Anybody here who had problem with growing his arms?

[Bridgestone]

I always put lagging body parts at the beginning of every workout. Calves suck? Begin every workout with 1-2 sets calves to failure.

I would do the same for arms. And now that I think about it, I just might. They've been lagging for a while.

 

[CJ]

I always put lagging body parts at the beginning of every workout. Calves suck? Begin every workout with 1-2 sets calves to failure.

I would do the same for arms. And now that I think about it, I just might. They've been lagging for a while.

I like doing Bis after push exercises and Tris after pull exercises. The muscles are fresh, and I can do more weight for more reps.

 

[Test_subject]

I always put lagging body parts at the beginning of every workout. Calves suck? Begin every workout with 1-2 sets calves to failure.

I would do the same for arms. And now that I think about it, I just might. They've been lagging for a while.

I like doing Bis after push exercises and Tris after pull exercises. The muscles are fresh, and I can do more weight for more reps.

That’s what I’ve been doing lately (sort of):

Chest and Biceps
Legs
Shoulders and Triceps
Back

Arms are always fresh for the next workout and they get hit both directly and indirectly.

 

[Bridgestone]

That’s what I’ve been doing lately (sort of):

Chest and Biceps
Legs
Shoulders and Triceps
Back

Arms are always fresh for the next workout and they get hit both directly and indirectly.

That's a good split. I've been having great results with

Chest/Bis
off
Back/Tris
Hamstrings/Shoulders
off
Arms
Quads

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

Its not that bad smoke meth every fourth day

So you are a useless dumbfuck troll. Get the fuck out of here. Another grown fucking man seeking any attention he can get.

 

[TODAY]

So you are a useless dumbfuck troll. Get the fuck out of here. Another grown fucking man seeking any attention he can get.

Sounds like somebody is on his 3rd day of no meth

 

[BRICKS]

I respectfully disagree with this as advice and really I think it is technically inaccurate. You need a certain amount of volume and it matters for hypertrophy. Otherwise you'd just be able to do a few sets a week per muscle group.

Volume doesn't drive hypertrophy by itself and there's diminishing returns at some point. But there's a minimum amount of volume you have to do and without that, the "actual work" is useless. There's probably an optimal amount of volume as well. That optimal number probably is different for different muscle groups. It probably averages out in the 12 sets/week/group. They are finding that the minimum volume you need to see some gains looks like probably pretty low..probably lower than most of us tend to think. But there is a floor and lower is not necessarily better.

I'm not splitting hairs here.. The message matters. If you're a beginner and someone tells you that volume doesn't matter at all for growth then you're going to end up with guys doing 4 sets of biceps a week in a super low rep range thinking this is optimal and wondering why they don't see results.

I get why you all give this as advice, because guys will tend to do a bunch of useless volume not training to failure thinking they're doing something. But I see the other end of that spectrum just as often.. Guys doing their 4-6 sets of 5 a week for small muscle groups for hypertrophy because it's straight up lazy and also lends more to sloppy ego lifting. Why don't we just say the truth: find the correct volume?

I get we want to keep is simple. If you want to keep it simple why not just advise: generally 12 sets a week/group, rep

I respectfully disagree with this as advice and really I think it is technically inaccurate. You need a certain amount of volume and it matters for hypertrophy. Otherwise you'd just be able to do a few sets a week per muscle group.

Volume doesn't drive hypertrophy by itself and there's diminishing returns at some point. But there's a minimum amount of volume you have to do and without that, the "actual work" is useless. There's probably an optimal amount of volume as well. That optimal number probably is different for different muscle groups. It probably averages out in the 12 sets/week/group. They are finding that the minimum volume you need to see some gains looks like probably pretty low..probably lower than most of us tend to think. But there is a floor and lower is not necessarily better.

I'm not splitting hairs here.. The message matters. If you're a beginner and someone tells you that volume doesn't matter at all for growth then you're going to end up with guys doing 4 sets of biceps a week in a super low rep range thinking this is optimal and wondering why they don't see results.

