# Bicep training should be part of a weightlifting routine?



## MuscleM4n (Sep 2, 2005)

Hey it's not a big deal but just wondering anyway, would like to hear your views on the subject. _Here is my view on bicep training:_

In my opinion bicep training is not important - They are a small muscle group.
Besides they get hit ALL the time.

Just loading up a bar trains your arms. So why overcompensate and do extra bicep training with noneffective curls?
Sure first few months of training, curls grow your arms but after that you are flogging a dead horse.

Approximately every 10lbs weight gain = 1 inch on arms

I have found this correlation to have some truth in it because in the last month i have gained 7lbs and gained +0.5inch on my arms.


Another reason i don't train biceps is because doing curls in the gym makes me feel like a bicep boy (people who come in the gym, think they are great, and only train biceps and chest).



Your biceps will grow fine from everything else you do, extra bicep training is 'in my opinion' a waste of energy.




Do you agree or not? 



Please let's keep this on topic   


Thank you for any replies


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

agree, back work does biceps well


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> Just loading up a bar trains your arms. So why overcompensate and do extra bicep training with noneffective curls?


What do you mean noneffective?



> Another reason i don't train biceps is because doing curls in the gym makes me feel like a bicep boy (people who come in the gym, think they are great, and only train biceps and chest).



You're in the gym to work out...who cares how others see you or how you look....



> Your biceps will grow fine from everything else you do, extra bicep training is 'in my opinion' a waste of energy.



I hear this a lot on the board, and I think you guys are lucky....I get no where without consistent direct bicep work, for me, they don't get worked nearly enough with the back workout...I cannot even consider not doing biceps

cheers


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

buildingup said:
			
		

> agree, back work does biceps well



from your posts, it would seem that you don't have enough experience or knowledge to comment with any authority


----------



## tannywild (Sep 2, 2005)

Must be a satisfactory thing for me...

I work out all my bodyparts, but lifting the weights and doing my back workouts just doesn't give me that "burning" feeling like when I'm curling.

I've got pretty decent biceps, and I've been getting good gains. My max curl weight is going up tri-weekly, so I'm not going to stop now!  


For anyone, the same rule applies. Do what works for you, if you think something isn't necessary, don't do it. If you like to do it just because you enjoy it.....    Rock on.

As for me, I'll keep curling.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

turbine5 said:
			
		

> What do you mean noneffective?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well your a pussy so you need to do bicep work


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

buildingup said:
			
		

> well your a pussy so you need to do bicep work



yeah...thats why I'm in a gym.....idiot


----------



## Fashong (Sep 2, 2005)

I do 5 sets of direct bicep work + back work.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

turbine5 said:
			
		

> yeah...thats why I'm in a gym.....idiot



so am i dumbass! u r in the squat cage curling to get those 5 inch arms to 6!


----------



## swordfish (Sep 2, 2005)

i do direct work, about 7-8 sets, and now im going to increase the volume to about 9 sets, i believe if you want big biceps you work your biceps, if you want big legs, you work your legs, if you want  a big back, work your back, etc. etc.  

ITS JUST TOO OBVIOUS UNLESS YOU ARE A GENETIC FREAK OF NATURE, YOU MUST WORK A BODYPART FOR THAT PART TO GROW, I REPEAT, YOU MUST EXERCISE THE MUSCLE IF YOU WANT IT TO GET BIG. 

GUESS WHAT, PEOPLE THAT DONT DO DIRECT BICEP WORK OR THAT DONT TO DIRECT TRICEP WORK OR THAT DONT DO DIRECT SHOULDER WORK WILL NOT BE BIG IN THOSE AREAS. 

i dont know why people keep posting direct work is unecessary to get it big! WRONG, unless your going for total body power and arent worried about size much, then not doing direct arm work is fine, but if you want it to get big, you must work it.


----------



## HaTa (Sep 2, 2005)

i work out my back... look at the pics and post a comment


----------



## HaTa (Sep 2, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> i do direct work, about 7-8 sets, and now im going to increase the volume to about 9 sets, i believe if you want big biceps you work your biceps, if you want big legs, you work your legs, if you want  a big back, work your back, etc. etc.
> 
> ITS JUST TOO OBVIOUS UNLESS YOU ARE A GENETIC FREAK OF NATURE, YOU MUST WORK A BODYPART FOR THAT PART TO GROW, I REPEAT, YOU MUST EXERCISE THE MUSCLE IF YOU WANT IT TO GET BIG.
> 
> ...


meh ... post a pic of ur self.... before u say u can lift all this weight


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

swordfish is just a pussy!


----------



## swordfish (Sep 2, 2005)

my arms are about 15 "  not the best but good size, the lifts are valid, i dont have any pics. if you dont believe me fine. im all natural and started knowing what i was doing with diet training and supplementation about 10 months ago, so im still trying to get my arms up to par along with legs( i ignored both when i started lifting about 15 or so) my bf is about 9 or 10% and i can clearly both heads of my bicep and all three of my tricep


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

HaTa said:
			
		

> meh ... post a pic of ur self.... before u say u can lift all this weight



he didn't say that he could lift any weight..... just that he did 7-8 sets...  ?


----------



## Fashong (Sep 2, 2005)

I can curl alot but my arms are not that big, maybe almost 15?  I think it is because my triceps are small.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 2, 2005)

Chill guys!  

Thanks for your views swordfish.

My main point of this thread was to read some opinions and through them consider wether adding direct bicep training to my routine or not.

You make a valid and sensible point swordfish, but i would like to hear more viewpoints before i make my decision.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 2, 2005)

np muscle man


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

muscle you know whether back works makes ur biceps hurt! curls do jack shit!


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 2, 2005)

For the life of me, I can't understand anyone not wanting to work their biceps. You know it's not like it takes up your day!. I could give a "Rats Ass" less, if someone did not understand it. As far as anyone laughing, after I walk over and poke it down your face, you might just feel differently?.

I am sure if you ask Uncle Arnie he works his biceps, and always has. Go tell him not to work his, and you think he is a pussy. See what you get.

Working out is personal effort, and should be view in that way. So I work my biceps, and always will. You don't work yours, that's your buisness.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 2, 2005)

Buildingup - what do you mean?

Again valid point Sam, never thought of it that way! thanks.


