential is still there.

Here are some examples that I personally witnessed. Granted they relate more to strength, but it still applies.

  • When I was training at the Canadian National Center (Olympic lifting) we had a guy who was 67 years old who clean and jerked 125kg (275lbs) … it was a power clean BTW, power snatched 92.5kg (204lbs) and push pressed 140kg (308lbs) for 5 reps!!! While this is amazing enough, the most impressive part is that he actually STARTED training at 55 years of age!

  • A good friend of mine deadlifted 600lbs, full squatted 550lbs x 5 and cleaned 170kg (375lbs) at 48 years of age.

  • Another friend of mine is still competing in bodybuilding closing on 60. He has done 112 bodybuilding shows and at his age he can still destroy most young bucks you see strutting their stuff in gyms around the country.

  • I met a guy at the gym where I have my office. The guy is 45 years of age and looks fantastic. 5’9’', 210lbs with abs, strong as a bull too. He even competed once in bodybuilding and won his class. I asked him if he had been training for long… turns out that he started at 42 when he read an article about ‘‘how to look like a bodybuilder without being one’’ in a popular magazine. In that time frame he added around 40lbs of solid muscle.[/quote]

Ellington Darden stated that 32 was the optimal age to add mass as well. Dorian stated that he made his best gains in his 30s. This is true. His notable transformation occurred when he was 31 or 32, if I recall correctly. He did make training adjustments nutrition and training wise though at this time. Dave “Texas Shredder” Goodin added 20 lbs of mass past the age of 35. Fellow Canuck of CT, Peter North is shredded at age 46.

Obviously, after a certain age, gains will slow down but it is greatly exaggerated by many excuse making fat slobs that after you turn 30, you MUST turn into one of their excuse making fat ass colleagues.

122

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
When talking with Coach Poliquin I learned that the best years of growing are between 32 and 35. So at 40 your growth potential is still there.[/quote]

I totally agree with that! It always used to puzzle me when scientists say that “after age 30, testosterone levels drop by about 10 percent every decade” because the biggest guys I know are in their 30’s. Although you could argue the fact that they have have more training, it doesn’t explain why people who don’t even train are always bigger/stronger at that age. My brother (there is a large age gap) is in his mid 30’s and is bigger than he was in his 20’s (despite not even training).

123

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:

Obviously, after a certain age, gains will slow down but it is greatly exaggerated by many excuse making fat slobs that after you turn 30, you MUST turn into one of their excuse making fat ass colleagues.
[/quote]

I think the problem is testosteron, at first i gained slowly if some. Later, when increased activity, my body transform from that soft look and is getting harder. by now, people that knows me, is amaze from my chest/arm vascularity which I never had before.

124

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
When talking with Coach Poliquin I learned that the best years of growing are between 32 and 35. So at 40 your growth potential is still there.

I totally agree with that! It always used to puzzle me when scientists say that “after age 30, testosterone levels drop by about 10 percent every decade” because the biggest guys I know are in their 30’s. Although you could argue the fact that they have have more training, it doesn’t explain why people who don’t even train are always bigger/stronger at that age. My brother (there is a large age gap) is in his mid 30’s and is bigger than he was in his 20’s (despite not even training).[/quote]

Yes, you look bolder when you age. something on the muscles get “maturity”.

125

On the subject of traininig age I think it’s something to do with frequency of use. The more a muscle is used (e.g. like with experience/age), the more potential it has for growth/strength even when the muscle hasn’t been exposed to maximum loads.

It’s like when you train a muscle more frequently; even if the frequency is reduced in the future, the muscle is already primed for growth. I’ve heard of people who say that it wasn’t until they gave a certain muscle group (e.g. calves) very high volume (via high frequency) that it started to respond…even when the frequency was reduced.

126

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
When talking with Coach Poliquin I learned that the best years of growing are between 32 and 35. So at 40 your growth potential is still there.

I totally agree with that! It always used to puzzle me when scientists say that “after age 30, testosterone levels drop by about 10 percent every decade” because the biggest guys I know are in their 30’s. Although you could argue the fact that they have have more training, it doesn’t explain why people who don’t even train are always bigger/stronger at that age. My brother (there is a large age gap) is in his mid 30’s and is bigger than he was in his 20’s (despite not even training).[/quote]

That is simple maturity and use of muscle tissue. Men are meant to carry more muscle than women naturally without any weight lifting at all. In fact, the only reason so many men now resemble women is because their activity level is so low it doesn’t even match half of the activity of people living even a century ago.

Your testosterone levels DO begin to drop in your mid-late 30’s and most of the truly big guys that age have been lifting for over a decade at least.

Your muscles take on a different look in your 30’s. You look more solid or “dense”.

