Who Will Have the Biggest Biceps?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
61

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Panther you seem to believe pretty strongly that an impressive physique can be achieved with ONLY isolation movements. Can you point to a single athlete, bodybuilder, or any human who has attained an impressive physique in this manner? Surely at least 1 person would have done this by now if it was possible. You think there’s a single Olympia competitor in history who didn’t rely heavily on compound movements?[/quote]

I’m sorry that I gave you that impression, I actually don’t know if it can be done nor do I know of anyone who has done it. I’ve never made the assertion, but perhaps ActivitiesGuy can chime in because he claimed that it could be done. I’m just wondering why, given the reasons I’ve already listed, it cannot be done.[/quote]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

This statement:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
Like I said, it’s a general question along the lines of compound vs isolation exercises for a discrete bodypart.
[/quote]

What if I told you…that you could build a really good physique using just compound exercises, just isolation exercises, OR a combination of the two?[/quote]

Does not equal “You can be an Olympia competitor with just isolation exercises.” I was really trying to head off a ridiculous debate (should I do compound or isolation?) with a statement that got across the point “You don’t have to choose, so why bother deciding between the two?” - so that’s what I should have just said at first.

I am firmly in the camp that says compound movements should be the basis of most programs. At the same time, there are at least two Masters guys that post on this site (EyeDentist and Serge A. Storms) who have what I’d consider “really good” physiques by normal-people standards with predominantly isolation exercises (at least, of late, although both have probably spent some time banging the heavy compounds earlier in their lives.

At the same time, it would be folly to dismiss isolation exercises entirely, given their benefits. Mighty Stu, among others, has often pointed to the ability to hammer the target muscle with much better MMC in isolation work.

THERE IS NO REASON IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

62

Do any of these people take steroids like creatine?

63

I know I wouldn’t take the risk of excluding either, especially if my goals are physique-oriented.

Also, adding “a set or two” of curls at the end of a back workout works. Done properly, a couple of sets can be enough to fry your biceps.

Furthermore, I found that isolation exercises become much easier as your strength increases in compound movements. For example, my curling strength increases with pull-up and barbell row strength, even if I do not perform curls for a month or two.

With that said, there must definitely be a reason that top-level bodybuilders can maximise the size of each muscle. How can it not be the fact that they combine compound and isolation exercises, with a focus on increasing strength in, say, a 6-12 rep range?

64

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

Oh, sweet Jesus.

This statement:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

What if I told you…that you could build a really good physique using just compound exercises, just isolation exercises, OR a combination of the two?[/quote]

Does not equal “You can be an Olympia competitor with just isolation exercises.” I was really trying to head off a ridiculous debate (should I do compound or isolation?) with a statement that got across the point “You don’t have to choose, so why bother deciding between the two?” - so that’s what I should have just said at first.[/quote]

I cited to you in response to this following statement, not the Olympia competitor statement.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Panther you seem to believe pretty strongly that an impressive physique can be achieved with ONLY isolation movements. Can you point to a single athlete, bodybuilder, or any human who has attained an impressive physique in this manner?[/quote]

I don’t think the threshold for an impressive physique is an Olympia competitor. You cited two guys who I think have impressive physiques. But like you said I don’t think they’ve been using isolation-dominated workouts for a majority of their training history.

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
I am firmly in the camp that says compound movements should be the basis of most programs.
[/quote]

And my question is, if a person gets better MMC through isolation exercises, why? The only answers I’ve seen to this question have been along the lines of a) it’s never been done before or b) isolation exercises may neglect surrounding muscles which will hold back overall development. The first answer may be true, but doesn’t explain why it’s true and I’ve written why I don’t think the second answer is valid.

Although it may seem like it, I swear I’m not deliberately trying to get under your (and others in this thread) skin.

65

[quote]James Brown wrote:

Furthermore, I found that isolation exercises become much easier as your strength increases in compound movements. For example, my curling strength increases with pull-up and barbell row strength, even if I do not perform curls for a month or two.[/quote]

Do you think that your curling strength would have progressed faster or slower if you focused on curls for that 1-2 months instead of the rows and pull-ups?

66

[quote]Yogi wrote:

Guys who say that they’ve improved their shoulders by sticking to raises mean that they focussed on the lateral and rear heads of their delts (pretty much impossible to do with presses) instead of just trying to add poundages to shoulder pressing, which only ever targetted their anterior delts.

See what I mean?[/quote]

Fair point.