Hrmmmm my mind is swinging more in favor of adding bicep now.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 2, 2005)

if you want bigger biceps, then do  a little more direct work.  start out with barbell curls, 3 sets of 10, perfect your form, then do some alternate dumbell curls, 3 sets of 8, again, perfect your form. 10-15 minute work out, stretch between sets too.


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 2, 2005)

You might add a few sets of 21's in there if you want. Two are usually enough, but if you feel exceptionally froggy three. 
Seated barbell curls are good. Sit down rest the bar across your legs, you are curling only the last half, and can do more reps than with a full curl, and use more weight. This works the medial head, and is what gives you that good peak.


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

Sam40 said:
			
		

> You might add a few sets of 21's in there if you want. Two are usually enough, but if you feel exceptionally froggy three.



21's? pls describe...


----------



## maxpro2 (Sep 2, 2005)

Sam40 said:
			
		

> You might add a few sets of 21's in there if you want. Two are usually enough, but if you feel exceptionally froggy three.
> Seated barbell curls are good. Sit down rest the bar across your legs, you are curling only the last half, and can do more reps than with a full curl, and use more weight. This works the medial head, and is what gives you that good peak.



I have never why people do 21's. It is 21 reps, which is way out of hypertrophy range. Would you do sets of 21 reps for any other muscle?


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 2, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> Your biceps will grow fine from everything else you do, extra bicep training is 'in my opinion' a waste of energy.


... I want you to go and tell Arnold when he was 19 just what you said there...




http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/data/500/11865young_arnold_schwarzenegger.jpg

bro, if you want full bicep growth and size you need to target your bicep. I'm not a pro, but im pretty sure lil arny there knows what hes talking about at 19 years old. Doing back and pulling excerises do workout ur biceps but you dont target the full range of motion and you cant workout ur brachialis (dont know if u spell it like that) to give you that big size.


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 2, 2005)

"21's" are a mixture of partial and full range movements. They are a great test of endurance and develop and shape the whole bicep. The exercise is called "21's" because it combines 3 sets of 7 reps each. 

1. From a standing position using a barbell, holding it at arm's length, arms at your sides.

2. Curl the weight upward stopping halfway as your forearms become parallel to the floor, then lower the weight to the starting position once again. Do this for seven reps and then, without stopping:

3. Curl the weight up all the way this time stopping half the way down, doing seven reps of this partial movement. 

4. Last, do seven full range curls, this is the hard part so if exhaustion sets in at this point, finish the set with seven full range dumbbell curls.  

This is why I said Two sets are enough, but you can do three if you want. Just don't plan on picking up anything very heavy, for a day or so.


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

thanks


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 2, 2005)

Thanks for your comments once again.

DAMvN i target my brachialis (not sure of the spelling too  ) by doing hammer curls.

Ok you have convinced me, bicep curls here i come!


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

I don't think direct bicep work is necessary.  Some people respond very well to it, and others do not.  I believe you should try it both ways and see if you can notice an appreciable difference.  Personally, I don't respond well to a lot of bicep work.  I either do none, or very little.

If whatever you are doing currently is working, then stick with it.  When you hit a plateau, feel free to try whichever method you are currently not using.  Just don't do workout long bicep marathons unless, perhaps, you are juicing.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I don't think direct bicep work is necessary. Some people respond very well to it, and others do not. I believe you should try it both ways and see if you can notice an appreciable difference. Personally, I don't respond well to a lot of bicep work. I either do none, or very little.
> 
> If whatever you are doing currently is working, then stick with it. When you hit a plateau, feel free to try whichever method you are currently not using. Just don't do workout long bicep marathons unless, perhaps, you are juicing.


 I agree completely, and I'm the same way: I respond well with little or no direct work.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 2, 2005)

i really dont understand what you call respond well.. because if its building big biceps and lean mass on your arms your not gonna do with without working out ur biceps the right way. Its like saying... " all i need for triceps is my chest routine and im good..." makes no sense wut so ever. I doubt anyone with lean 18" arms doesint target there Biceps atleast once per week.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 3, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> i really dont understand what you call respond well.. because if its building big biceps and lean mass on your arms your not gonna do with without working out ur biceps the right way. Its like saying... " all i need for triceps is my chest routine and im good..." makes no sense wut so ever. I doubt anyone with lean 18" arms doesint target there Biceps atleast once per week.



By respond well I meant get bigger and stronger.  My arms have always sucked, unfortunately.  Changes were very noticeable once I cut out much of the volume for my arms, although I don't actually take measurements.  However, I can provide numbers for breaking past plateaus in strength after removing direct arm work.  Also, yes, I am talking biceps and triceps here.

I see where you're coming from, but it is entirely possible to build an awesome set of arms without doing any direct work for them.  Don't knock it until you've tried it.  I'm not saying it's the only way.  I'm not saying it's optimal for everyone.  In fact, I think intelligently implemented arm work can be of great benefit.  The problem arises when people think that they need to train their biceps as much as their legs.  If you are implementing enough compound push and pull movements into your routine, then 1, or maybe 2, lifts is all you need for each arm muscle to maximize growth.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 3, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> i really dont understand what you call respond well.. because if its building big biceps and lean mass on your arms your not gonna do with without working out ur biceps the right way. Its like saying... " all i need for triceps is my chest routine and im good..." makes no sense wut so ever. I doubt anyone with lean 18" arms doesint target there Biceps atleast once per week.


 This also depends nearly completely on the goals of the individual. I'm not trying to get 18" arms, so I don't train for 18" arms. I respond well because I've continued to go up in strength (and even some size). All I do for my triceps is benching. You know why that is? My goals don't require me to do anything else. As long as they're strong enough to keep progressing on my bench, I don't need to train them any more than that. I believe GoPro has used very little arm work in the past with great success as well. I could be wrong about that, but his arms are huge.


----------



## GFR (Sep 3, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> i really dont understand what you call respond well.. because if its building big biceps and lean mass on your arms your not gonna do with without working out ur biceps the right way. Its like saying... " all i need for triceps is my chest routine and im good..." makes no sense wut so ever. I doubt anyone with lean 18" arms doesint target there Biceps atleast once per week.