Many of the guys I have known who started lifting in their teens or their 20’s state that they seem to hit another spurt in their 30’s. That doesn’t change the fact that if you are just starting to lift over the age of 35, there is no way in hell you should expect the same rate of progress that you would have experienced when you were in your 20’s and early 30’s.

127

I agree with much of what X says. However, I do have another piece of information that deals with this subject. I know an endocrinologist and an andro-urologist (urologist with an andrology fellowship) and both have stated that in reality, T levels do not decrease as much as people think it does.

There are 80 year old men with a level of 800 ng/dL and some 35 year old men with a level of 400 ng/dL. It is very undividual. My grandfather tested in the 700s recently. I think people should read the Testosterone Syndrome by Eugene Shippen if anyone is interested in anything related to T.

128

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I agree with much of what X says. However, I do have another piece of information that deals with this subject. I know an endocrinologist and an andro-urologist (urologist with an andrology fellowship) and both have stated that in reality, T levels do not decrease as much as people think it does.

There are 80 year old men with a level of 800 ng/dL and some 35 year old men with a level of 400 ng/dL. It is very undividual. My grandfather tested in the 700s recently. I think people should read the Testosterone Syndrome by Eugene Shippen if anyone is interested in anything related to T. [/quote]

I think body fat tissue alters test levels. Then, older people very lean, has normal test level. Younger ones, with fat, got reduced levels.

129

[quote]Mega Newb wrote:
Eat more.

You know what you eat now?

Just take that, and add more.

Eat a full chicken instead of a half next time, get back to us a year and 25lbs later. [/quote]

well i am back with extra pound and thanks god not following your advice. that would increase the chances on getting fat from the one time meal… i continue to eat half chicken.

130

i found this article which refers to the original post:

“This strategy is fine for the calves and deltoids, but not much else. Your other muscles tend to shrink when high endurance demands are placed on them. That’s why there’s got to be a delicate balance between load and volume. It’s like Goldilocks and her porridge.”

131

you know you look kind of like anthony banderas.

132

[quote]bigNasty_ wrote:
you know you look kind of like anthony banderas.[/quote]

so what?.. post any additional information about the question, go post that crap on bb.com…

133

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
when I do compound, they grow, just slowly. I want them to reach a larger size and that is why I tried to do direct work. but whenever I do, the next morning it is at least 1/4" smaller. [/quote]

This may be your problem right here: you are basing training decisions on a measurement that doesn’t mean anything.

Be concerned with whether say a MONTH’s worth of a given training approach gives you bigger or (unlikely) smaller arms when measured under the same conditions.

Not on the next morning.

On your quote, whether it is relevant or not depends on whether the “endurance” being referred to has any relation to what you mean by higher rep work for arms.

I believe the author recommended rep schemes as high as 100 for the bodyparts he says, in that quote, respond well to endurance work.

No, don’t do 100 reps per set for biceps or triceps.

That is how you should take that quote.

Not that 15 or 20 reps per exercise (if a typically-quick tempo) is being said to be bad, or perhaps 100 reps total per workout – just as an example, not a necessary particular figure – is being said to be bad.

Lastly: it’s not so clear your arms really are lagging behind say your chest and back. While I am not making the argument that you seemed to have some sympathy for in your original post – that for best arms there should be no direct work (disagree) – still you might well find progress with the arms better upon pushing up what you can do in the close-grip bench press and various types of hard lat work, including rows in higher rep ranges.

I don’t think your problem requires re-inventing the wheel: unlike your suggestion, I truly don’t think some unusual personal hormonal problem is to blame, or any really particular-to-the-person problem. Rather, arm training is a well-understood field, there are a lot of solutions out there, and your problem probably boils down to simple things such as mistakenly rejecting good methods on account of next-morning measurement, or otherwise not following known-good practices because of probably-mistakenly thinking that you differ from the great majority in what is needed for arms.

134

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
when I do compound, they grow, just slowly. I want them to reach a larger size and that is why I tried to do direct work. but whenever I do, the next morning it is at least 1/4" smaller.

This may be your problem right here: you are basing training decisions on a measurement that doesn’t mean anything.

Be concerned with whether say a MONTH’s worth of a given training approach gives you bigger or (unlikely) smaller arms when measured under the same conditions.

Not on the next morning.

On your quote, whether it is relevant or not depends on whether the “endurance” being referred to has any relation to what you mean by higher rep work for arms.

I believe the author recommended rep schemes as high as 100 for the bodyparts he says, in that quote, respond well to endurance work.

No, don’t do 100 reps per set for biceps or triceps.

That is how you should take that quote.

Not that 15 or 20 reps per exercise (if a typically-quick tempo) is being said to be bad, or perhaps 100 reps total per workout – just as an example, not a necessary particular figure – is being said to be bad.

