[quote]Professor X wrote:
From personal experience, I don’t know many people with arms near or above 20" who don’t train their arms directly and never did. I think the confusion comes because many beginners think the way they should train is the same way guys who have been lifting for several years should train.
I have never agreed with the current “avoid all isolation work” trend. It’s like some kind of fad lately and hopefully it will die as quickly as kettleballs did. [/quote]
What if someone were doing total body workouts three or four times a week using only compound movements? Do you still feel that specific biceps/triceps movements would be beneficial?
[quote]Marshallman wrote:
Professor X wrote:
From personal experience, I don’t know many people with arms near or above 20" who don’t train their arms directly and never did. I think the confusion comes because many beginners think the way they should train is the same way guys who have been lifting for several years should train.
I have never agreed with the current “avoid all isolation work” trend. It’s like some kind of fad lately and hopefully it will die as quickly as kettleballs did.
What if someone were doing total body workouts three or four times a week using only compound movements? Do you still feel that specific biceps/triceps movements would be beneficial?
[/quote]
I personally would never recommend full body workouts like that to anyone but a rank beginner in order to build up an initial base of strength. If that same beginner were to avoid isolation movements for a few months, that is fine. Anyone else I would think it would make very little sense to train that way and avoid all isolation work.
This has been discussed before. How are you going to train your lateral delts with no isolation work? Do you honestly think your triceps are going to reach their full potential if you NEVER train them directly? What about calves or what if your forearms are lagging and you aren’t genetically gifted in that area?
I think the point being made is that it makes no sense to expect to be your BEST while avoiding any direct work for certain body parts. You may make some progress and you may get stronger. However, I would imagine that if you set up a schedule based on your goals instead of simply following some cookie cutter routine…and actually began listening to your own body and learning what works best for it, you would make much better progress.
Yes, that takes time and even trial and error. It seems way too many want to avoid any trial and error as if they can skip that part. You can’t.
I think where most people still get confused is when talking about training athlete’s as apposed to body builders. Unless an athlete is lagging in their triceps and biceps strength, therefore hindering their compound movements, you simply don’t train arms. They will behind your back, but you don’t prescribe it. You train movements. PL’s train to be strong at 2 or 3 movements. That’s why the curls for girls attitude. For a bodybuilder though, the goals are different. The desired physical appearance is different. Therefore your approach is different. Your event so to speak as a bodybuilder, is how defined you are for your size. Not how much you lift or how fast you go. A different approach is needed for every different event. You gotta train arms directly to get a well developed arm. That’s my 2 cents?
It honestly makes no sense to me. If you want big arms - train them directly.
Every physique that I admire was built with both compound and isolation exercises.
Arnold
The Rock
Shannon Sharpe
Just to name a few. All these guys have great physiques built for different goals, but all advocate isolation work for the arms.
I think a person would have to be a very busy individual to say they have no time to train with isolation exercises and need more ‘bang for their buck’.
I went through a period of compound only exercises in the later stage of a football season. The second the season was over and I did direct arm work, I experienced some decent growth which I doubt would have come without the direct work.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
I think where most people still get confused is when talking about training athlete’s as apposed to body builders. Unless an athlete is lagging in their triceps and biceps strength, therefore hindering their compound movements, you simply don’t train arms. They will behind your back, but you don’t prescribe it. You train movements. PL’s train to be strong at 2 or 3 movements. That’s why the curls for girls attitude. For a bodybuilder though, the goals are different. The desired physical appearance is different. Therefore your approach is different. Your event so to speak as a bodybuilder, is how defined you are for your size. Not how much you lift or how fast you go. A different approach is needed for every different event. You gotta train arms directly to get a well developed arm. That’s my 2 cents?[/quote]
There are many strength and conditioning coaches who almost see no direct arm work as a badge of honour.
After reading much of Defranco and Poliquin, and Thibaudeau I would say this is a mistake regardless of whether the trainer is an athlete or bodybuilder.
Strong and muscular arms are exactly that. An athlete is better off with a strong set of arms for fending off opposition, tackling and so on.
A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. I try to eliminate any weak links that I may have, so I’m sure as hell going to be working my arms directly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally would never recommend full body workouts like that to anyone but a rank beginner in order to build up an initial base of strength…
However, I would imagine that if you set up a schedule based on your goals instead of simply following some cookie cutter routine…and actually began listening to your own body and learning what works best for it, you would make much better progress.
Yes, that takes time and even trial and error. It seems way too many want to avoid any trial and error as if they can skip that part. You can’t.