I agree 100%

The idea that you can have your arms developed to 90-100% of their max without direct arm work is just naive and foolish. If its power or size you want you still have to do some direct arm work. But I feel that most people do too much and also do too little of big power movements (i.e. Bench press, pullups, rows...ect)  that will also help them develope a complete set of arms


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 3, 2005)

i used to never bicep work at all.  reason was simple, chest day was short, back day was long.  now several years later you can tell my biceps are lagging behind my triceps.  not that i dont have any, they just arent nearly as developed. 
 i have started doing bicep curls recently in an attempt to even out my arm balance a bit more.  i usually do them the day after back day or the next day after that, with calves and abs.


----------



## kicka19 (Sep 4, 2005)

i train biceps about once every 2 weeks directly, i think they get trained enough indirectly and its overtraining to target them constantly


----------



## kicka19 (Sep 4, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> ... bro, if you want full bicep growth and size you need to target your bicep. I'm not a pro, but im pretty sure lil arny there knows what hes talking about at 19 years old. Doing back and pulling excerises do workout ur biceps but you dont target the full range of motion and you cant workout ur brachialis (dont know if u spell it like that) to give you that big size.



arnold also juiced liek crazy, he didnt need to worry about overtraining because his genetics and gear would help him recover


----------



## PrincePaul (Sep 4, 2005)

I have always responded well to bicep training.  I couldn't cut it out of my routines for the life of me.  From what I understand, triceps should take up 60-75% of your arms.  So if you feel like you're hitting a brick wall, maybe more tricep work as well?  

Just my opinion.  I'm all for bicep training.


----------



## arbntmare (Sep 4, 2005)

i train my biceps for a total of 12 sets a week (6 sets during chest day, and 6 sets during shoulder day)..

i probably need to change that cause of the fact that my triceps are lacking (only 6 sets a week)


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 4, 2005)

arbntmare said:
			
		

> i train my biceps for a total of 12 sets a week (6 sets during chest day, and 6 sets during shoulder day)..
> 
> i probably need to change that cause of the fact that my triceps are lacking (only 6 sets a week)



My opinion is that 12 sets is too much for your biceps, unless you are totally lacking in intensity.  Are you doing heavy compound movements like rowing and pullups that also use your biceps?  If so, you shouldn't need to devote an entire workout's worth of training to your biceps.


----------



## arbntmare (Sep 4, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> My opinion is that 12 sets is too much for your biceps, unless you are totally lacking in intensity.  Are you doing heavy compound movements like rowing and pullups that also use your biceps?  If so, you shouldn't need to devote an entire workout's worth of training to your biceps.



even over a two day period??


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 4, 2005)

arbntmare said:
			
		

> even over a two day period??



Yes.  For the average routine, and I mean moderate volume/moderate intensity, I would say 0-5 sets of bicep work for the week is plenty.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 4, 2005)

0-5 sets for biceps for the week??????? i like to do at LEAST 6 HARD WORKING SETS, usually ill do 2 exercises, 3 working sets each exercise, and 1 additional exercise- 2 working sets. so 8 sets or so, sometimes ill do 10, sometimes 8, and very rarely 6.

cowpimp, in order to get bigger arms, you must train them, i know ive said it many times, but you must do them to some extent, 6 sets  at the least for biceps and triceps, some people can get away with 4 or 5 but for the most part if you dont work them out directly with enough volume they wont get bigger.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 5, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> 0-5 sets for biceps for the week??????? i like to do at LEAST 6 HARD WORKING SETS, usually ill do 2 exercises, 3 working sets each exercise, and 1 additional exercise- 2 working sets. so 8 sets or so, sometimes ill do 10, sometimes 8, and very rarely 6.
> 
> cowpimp, in order to get bigger arms, you must train them, i know ive said it many times, but you must do them to some extent, 6 sets  at the least for biceps and triceps, some people can get away with 4 or 5 but for the most part if you dont work them out directly with enough volume they wont get bigger.



If those 6 sets are completely lacking in intensity, then maybe it's necessary.  You can waste your time curling for 30 minutes in a workout if you want.  I would rather not.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 5, 2005)

Look, I never said 0-5 sets is the only thing that worked anyway.  I said 12 sets is too much in my opinion, and he should try less.  0-5 sets is a starting point.  Volume can be played with.  I'm not spitting out numbers that are set in stone, but general guidelines.  

I'm willing to bet the majority of people that say low volume or no volume for the arms doesn't work have never tried it.  However, I have tried high volume arm workouts, and it doesn't cut it for myself.  I am not the only one who has experienced these results.  Try it before you bastardize it.  Just try it.  If it doesn't work, then go back to your arm blaster routine.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 5, 2005)

i have tried it before, it doesnt work very good for me. 

my main point is cowpimp, is im not saying that it wont work for you, but you wont get bigger arms by not training them. you need to have intensity and volume. 

i think people that say it wont work for them havent really tried long enough. people with big arms train them with intensity and volume.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 5, 2005)

Update:  Started bicep training yesterday and it has already added o.5" to my arms    - It's the pump that increased the size but it is the biggest my arms have ever been 13" 
I think i started with 10" arms so all is good.

My ideals have changed and i know believe that bicep training is a good thing.

Once again thanks for all your replies, I appreciate it.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 5, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> you wont get bigger arms by not training them. you need to have intensity and volume.



I disagree although you might need some direct work, you cant say your arms wont grow if you dont train them....

If you can now bench press press and row twice what you do now your arms will be much bigger even if you didnt do direct arm work.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 5, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> i have tried it before, it doesnt work very good for me.



Okay, fair enough.




> my main point is cowpimp, is im not saying that it wont work for you, but you wont get bigger arms by not training them. you need to have intensity and volume.



You're wrong.  You can, and will, get bigger arms without training them directly.  I didn't say it was optimal for everyone, but it does work.  You can't tell me it doesnt, because it worked for me and several others I have talked to.  

Your arms are still doing work when you are pulling or pressing weights, period.  In fact, there's a chance that a regimen of only squatting would build bigger biceps in the long run than a routine consisting of only bicep curls.  Your body strives to maintain balance, and there is always carry-over to other muscles.




> i think people that say it wont work for them havent really tried long enough. people with big arms train them with intensity and volume.