67

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

Do you think that your curling strength would have progressed faster or slower if you focused on curls for that 1-2 months instead of the rows and pull-ups?
[/quote]

Faster, most definitely (hence why a combination is probably optimal). However, what this clearly shows is that the actions of rowing and pulling had an obvious impact on the strength of my biceps, in absence of isolation work. They grew too. Curls alone won’t improve your back, but building your back usually improves your guns.

68

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As an example, let’s say you could theoretically completely isolate the clavicular head of the pecs.[/quote]

I get what you’re saying, but in your example, the different portions of the pecs are still hit with isolation exercises like flyes. See Contreras’ experiments with EMG.

Well, I did say theoretically. I know you can’t actually completely isolate them.

In the context of arm training, you can actually do a fairly decent job of isolating the particular muscles and respective muscle heads, but without also developing the pecs, lats, deltoids and forearms (whether by design, or by accident), that the body will limit the amount of growth in the biceps, triceps and brachialis, so as to retain some amount of balance across the shoulder and elbow joints. Not definitive, just my understanding.

Sure, I mean, lets say you actually isolated all 300 or so muscles of the human body in your bodypart split, ok, I’ll agree.

Mild sarcasm aside, my point was more that things like underdeveloped subscapularis and serratus anterior could actually hold back pec development, if they were neglected in a training split. The working hypothesis being that while the body will allow you to get things quite imbalanced, it still puts on its stops if you go too far.

In contrast, by using certain compound movements, (and in this case, some sort of high incline or overhead press), some of those smaller structural muscles will be trained “by accident” and the body will consider it safe enough to overdevelop the showier muscles.

Again, though, all of this is speculation.

But my take is that all things equal, if one person were to just train their biceps, triceps and brachialis (in an intelligent manner, with sufficient food), and completely ignore everything else, and someone else were to train those three muscle groups, and also their lats, delts, and pecs, that the 2nd person would have larger arms.

69

[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Do any of these people take steroids like creatine?[/quote]

Lol

70

[quote]James Brown wrote:
Faster, most definitely (hence why a combination is probably optimal). However, what this clearly shows is that the actions of rowing and pulling had an obvious impact on the strength of my biceps, in absence of isolation work. They grew too. Curls alone won’t improve your back, but building your back usually improves your guns.[/quote]

[quote]LoRez wrote:
But my take is that all things equal, if one person were to just train their biceps, triceps and brachialis (in an intelligent manner, with sufficient food), and completely ignore everything else, and someone else were to train those three muscle groups, and also their lats, delts, and pecs, that the 2nd person would have larger arms.[/quote]

I think both of you would conclude the same thing, that training back and biceps (“combo”) will result in bigger arms (“single”) than just training arms alone. And I think I agree with that notion because it makes sense: biceps will get more volume off the combo training versus the single training. Plus combo training will train supporting muscles allowing for greater growth of the biceps. But what if these factors were somehow mitigated?

Back and biceps is actually a bad example that I chose, because it’s hard to work your back with just isolation exercises (and when I write isolation exercise, I mean an exercise that just involves a single joint for each limb). So let’s use chest and triceps as an example. I think we all agree that someone working their chest with 6 sets of compound exercises (take your pick of your favorite chest exercises) and 3 sets of triceps isolation exercises will have bigger triceps than the guy working his triceps with just 3 sets of triceps isolation exercises (plus a bigger chest).

But what about compared to a guy who does 6 sets of chest isolation exercises and 6 sets of triceps isolation exercises? Assuming all other factors equal, (genetics, diet, effort, training of other bodyparts) who will have the bigger triceps and pecs? And what if the guy using only the isolation exercises has a better MMC with those exercises than the other guy has with the compound exercises?

71

What are you hoping to get out of these further questions that you haven’t gotten already?

Intensity, volume, frequency all matter. Volume at particular intensities matter. Exercise performance matters (e.g., concentric only, eccentric only, exaggerated eccentrics, rest times, range of motion, time under tension, isometric holds.) Not everyone responds to the same things in the same ways. Not everyone who responds to something for 6 weeks continues to respond to it.

There’s more to it than exercise selection and total number of sets.

72

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is like asking if eggs or beef is a better protein source. Well, just eat some of each. Both are good for you.[/quote]
My favorite is a bacon cheese burger with an egg over easy on it. That way you get it all!