[/quote]
I have to second both of these trains of thought. For myself, I don’t think I could train my whole body hard enough in one workout. I’d be drained long before I was done. Also getting ideas and principles from people with more experience, knowledge and progress than you have is both sensible and essential, but that’s not the same as adopting an entire pre-made routine. It may be a good launching point, but I wonder how many guys stick with a routine longer than they should because somebody who may really know what they’re talking about recommended it even though it may not be the best for them individually or at that time.
[quote]Man O’ War wrote:
That could well be the case. You can just write anything in there.
I should have actually left that bit out of the quote. The first half was all that was needed.
I just find it extremely amusing when people try to tell somebody with more education, more experience and a better set of arms how to train.
Not that I know the guy posting on Amazon, but I would have a stab in saying that Poliquin has him covered.[/quote]
Yeah, didn’t mean to hijack. Just something I noticed that took my thought away from what was actually being discussed.
My take on the whole thing is that if isolation is good enough for Magnus, Arnold, Kaz, Ronnie, et al (read: all the iron game greats), then it’s damn well good enough for me. I’m not going to argue with thoe guys. Or Poliquin.
[quote]OneEye wrote:
My take on the whole thing is that if isolation is good enough for Magnus, Arnold, Kaz, Ronnie, et al (read: all the iron game greats), then it’s damn well good enough for me. I’m not going to argue with thoe guys. Or Poliquin.[/quote]
You’re correct. Even on a smaller scale, the big guys in the gyms I have worked in have all done direct arm work.
Is it OK for me to assume that most of us agree that direct arm work is beneficial, in addition to the work done with compound movements? That direct arm work by itself and compound work by itself without direct arm work are both inferior to the results with combined effort?
A question I have for the megasplit people, who seem to have the mindset, right or wrong, that they don’t think that they can get enough work in with a whole body routine, is the more infrequent, more focused approach working for you? Are you 100% sure that the results you are achieving correspond linearly with the work put in?
Not to be critical, but I am under the impression that some people work out not only for the results, but enjoy the workout, irrespective of the results from it. This is not a personal attack nor am I of the mindset that what works for apples MUST work for oranges.
Not to be critical, but I am under the impression that some people work out not only for the results, but enjoy the workout, irrespective of the results from it. This is not a personal attack nor am I of the mindset that what works for apples MUST work for oranges.[/quote]
Yes I think this is true. One of my gym buddies has that mentality. If the exercise is demanding like pull-ups or squats he doesn’t want to do it. If it’s an exercise where you can sit on your ass like Seated Cable Row or Flat Bench Press he’s all pumped.
One friend I was talking to was trying to convince me if I go on a split routine for at least 2 months I’ll put on some serious size. I basically told him through trial and error I’ve found that lifting weights 3-Days a Week has worked a lot better for me. He replied with, “Ahh I can’t go heavy if my body is drained, so I split it up.” He automatically assumed I workout at a low intensity, because I’m doing total-body routines. I didn’t say anything after that, but I knew to myself that I put the big compound exercises first and I hit them hard and heavy.
I find total-body routines 3-times a week refreshing to my nervous system and energy system. Even some routines I find on T-Nation I’ll intelligently compress it into three days a week.
I don’t know if I’m contradicting myself here, but if I want to bring up a certain body-part, let’s say back. I’ll start upping the volume on back work and spread it over three days a week. Not sure if that qualifies as a split. It just shows I (through trial and error) have found that hitting a muscle more frequently works for me.
I guess this debate boils down to what works best for some people won’t necessarily be optimal for you.
To the OP:
I’ve also found doing direct arm work in that rep range (4-6) has triggered the most hypertrophy. I should add that I was working biceps twice a week. That means my volume was higher too. I guess a good balance between intensity and volume is the way to go, and not just focusing on volume when it comes to arms.
[quote]Man O’ War wrote:
OneEye wrote:
I’m not accusing anybody of anything, but there are people pushing McRobert’s books all over Amazon. Go to any strength training book on Amazon and you’ll see some cronie…er, I mean…some book reviewer claiming that “This book is good, but go with something by Stuart McRobert instead.”
Cult?
That could well be the case. You can just write anything in there.
I should have actually left that bit out of the quote. The first half was all that was needed.
I just find it extremely amusing when people try to tell somebody with more education, more experience and a better set of arms how to train.
Not that I know the guy posting on Amazon, but I would have a stab in saying that Poliquin has him covered.[/quote]
This same guy has been here on site through out the years harrassing authors. He’s a bitter, angry jackass.