Nonsense.  Most everyone goes into training thinking that they have to train their biceps with as many different exercises and working sets as their legs.  It's not that it won't and didn't work for me.  I put size on my arms doing direct work, but I put on more size, and especially strength, by not training them directly or doing very little direct work.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 5, 2005)

Seriously, I think it's plain dumb if you dont train your bicep directly atleast once per week. I dont understand why not. Look at Bodybuilders they all do it. Personal trainer do it to. If you want that lance armstong bicep look then dont, but if your here to get mass and gain muscle then you must. So dont throw false information in the air like that, that just gets ppl a lil confused. How else are you going to shape your bicep and give it mass? doing back? that doesint make sense... yes any pulling exe would put strain on ur bicep but its not going to give u the full range of motion your bicep needs and the pump it needs to gain muscle and mass.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 5, 2005)

bicep curls will work better to build bigger biceps better than squats...

as far as getting them bigger without direct training, yes they will get big with the big movements, barbell rows, bench press, and military press, but they will get EVEN BIGGER if you incorporate direct arm work with intensity and a reasonable amount of volume.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 5, 2005)

It depends completely on the individual. If you happen to respond better to higher volumes, go ahead and directly train them and get bigger - that's great. If you happen to respond better to lower volume and higher intensity, keep working them indirectly and get bigger. Personally, I really don't care how large my biceps are, so the only work they get is from rows and such. As long as they're strong enough for me to do the big moves, I'm happy. I'm going to have to say that damvn is incorrect, cowpimp is correct, and swordfish is also correct because he understands that indirect work will work in certain situations, but that direct work may yield more results for certain individuals. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 5, 2005)

how am I wrong? Please explain.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 5, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> Seriously, I think it's plain dumb if you dont train your bicep directly atleast once per week. I dont understand why not. Look at Bodybuilders they all do it. Personal trainer do it to. If you want that lance armstong bicep look then dont, but if your here to get mass and gain muscle then you must. So dont throw false information in the air like that, that just gets ppl a lil confused. How else are you going to shape your bicep and give it mass? doing back? that doesint make sense... yes any pulling exe would put strain on ur bicep but its not going to give u the full range of motion your bicep needs and the pump it needs to gain muscle and mass.



Who cares what other people do, particularly bodybuilders?  Bodybuilders can get away with more volume all around because they are on steroids.  I'm talking about in the context of a natural lifter.  Also, people who have small arms also do 45 minutes worth of bicep training.  There are people on both sides of the fence.  The difference is genetics, diet, and other factors in training.  Furthermore, you are making assumptions.  There are bodybuilders and personal trainers that do no or low volume arm work.

You need to re-read my posts.  This is not a black and white subject.  I never said indirect arm work is the only way to go.  Read this carefully, and comprehend it.  Don't just look at the words, but read them:



> I see where you're coming from, but it is entirely possible to build an awesome set of arms without doing any direct work for them. Don't knock it until you've tried it. I'm not saying it's the only way. *I'm not saying it's optimal for everyone. In fact, I think intelligently implemented arm work can be of great benefit.* The problem arises when people think that they need to train their biceps as much as their legs. If you are implementing enough compound push and pull movements into your routine, then 1, or maybe 2, lifts is all you need for each arm muscle to maximize growth.




So, as you see, I think some level of arm works is beneficial.  Just don't overdo it.  All I'm saying is that you can build a nice set of arms without direct work.  Whether or not it is optimal is a different story, and that will depend on the person in question.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 5, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> bicep curls will work better to build bigger biceps better than squats...



It was a hypothetical situation that I mentioned.  Granted, no one is just going to do a routine consisting of only curls or squats, but I still think in the long run the squatter would have bigger arms.  Call me crazy, but it's just a hypothesis of mine.




> as far as getting them bigger without direct training, yes they will get big with the big movements, barbell rows, bench press, and military press, but they will get EVEN BIGGER if you incorporate direct arm work with intensity and a reasonable amount of volume.



Well said.  However, I still say some, not everyone, but some people respond better to no, or a very low volume of, direct arm work.  I am one of those people.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 6, 2005)

fair enough, i understand your point of view. good debate.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> fair enough, i understand your point of view. good debate.



Agreeing to disagree is my favorite thing to do.  Also, an IM first... we had a debate with no name calling.  Success!  

I'm glad to hear you have at least tried the low/no volume approach before bastardizing it.  It didn't work for you, so you chose what did.  You can't argue with results.


----------



## swordfish (Sep 6, 2005)

that is true, although im talking to more and more people who like the low volume approach and are getting great results.

 im more of a moderate volume kinda guy, i have a little bit of arnold in me because i recover pretty damn quick and i love to keep piling on the exercises, i did 7 days a week for 4 weeks and gained about 3 lbs( started to overtrain and bailed out after 4 weeks). i did this a few months ago and was definetely different, 12-15 sets for smaller parts and 15-18 for bigger parts. but now im doing around 10-12 for big groups, and 6-8 for small ones.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp, if you swear that by doing low volume and not targeting your bicep directly you could sculp big lean biceps, how come you dont have em?


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> CowPimp, if you swear that by doing low volume and not targeting your bicep directly you could sculp big lean biceps, how come you dont have em?


Good point.  

I have never met in the 25 years I have trained 1 person with great arms who didnt train them once to twice a week with direct work.....and 95% of the time 6+ sets of direct work.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

I think cowpimp said he doesn't want to get any bigger and is happy the way he is.

Remember reading that under one of his pictures.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 6, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Good point.
> 
> I have never met in the 25 years I have trained 1 person with great arms who didnt train them once to twice a week with direct work.....and 95% of the time 6+ sets of direct work.









 the other 5 %


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

what is his name hardtrainer?


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> CowPimp, if you swear that by doing low volume and not targeting your bicep directly you could sculp big lean biceps, how come you dont have em?



First of all, your arms are no bigger than mine.  Second, my arms suck genetically, and they were even smaller before I started cutting out the volume.  Third, I haven't been training that long, but I have made good progress for the time that I have been training.  Finally, I haven't attempted to gain weight in quite a while.  This isn't to say I will never try to gain weight again, but not right this moment, especially considering rehabbing my shoulder is top priority.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> what is his name hardtrainer?



Mike Mentzer


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> what is his name hardtrainer?