73

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Panther you seem to believe pretty strongly that an impressive physique can be achieved with ONLY isolation movements. Can you point to a single athlete, bodybuilder, or any human who has attained an impressive physique in this manner?[/quote]

I don’t think the threshold for an impressive physique is an Olympia competitor. You cited two guys who I think have impressive physiques. But like you said I don’t think they’ve been using isolation-dominated workouts for a majority of their training history.

[/quote]

I don’t think it is either. But I asked you to simply name a human with an impressive physique built strictly with isolation, not a guy on the Olympia stage. I only mentioned the Olympia because it is the top stage for bodybuilding. If isolation-only was the best route to great biceps size, you would almost certainly find examples of it on that stage.

Whatever though. I’m done with this bs. I’m gonna go lift heavy shit and reap the rewards. Enjoy this mindless debate without me.

74

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Panther you seem to believe pretty strongly that an impressive physique can be achieved with ONLY isolation movements. Can you point to a single athlete, bodybuilder, or any human who has attained an impressive physique in this manner?[/quote]

I don’t think the threshold for an impressive physique is an Olympia competitor. You cited two guys who I think have impressive physiques. But like you said I don’t think they’ve been using isolation-dominated workouts for a majority of their training history.

[/quote]

I don’t think it is either. But I asked you to simply name a human with an impressive physique built strictly with isolation, not a guy on the Olympia stage. I only mentioned the Olympia because it is the top stage for bodybuilding. If isolation-only was the best route to great biceps size, you would almost certainly find examples of it on that stage.

Whatever though. I’m done with this bs. I’m gonna go lift heavy shit and reap the rewards. Enjoy this mindless debate without me.[/quote]

I think my biceps grew the most pure size from heavy lifting movements like deadlifts, shrugs, heavy rows, etc. Just my 2 cents.

75

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is like asking if eggs or beef is a better protein source. Well, just eat some of each. Both are good for you.[/quote]
My favorite is a bacon cheese burger with an egg over easy on it. That way you get it all![/quote]

blue cheese. You’ll thank me later

76

[quote]LoRez wrote:
What are you hoping to get out of these further questions that you haven’t gotten already?[/quote]

Just bored mental wanking, really, like I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Not sure why I ruffled so many feathers. I was hoping to get some explanations of why we do the things we do (use compound and isolation exercises) and just got the answer of shut up and lift. I take that to mean, we don’t know why it works, it just works.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s more to it than exercise selection and total number of sets.[/quote]

I’m not disputing that. It’s just that I was interested in those two variables and holding everything else constant.

77

[quote]Bauber wrote:

I think my biceps grew the most pure size from heavy lifting movements like deadlifts, shrugs, heavy rows, etc. Just my 2 cents.[/quote]

That’s interesting, since for a lot of those exercises, the biceps are being used in an isometric manner, something that is generally not associated with as much hypertrophy as lengthening/shortening contractions. And also, I assume you weren’t focusing on the biceps when performing those exercises, which runs counter to the thought that MMC should be a main goal when focusing on size.

Guess it just goes to show you should just do what works best for you and not worry about why it works.

78

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

I think my biceps grew the most pure size from heavy lifting movements like deadlifts, shrugs, heavy rows, etc. Just my 2 cents.[/quote]

That’s interesting, since for a lot of those exercises, the biceps are being used in an isometric manner, something that is generally not associated with as much hypertrophy as lengthening/shortening contractions. And also, I assume you weren’t focusing on the biceps when performing those exercises, which runs counter to the thought that MMC should be a main goal when focusing on size.

Guess it just goes to show you should just do what works best for you and not worry about why it works.[/quote]

Definitely was not focusing on biceps haha. With the weights I was using, my biceps wouldn’t stand a chance.

A large jump in my bicep size happened when I really started pounding the heavier weights in those exercises. At the time I hadn’t changed anything in my arm workouts in themselves. I am sure it was a combination of factors and not strictly just those movements, but I believe they did help in the growth by simply overloading them with weight.

Yes sir, do what works best for you always and don’t be afraid to try new things even if they end up a dead end. Just another road to cross of the list.

79

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s more to it than exercise selection and total number of sets.[/quote]

I’m not disputing that. It’s just that I was interested in those two variables and holding everything else constant.
[/quote]
Well, you may get something out of this then:

Specifically the 60-80% sections.

80

[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
I was hoping to get some explanations of why we do the things we do (use compound and isolation exercises)[/quote]

You could have just asked that question first, instead of the ridiculous one that you opened the thread with. It would have facilitated a much better discussion.

You could have also googled it.