(no offense to the real Jackass)
Best Exercise for the Beach
The Arm-Blaster Curl The arm blaster (a thin strip of metal that hangs from your shoulders and prevents your elbows from moving forward and back during a curl) forces your biceps to work much harder than they would if allowed to swing a little.
Consequently, this curl is the best single exercise for working all parts of the biceps with maximum intensity, according to an MRI analysis conducted by Per Tesch, Ph.D., author of Target Bodybuilding. And the biceps are the best muscles to display on the beach, according to our experts, especially if a rumble breaks out over blanket space. “The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne, Ph.D., a sports psychologist, martial artist, and author of Complete Cardio Kickboxing.
i fell into the trap of not doing isolation work on my arms. from jan to end of june i had put on just over a inch on my arms. in just 3 months of including curls and zottmans i put on a further 3/4 of inch on my arms.
in my view its important to do both and i’ll keep them both in my work outs.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
“The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne, Ph.D., a sports psychologist, martial artist, and author of Complete Cardio Kickboxing.[/quote]
That’s interesting. I’m a martial artist myself, and have been prioritizing tris to punch faster and harder. Although I haven’t been neglecting bis, this might be a nice reason to work them more, and obviously has nothing to do with their showmuscle status.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
I think where most people still get confused is when talking about training athlete’s as apposed to body builders. Unless an athlete is lagging in their triceps and biceps strength, therefore hindering their compound movements, you simply don’t train arms. They will behind your back, but you don’t prescribe it. You train movements. PL’s train to be strong at 2 or 3 movements. That’s why the curls for girls attitude. For a bodybuilder though, the goals are different. The desired physical appearance is different. Therefore your approach is different. Your event so to speak as a bodybuilder, is how defined you are for your size. Not how much you lift or how fast you go. A different approach is needed for every different event. You gotta train arms directly to get a well developed arm. That’s my 2 cents?[/quote]
I think this is right on with regards to both the attitude towards arm isloation work and the bodypart splits versus full body debate. Proper training is event and individual specific. One of the biggest misconceptions which plagued me as a teenager was the idea that bodybuilding training wasn’t significantly different from training for sport. This seems to be a common issue.
[quote]Robert P. wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
“The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne, Ph.D., a sports psychologist, martial artist, and author of Complete Cardio Kickboxing.
That’s interesting. I’m a martial artist myself, and have been prioritizing tris to punch faster and harder. Although I haven’t been neglecting bis, this might be a nice reason to work them more, and obviously has nothing to do with their showmuscle status.
[/quote]
I prioritized triceps over biceps too. “The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne. I needed that line to hit me in the head. It does make sense now. When you send a punch; Shoulder, tri, upper chest muscle activation.
Bringing the elbow back fast and sending another punch is just as important. You need a strong elbow flexor and back muscles to build up the stretch reflex. I’m sure you all know the stretch reflex makes a more powerful concentric contraction.
[quote]Serious Guy wrote:
Robert P. wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
“The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne, Ph.D., a sports psychologist, martial artist, and author of Complete Cardio Kickboxing.
That’s interesting. I’m a martial artist myself, and have been prioritizing tris to punch faster and harder. Although I haven’t been neglecting bis, this might be a nice reason to work them more, and obviously has nothing to do with their showmuscle status.
I prioritized triceps over biceps too. “The stronger your biceps, the faster you can punch,” says Tom Seabourne. I needed that line to hit me in the head. It does make sense now. When you send a punch; Shoulder, tri, upper chest muscle activation.
Bringing the elbow back fast and sending another punch is just as important. You need a strong elbow flexor and back muscles to build up the stretch reflex. I’m sure you all know the stretch reflex makes a more powerful concentric contraction.
Thanks Go heavy fool[/quote]that’s what I’m here for… that … and making stupid predictions in the fantasy football thread…
[quote]Serious Guy wrote:
Bringing the elbow back fast and sending another punch is just as important. You need a strong elbow flexor and back muscles to build up the stretch reflex. I’m sure you all know the stretch reflex makes a more powerful concentric contraction.
Thanks Go heavy fool[/quote]
Yes. Check out the super-thickness of Mike Tyson’s lats. Or the incredibly disproportionate width of Bruce Lee’s “cobra hood”. Needless to say, I wouldn’t want either of those guys punching me.
I remember reading once that the guys to fear most are the ones with the big lats and traps. There’s definately something there in stretched muscles storing potential energy.
Maybe that was the secret of Bruce Lee’s one-inch punch? (+ stagecraft!)