Mike Menzter; Mr. HIT himself.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

Ok, thank you.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp, not only are my arms better than yours but my whole body is better than yours. If thats what you wanted to hear from me with that lame comment. All i'm saying is shut up with the simplyfied shit that you dont need to train biceps directly because its trash. and FYI ive only been trainin 2months consistently. and im 17. Ive got bigger arms than you in my 15 year old pic than in that pic u got there.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> CowPimp, not only are my arms better than yours but my whole body is better than yours. If thats what you wanted to hear from me with that lame comment. All i'm saying is shut up with the simplyfied shit that you dont need to train biceps directly because its trash. and FYI ive only been trainin 2months consistently. and im 17. Ive got bigger arms than you in my 15 year old pic than in that pic u got there.



Actually, you're the one who tried to insult me.  I wasn't trying to insult you.  I just stated the fact that your arms are about the same size as mine, and you do lots of direct work I assume.  My arms are just shy of 16".

Oh yeah, and physiques are subjective.  I'm happy with mine, so your insults don't hurt me.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

You need to stop acting like an immature, ignorant fool. Cowpimp is right. Direct arm work is not necessary and some respond better to indirect work only. There is no arguing with results. He's not saying that direct arm work can't be beneficial or that it doesn't have its place for some. You are wrong to say that it doesn't work. It's that simple. Oh, and did you ever think that arms aren't what really counts? Or that, perhaps, he's not even going for size? I'm with him all the way - recovering from an injury is way more important than spending time on a forum telling someone you don't even know that you have bigger arms. Wow, that's really impressive.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> Hey it's not a big deal but just wondering anyway, would like to hear your views on the subject. _Here is my view on bicep training:_
> 
> In my opinion bicep training is not important - They are a small muscle group.
> Besides they get hit ALL the time.
> ...


I think your a damn fool! If u dont workout your biceps directly, then like any other muscle they will not be able to reach full potential.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> You need to stop acting like an immature, ignorant fool. Cowpimp is right. Direct arm work is not necessary and some respond better to indirect work only. There is no arguing with results. He's not saying that direct arm work can't be beneficial or that it doesn't have its place for some. You are wrong to say that it doesn't work. It's that simple. Oh, and did you ever think that arms aren't what really counts? Or that, perhaps, he's not even going for size? I'm with him all the way - recovering from an injury is way more important than spending time on a forum telling someone you don't even know that you have bigger arms. Wow, that's really impressive.



Exactly.  I already said that "intelligently implemented arm work can be of great benefit."  The main reason I always tout low or no volume arm routines is because most people have already tried the high volume approach, and most others will recommend that they continue to do so.  I just want people to try something different.  The results may surprise you.  If high volume works better for you, then no sweat off my back.  At least you tried something different.  A successful training career has much to do with trial and error.

I love how when people are wrong they try to insult my physique.  "Oh yeah, well my arms are bigger!"  Okay...  That doesn't make you right.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

Okay then, let's take another muscle group as an example - the traps. Mine have grown at an alarming rate since I've started lifting, and guess what? I've never done shrugs before in my life. I do heavy deadlifts and they get worked indirectly, and thus grow in size and strength. You can't tell me that it doesn't work. Many people have seen the results. It's also like saying that doing squats won't work the core just because it's not the main targeted area. Your core will become much more develope from squats, even if you don't work your back and abs directly. Will that be optimal for every person with every different kind of goal? Of course not. Will it be good enough for some people with certain goals? Yes.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Exactly. I already said that "intelligently implemented arm work can be of great benefit." The main reason I always tout low or no volume arm routines is because most people have already tried the high volume approach, and most others will recommend that they continue to do so. I just want people to try something different. The results may surprise you. If high volume works better for you, then no sweat off my back. At least you tried something different. A successful training career has much to do with trial and error.
> 
> I love how when people are wrong they try to insult my physique. "Oh yeah, well my arms are bigger!" Okay... That doesn't make you right.


 That's a very good point. Even if he did have bigger arms, it has no bearing on his knowledge. There are plenty of huge people who have absolutely no idea how to train, and plenty of smaller guys that know how to train smart but just don't have good enough genetics to get that big.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

kicka19 said:
			
		

> i train biceps about once every 2 weeks directly, i think they get trained enough indirectly and its overtraining to target them constantly


Another bastard throwing the word overtraining around again.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Yes.  For the average routine, and I mean moderate volume/moderate intensity, I would say 0-5 sets of bicep work for the week is plenty.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  You can, and will, get bigger arms without training them directly.


You can also get even bigger arms by training them!


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

he is right..

5 sets of bicep training a week + your arms are being used for everything else (even setting up equipment to use, you use your arms) Sounds logical to me that it is enough.

God hand you act like a little kid, grow up.

Originally Posted by CowPimp
"You're wrong. You can, and will, get bigger arms without training them directly."


This is also correct, and i agree with cowpimp. Your biceps will still get stimulated from all the other exercises done. Also weight gain will be spread generally evenly around the body, so te arms will put on size.


I added bicep work in recently however.


Ok i await your flaming and spamming God Hand.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Who cares what other people do, particularly bodybuilders?  Bodybuilders can get away with more volume all around because they are on steroids.


You make it sound like there Greek Gods and were just mere humans.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Okay then, let's take another muscle group as an example - the traps. Mine have grown at an alarming rate since I've started lifting, and guess what? I've never done shrugs before in my life. I do heavy deadlifts and they get worked indirectly, and thus grow in size and strength. You can't tell me that it doesn't work. Many people have seen the results. It's also like saying that doing squats won't work the core just because it's not the main targeted area. Your core will become much more develope from squats, even if you don't work your back and abs directly. Will that be optimal for every person with every different kind of goal? Of course not. Will it be good enough for some people with certain goals? Yes.


Well u are right on this one bastard


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> he is right..
> 
> 5 sets of bicep training a week + your arms are being used for everything else (even setting up equipment to use, you use your arms) Sounds logical to me that it is enough.
> 
> ...


Your avatar makes me think of Holocaust victims!


----------



## Yanick (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> CowPimp, not only are my arms better than yours but my whole body is better than yours. If thats what you wanted to hear from me with that lame comment. All i'm saying is shut up with the simplyfied shit that you dont need to train biceps directly because its trash. and FYI ive only been trainin 2months consistently. and im 17. Ive got bigger arms than you in my 15 year old pic than in that pic u got there.