Lastly: it’s not so clear your arms really are lagging behind say your chest and back. While I am not making the argument that you seemed to have some sympathy for in your original post – that for best arms there should be no direct work (disagree) – still you might well find progress with the arms better upon pushing up what you can do in the close-grip bench press and various types of hard lat work, including rows in higher rep ranges.

I don’t think your problem requires re-inventing the wheel: unlike your suggestion, I truly don’t think some unusual personal hormonal problem is to blame, or any really particular-to-the-person problem. Rather, arm training is a well-understood field, there are a lot of solutions out there, and your problem probably boils down to simple things such as mistakenly rejecting good methods on account of next-morning measurement, or otherwise not following known-good practices because of probably-mistakenly thinking that you differ from the great majority in what is needed for arms.[/quote]

never mind, i just post it to keep my thread updated.

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

135

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
when I do compound, they grow, just slowly. I want them to reach a larger size and that is why I tried to do direct work. but whenever I do, the next morning it is at least 1/4" smaller.

This may be your problem right here: you are basing training decisions on a measurement that doesn’t mean anything.

Be concerned with whether say a MONTH’s worth of a given training approach gives you bigger or (unlikely) smaller arms when measured under the same conditions.

Not on the next morning.

On your quote, whether it is relevant or not depends on whether the “endurance” being referred to has any relation to what you mean by higher rep work for arms.

I believe the author recommended rep schemes as high as 100 for the bodyparts he says, in that quote, respond well to endurance work.

No, don’t do 100 reps per set for biceps or triceps.

That is how you should take that quote.

Not that 15 or 20 reps per exercise (if a typically-quick tempo) is being said to be bad, or perhaps 100 reps total per workout – just as an example, not a necessary particular figure – is being said to be bad.

Lastly: it’s not so clear your arms really are lagging behind say your chest and back. While I am not making the argument that you seemed to have some sympathy for in your original post – that for best arms there should be no direct work (disagree) – still you might well find progress with the arms better upon pushing up what you can do in the close-grip bench press and various types of hard lat work, including rows in higher rep ranges.

I don’t think your problem requires re-inventing the wheel: unlike your suggestion, I truly don’t think some unusual personal hormonal problem is to blame, or any really particular-to-the-person problem. Rather, arm training is a well-understood field, there are a lot of solutions out there, and your problem probably boils down to simple things such as mistakenly rejecting good methods on account of next-morning measurement, or otherwise not following known-good practices because of probably-mistakenly thinking that you differ from the great majority in what is needed for arms.

never mind, i just post it to keep my thread updated.

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

[/quote]

Bill, in my opinion, people now just like to hear themselves speak (or read their writings) about the minutia of nutrition and endocrinology. They do it to start conversations and to “feel” smart.

136

[quote]juanjromero wrote:

never mind, i just post it to keep my thread updated.

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

[/quote]

???

137

[quote]juanjromero wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
~

I don’t think your problem requires re-inventing the wheel: unlike your suggestion, I truly don’t think some unusual personal hormonal problem is to blame, or any really particular-to-the-person problem. Rather, arm training is a well-understood field, there are a lot of solutions out there, and your problem probably boils down to simple things such as mistakenly rejecting good methods on account of next-morning measurement, or otherwise not following known-good practices because of probably-mistakenly thinking that you differ from the great majority in what is needed for arms.

never mind, i just post it to keep my thread updated.

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

[/quote]

Wow, you come across as a complete jerk. Is that intentional, or is there something lost in the translation?

138

[quote]juanjromero wrote:

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

[/quote]

Well… see that is why you havn’t reached 18 inches yet. You havn’t been eating your whole chickens. The magic is in the beaks.

139

[quote]Curzon wrote:
juanjromero wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
~

I don’t think your problem requires re-inventing the wheel: unlike your suggestion, I truly don’t think some unusual personal hormonal problem is to blame, or any really particular-to-the-person problem. Rather, arm training is a well-understood field, there are a lot of solutions out there, and your problem probably boils down to simple things such as mistakenly rejecting good methods on account of next-morning measurement, or otherwise not following known-good practices because of probably-mistakenly thinking that you differ from the great majority in what is needed for arms.

never mind, i just post it to keep my thread updated.

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

Wow, you come across as a complete jerk. Is that intentional, or is there something lost in the translation?
[/quote]

translation problem i think… and dissapointed of posting about how someone looks like something and very few that actually helps… sometimes this place is childish…

140

[quote]DJS wrote:
juanjromero wrote:

,despite all the knowledge and crap on this site… i am 16",1/2 on my arm now. (3"1/2 more than before.) and i did not have to eat a whole chicken to do it. and roids neither.

Well… see that is why you havn’t reached 18 inches yet. You havn’t been eating your whole chickens. The magic is in the beaks. [/quote]

nope… eeating a whole chicken doules my gut size in 3 weeks… and cutting all that fat, reduces my arm… already tried…