Hey dipshit, if you were bigger than him before training it proves his point completely. your genetically more gifted and your results don't reflect your knowledge of training or diet. Almost all of my buddies have better physiques than me (they're not bigger, but more muscular because of genetically low BF) and get asked questions all the time cause they lift in wife beaters and tight ass shirts. but guess what? they don't know jackshit about training and come to me for advice.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> You make it sound like there Greek Gods and were just mere humans.



The difference is pretty astronomical.  In fact, you would be surprised how many pro bodybuilders perform lackadaisical workouts on a regular basis.  I'm not saying all of them, not by any stretch of the imagination.  My point is, they have a huge advantage.  In fact, studies have shown that you can increase the amount of LBM on your body by taking steroids and not even working out.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> Hey dipshit, if you were bigger than him before training it proves his point completely. your genetically more gifted and your results don't reflect your knowledge of training or diet. Almost all of my buddies have better physiques than me (they're not bigger, but more muscular because of genetically low BF) and get asked questions all the time cause they lift in wife beaters and tight ass shirts. but guess what? they don't know jackshit about training and come to me for advice.


 Yup. I have a friend who has an extremely low BF% naturally and I must admit, I'm somewhat jealous having worked hard with nothing like that to show for it. But my goals are strength, and I've been accomplishing them and helping him learn how to do the same. At least he's trying to learn and he knows that he needs to ask questions.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 6, 2005)

Dipshit? dude dont let the lil internet get to you this is a FORUM so relax and chill how you talk 2 ppl. Fact of the matter is you wont have biceps if you dont train them. This is the most idiotic thread on this board. 0-5 sets of bicep is enough. OMG yea if your my freakin grandma. Listin "CowPimp" and the rest of you that keep holdin his nuts (all of you dont have biceps) keep doin what ur doing lets see whos gonna have bigger biceps and more defined arms in a few months.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 6, 2005)

Oh and P.S for the record you guys that go along with the bullcrap "CowPimp" is feeding you, you guys obviously do not know that you dont train bicep one way. you need to attack it different ways. ways I dont even know. for example your peak and the bricials. i dont see how u can target these by putting plates on a barbell or workingout ur back. its plain stupid. so keep doin wut ur doing and lets compare in a few months.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

You're an idiot. It's that simple. Reading your posts has significantly (but thankfully only temporarily) lowered my IQ.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> You're an idiot. It's that simple. Reading your posts has significantly (but thankfully only temporarily) lowered my IQ.




agreed 100%, my head hurts and i can't be bothered to talk sense in to Damxn. 

He sounds like a typical 'bicep boy' like i mentioned in my first post on this thread.

By the way the peak is mainly genetic.

Why do you think most people stick biceps after bacK? It is because heavy deadlifting and rows etc WILL hit your biceps to some degree, so doing a bit of bicep training afterwards will finish your bis.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> agreed 100%, my head hurts and i can't be bothered to talk sense in to Damxn.
> 
> He sounds like a typical 'bicep boy' like i mentioned in my first post on this thread.
> 
> ...


 Exactly right - muscle shape is predetermined by genetics. I agree with everything else as well.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2005)

> Originally Posted by dAMvN
> CowPimp, if you swear that by doing low volume and not targeting your bicep directly you could sculp big lean biceps, how come you dont have em?



Nice try but your argument doesn't really hold up.  think about it, what is big to Pimp might not be big to you or I or anyone else and vice versa.  If pimp started training with 13" arms and they grew to 16" well that is a hell of an improvement.  Now, ofcourse they aren't 23" biceps like a pro bb'er but 3" of growth on a natural arm is awesome and he may not even have genetically great arms.  So you really can't make an argument like that because you don't know where he came from to get where he is now.


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 6, 2005)

I don't think this biceps thing is a hard and fast rule...some need to do direct biceps work, some shouldn't do directed bicep work due to overtraining...there are probably good examples of each case working for people...and we will just go in circles arguing this point, whereas both sides can be right

on the other hand...I think this genetics excuse is thrown around too easily...when people don't get the results they are looking for, they are quick to throw out the "I don't have the genetics" excuse...work harder and smarter...learn what is best for your body and almost anything is achievable...

jmo


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2005)

Here is my take on it:

If you are a BB'er or training for physical gratification......do some bicep work

It you are a powerlifter training for a better bench press and deadlift.....do some bicep work.

If you are an olympic lifter.......don't wast your time on the bicep work.

If you just train for overal strength and don't give a shit......don't waste your time on bicep work but a little bit wont hurt you either.


can we all agree on this?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

I certainly can.


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2005)

HardTrainer said:
			
		

> the other 5 %


*I call bull shit on that......Mike did direct bicep work 3x a week.......then later droped it down to 2x a week.......read up kid*


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Actually, you're the one who tried to insult me.  I wasn't trying to insult you.  I just stated the fact that your arms are about the same size as mine, and you do lots of direct work I assume.  My arms are just shy of 16".
> 
> Oh yeah, and physiques are subjective.  I'm happy with mine, so your insults don't hurt me.


16 cold???? no a chance....unless your 6'8
my off the top of my head guess would be in the 14.5-15in range


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> Dipshit? dude dont let the lil internet get to you this is a FORUM so relax and chill how you talk 2 ppl. Fact of the matter is you wont have biceps if you dont train them. This is the most idiotic thread on this board. 0-5 sets of bicep is enough. OMG yea if your my freakin grandma. Listin "CowPimp" and the rest of you that keep holdin his nuts (all of you dont have biceps) keep doin what ur doing lets see whos gonna have bigger biceps and more defined arms in a few months.



You simply don't understand kinesiology.  Guess what happens during elbow flexion?  Your biceps contract.  Whether or not you involve other muscles in this really doesn't matter.  Your biceps are still capable of being overloaded along with the other muscles involved in the movement.  Just because you don't do isolation movements doesn't mean you aren't working your biceps.




> Oh and P.S for the record you guys that go along with the bullcrap "CowPimp" is feeding you, you guys obviously do not know that you dont train bicep one way. you need to attack it different ways. ways I dont even know. for example your peak and the bricials. i dont see how u can target these by putting plates on a barbell or workingout ur back. its plain stupid. so keep doin wut ur doing and lets compare in a few months.



The people that agree with me do so because it worked for them.  They aren't magical fairies that I summoned from another dimension to prove my point.  The zero/low volume approach works for a lot of people.

Oh yeah, and you can't target the peak of your bicep.  That is genetically determined.  You also can't "attack it different ways."  Your bicep contracts the same no matter what the stimulus, save for the fact that it is more efficient when you have a supinated grip on the weight being moved.  Oh yeah, and guess what?  The brachialis gets trained during any movement involving elbow flexion as well.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 16 cold???? no a chance....unless your 6'8
> my off the top of my head guess would be in the 14.5-15in range



My left arm is like 15 3/4, my right arm is a 1/4 or so smaller.  I'm talking flexed, but not pumped.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

nice post cowpimp...put him in his place.

Hopefully has has now learnt something from you.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Here is my take on it:
> 
> If you are a BB'er or training for physical gratification......do some bicep work
> 
> ...



I think that makes sense.  All I was saying is that the low/no volume approach works for some people.  Try it out.  If it doesn't work, then it doesn't.  I don't care.  If you hit a plateau in arm size, then it is something to try.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

This is the point i was trying to put across by making this thread and then people like god hand call me dumb...fantastic.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> This is the point i was trying to put across by making this thread and then people like god hand call me dumb...fantastic.



Having god hand call you dumb is probably the coolest thing that can happen to anyone!  He is pretty much the dumbest person I have ever seen so I love when he goes on those rants and spells words incorrectly and makes an asshole out of himself.


----------



## rangers97 (Sep 6, 2005)

personally, I would rather be able to barbell row 225+ pounds and do chinups with 50pounds strapped to my waist than worry about doing endless sets of curls....

And do you think someone that can do the above movements would have small biceps???  I think not...

The only bicep movement that I would argue doing would be hammer curls, as that is kind of a "compound" movement as it gets the forearms and biceps as well, but it also gets the biceps in an entirely different way than the pulling exercises do, in my opinion...


----------



## GFR (Sep 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> My left arm is like 15 3/4, my right arm is a 1/4 or so smaller.  I'm talking flexed, but not pumped.


Unless you have gained 20lbs of muscle since you took those pics.....no way.

I'll stick with -14.5  as my guess....15 was  being overly nice.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> but it also gets the biceps in an entirely different way than the pulling exercises do, in my opinion...


...................I can agree with that.


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

yes rangers good post; i would much rather prefer to be able to row 225lbs than be a bicep boy champion .... the hammer curl also trains the brachialis quite well.


----------



## god hand (Sep 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Having god hand call you dumb is probably the coolest thing that can happen to anyone!  He is pretty much the dumbest person I have ever seen so I love when he goes on those rants and spells words incorrectly and makes an asshole out of himself.


Make sure u dont train you biceps more than 3x a year! Dont wanna overtrain!


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Make sure u dont train you biceps more than 3x a year! Dont wanna overtrain!




I haven't trained biceps or bench press in months.  Don't worry.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Sep 6, 2005)

I can do a yates row with more than my BW with perfect form for reps, which isn't too bad. You can't really say that my biceps are particularly weak considering the way the yates row is performed, and I never do direct work.


----------



## rangers97 (Sep 6, 2005)

i recently started doing the "yates row" just for the sole purpose of using more biceps...I've also started doing chinups instead of pullups...I figure the stronger I get on these movements, the stronger my biceps will get.  Plus, now I only "need" to add a couple of sets of hammer curls a week and I am good to go.  

I figure if I only do bench press, incline press, and dips to target my chest and tris, and right now I can bench over 300 1rm, and 275 for reps, and do dips with 120 lbs added to my belt, my triceps can't be accused of being small...so, the same should apply to biceps


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

chin-ups and pull-ups are not the same thing?

forgive my ignorance but i thought they were just different names given?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 6, 2005)

MuscleM4n said:
			
		

> chin-ups and pull-ups are not the same thing?
> 
> forgive my ignorance but i thought they were just different names given?




chin ups= under hand

pull ups= over hand


----------



## MuscleM4n (Sep 6, 2005)

ohh.

In that case i have always been doing close grip chin-ups and wide grip pull-ups.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 6, 2005)

lol okay cowshit, lol u dont train ur bracials by doing just any bicep movement. You need concentration curls and other sort of exe. goes to show u dont know shit. sides u wouldint know because u dont even have a bracials LOL goes to show ur lil bicep theroy is crap. dude keep lookin like a holocaust suvivor not my problem.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> lol okay cowshit, lol u dont train ur bracials by doing just any bicep movement. You need concentration curls and other sort of exe. goes to show u dont know shit. sides u wouldint know because u dont even have a bracials LOL goes to show ur lil bicep theroy is crap. dude keep lookin like a holocaust suvivor not my problem.



since you spelled it wrong before, i wasn't sure which muscle you were talking about so i pretty much found the 3 muscles, read the comments and look at the function of the muscles, they all do the same thing...except like it says, you can put one of those muscles at a disadvantage biomechanically and shift more emphasis on another one (ie hammer curls vs bicep curls).

http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/Brachialis.html 

http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/Brachioradialis.html 

http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/BicepsBrachii.html


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> lol okay cowshit, lol u dont train ur bracials by doing just any bicep movement. You need concentration curls and other sort of exe. goes to show u dont know shit. sides u wouldint know because u dont even have a bracials LOL goes to show ur lil bicep theroy is crap. dude keep lookin like a holocaust suvivor not my problem.



No, you don't need concentration curls, or any other specialized movements.  The brachialis is involved in elbow flexion.  However, as Yanick said, the muscles have their most efficient line of pull depending on the orientation of the wrist.

What I look like doesn't make me wrong or right.  You need to stop resorting to insults when you don't know what you're talking about.  It's very unbecoming.  Not to mention, I have 25 pounds on you with only a small height advantage, so gain some weight before you talk shit.  Talk all the trash you want when you can back it up, hypocrite.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 6, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> lol okay cowshit, lol u dont train ur bracials by doing just any bicep movement. You need concentration curls and other sort of exe. goes to show u dont know shit. sides u wouldint know because u dont even have a bracials LOL goes to show ur lil bicep theroy is crap. dude keep lookin like a holocaust suvivor not my problem.



post a picture of your legs.


----------



## SuperFlex (Sep 6, 2005)

*If you want the biggest arms possible you need to train arms... HARD!!!*

However with that said I've decided to try training without directly working arms do to this site. I'm just getting back into the gym and so far my arms have easily re-gained an inch plus in about a month. However that is simply muscle memory. But with that said things seem to be going quite well for the cannons without any direct training whatsoever. We'll see. I left off with 18 3/4 guns so if I surpass that without direct training I'll be hooked.

Only makes since that training arms will produce the greatest possible results but I could be wrong.   I bet you'll never see Ronnie Coleman miss an arm workout............................................................


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 7, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *I call bull shit on that......Mike did direct bicep work 3x a week.......then later droped it down to 2x a week.......read up kid*



Post a link to that plz

Workout 1
Pec Deck 6 to 10 reps
With no rest do Incline Press 2 to 4 reps

Close Grip (Palm Up) Lat Pulldowns 6 to 10 reps

Deadlift 5 to 8 reps.

Rest at least 3 days.

Workout 2
Leg Extension 8 to 15 reps
With no rest do Leg Press 8 to 15 reps

Calf Raise 12 to 20 reps

Rest at least 3 days.

Workout 3
Dumbell Laterals 6 to 10 reps

Rear Laterals 6 to 10 reps.

Barbell Curls 6 to 10 reps.

Tricep Pressdowns 6 to 10 reps.
With no reps do Dips 3 to 5 reps.

Rest at least 3 days. 

Workout 4 
Leg Extentions 8 to 15 reps
With no rest do Squat 8 to 15 reps.

Calf Raise 12 to 20 reps.

Rest at least 3 day

The Routine: 

Day 1  Chest and Back 
    DB flyes supersetted with flat or incline DB press 
    DB pullovers supersetted with reverse grip barbell rows 
    Deadlifts 

Day 5   Legs 
    Leg Extensions supersetted with Squats 
    Calf raises 

Day 9   Delts and Arms 
    DB side raises 
    DB rear delt laterals 
    Barbell Curls 
    Lying French Press supersetted with Dips 

Day 13   Legs 
    Same exercises as Day 5, Legs 

Day 17 
    Repeat cycle, beginning with Day 1, Chest and Back

hardly 3 times a week  , dorain yates did high volume in the beginning to for a few years... maybe you say he did 12 + sets for his biceps aswell (at some point in his life) much durining his life he did 2-3 per week!


----------



## GFR (Sep 7, 2005)

HardTrainer said:
			
		

> Post a link to that plz


It's in Arthur Jones book and also in Mentzers........go read it, I can't spoon feed you all my knowledge.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 7, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It's in Arthur Jones book and also in Mentzers........go read it, I can't spoon feed you all my knowledge.



Mentzer broke away from arthur jones......


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 7, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> In fact, studies have shown that you can increase the amount of LBM on your body by taking steroids and not even working out.



of course you can, why do you think they jack cows up with roids and dont design them a gym afterwards.


----------



## GFR (Sep 7, 2005)

HardTrainer said:
			
		

> Mentzer broke away from arthur jones......


Yes he did, and he continued to train as Arthur Jones taught him.....except he changed the frequency and some other minor things....


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 7, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes he did, and he continued to train as Arthur Jones taught him.....except he changed the frequency and some other minor things....



IMO arthur jones frequency is too much, and mike mentzer not enough, i train bodyparts twice every 8 days HIT style. 

I do not think either man is completey right i do belive at least they thought about training and helped many people, more then Arnold ever did directly.


----------



## GFR (Sep 7, 2005)

HardTrainer said:
			
		

> I do not think either man is completey right i do belive at least they thought about training and helped many people, *more then Arnold ever did directly*.


Arnold helped people by inspiring millions to workout...  
Mentzer inspired hundreds...  

But I agree Jones and Mike had some interesting ideas and some of what they preached is good stuff.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 7, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Arnold helped people by inspiring millions to workout...
> Mentzer inspired hundreds...



Thats why I said directly, Arnold has never been a trainer of others, although indirectly inspired many by his persona and phyisque due to mainly the movies, mass media.


----------



## Decker (Sep 7, 2005)

For me, doing hammer curls until my hands are like claws is something I look forward to.  Working the biceps is extremely demanding if done properly.


----------



## dAMvN (Sep 7, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> For me, doing hammer curls until my hands are like claws is something I look forward to. Working the biceps is extremely demanding if done properly.


 Bro and thats like a no brainer. Why slack off on your arms?  " It's a waste of time" Thats like the dumbest thing ive ever heard said about working out, espically a muscle as complex but yet so needed as the bicep. Those are some ignorant words, if I could quote Arnny for  a sec. He said "train your weakest muscle as if it was your strongest muscle." Cowshit here and the rest of the lil "crew" of non bicep ppl need to stop slacking off on bicep and work it out. Because ask anyone in the gym that knows what there doing, pulling exe are not enough to sculp your biceps.


----------



## rangers97 (Sep 7, 2005)




----------



## P-funk (Sep 7, 2005)

dAMvN said:
			
		

> Bro and thats like a no brainer. Why slack off on your arms?  " It's a waste of time" Thats like the dumbest thing ive ever heard said about working out, espically a muscle as complex but yet so needed as the bicep. Those are some ignorant words, if I could quote Arnny for  a sec. He said "train your weakest muscle as if it was your strongest muscle." Cowshit here and the rest of the lil "crew" of non bicep ppl need to stop slacking off on bicep and work it out. Because ask anyone in the gym that knows what there doing, pulling exe are not enough to sculp your biceps.




please read my post that sums it up.  Some of us don't care about "scuplting" (what a gay word) out biceps.  for those that do then some bicep work is fine.


----------



## rangers97 (Sep 7, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Here is my take on it:
> 
> If you are a BB'er or training for physical gratification......do some bicep work
> 
> ...


This is the be all end all answer to this question.  This thread should be closed now, this is all you need to look at and go by.  there is no point in arguing anymore over it....


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 7, 2005)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> This is the be all end all answer to this question.  This thread should be closed now, this is all you need to look at and go by.  there is no point in arguing anymore over it....



You're right.  I'm done in this thread.  If anyone actually disbelieves that your arms will still grow without directly working them because of dAMvN's flimsy as cardboard arguments, then go ahead.  I could care less at this point.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 7, 2005)

thanks.


----------