I get why you all give this as advice, because guys will tend to do a bunch of useless volume not training to failure thinking they're doing something. But I see the other end of that spectrum just as often.. Guys doing their 4-6 sets of 5 a week for small muscle groups for hypertrophy because it's straight up lazy and also lends more to sloppy ego lifting. Why don't we just say the truth: find the correct volume?

I get we want to keep is simple. If you want to keep it simple why not just advise: generally 12 sets a week/group, rep range under say 15, 8-12 best. It's one sentence. It's also probably what the vast majority of us are doing

Volume doesn't drive hypertrophy. Physiology 101. A neuron delolarizes (fires) or it doesn't. It fires, muscle fibers contract. They do not contracting more or less, they either do or they don't. To optimize hypertrophy the goal is 100% recruitment of the muscle fibers of the target muscle you are working. And studies support that this occurs during the last reps to failure.
My arms tape out at 20.5". I do 2 exercises for tris, 2 for bis every 4 days. 2 warm up sets and 2 working sets. That's working sets for bis and 4 for tris every 4 days. I work bis after back and tris after chest:
Triceps:
skull crushers with the curl bar, 2 warms ups 2 working sets at 135 lbs for 10-15 reps currently.
Pushdowns with a straight bar, 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 135 lbs for 12 reps also
Biceps:
Cable curls using the belt squat, 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 90-100 lbs
Hammer curls 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 50 lbs.
Big weight? Not by any stretch. I train heavy back and heavy chest and when I hit arms this is all it takes to get that 100% fiber recruitment.
Volume isn't the answer.

 

[Mythos]

So Doggcrapp training or most Jordan Peters programs?

@BRICKS point was that the number of sets or reps don’t matter as much as the actual work that you’re doing in the literal definition of work in the context of physics: “The energy transferred to or from an object by the application of force.”

Whether that force is applied over 1 set or 15 sets is irrelevant as long as the stimulus is sufficient to promote growth and the actual work being done is the same. Now, there are other disadvantages to high volume like time expenditure and repetitive strain injuries, but in the context of work performed, it’s the same shit.

You can do 10 sets of 15 for everything and that’s a ton of volume, but if you’re using 30% of your 1RM, that’s comparatively little actual work because the vast majority of those reps are a complete waste of time.

Again and again, I am not arguing for high volume programs. I'm arguing that it's just not as simple as you are all making it out to be.

I'm arguing that while volume isn't a primary hypertrophy driver, it does matter and it's really absurd to think it doesn't. Like I said in my original post that no one bothers to read, studies are finding that we need a lot less set volume than you would think to have pretty good hypertrophic response, but super low set volume is not better than optimal set volume which is likely in the range I mentioned. And telling people to minimize volume at all costs is not any less dangerous or ineffective for them than telling them to do super high volume for reasons I mentioned before.

Getting into the weeds, I think there's also a lot of unanswered questions here, for example how volume may interact with the damage vs cellular tension sensing stimulus dynamic. We know that cells sense tension and that this is a driver for hypertrophic mTORC cascades. What we don't know (among other things) is to what extent exercise induced muscle cell damage promotes hypertrophy itself and how much it may actually interfere with the adaptive response brought about by the cellular mechanical sensors. Do we know how much EIMD is accrued in various rep and set ranges? I don't think we have any idea. And how about approaches to failure for that matter? Is the EIMD going to be the same for your one set of 4 to 0RiR vs my 3 sets at 7 to 1 RiR? Is the response of the cellular mechanical tension sensors going to be the same and if so why?
In the same vein, we know all too well that the human body doesn't generally want to accrete a lot of muscle tissue unless it absolutely has to due to survival needs of our ancestors.. Doesn't it stand to reason that biochemical pathways would to an extent favor or have some different response to repeated bouts, repeated approaches to failure and and volume above the absolute minimum that you apparently advocate? There's a reason why we don't put on huge amounts of muscle from doing a heroic act of strength once a month and why guys who do labor jobs can still get big working with way less than even the low 1rm figure you mentioned. And because I can see the same comments coming again, again, I am not advocating for high volume training.

Just to keep it simple: For anyone in the "lowest possible volume at all costs" camp, how many sets do you do per body part per week? To save us all some time, my next question will by why don't you do less sets per week than you're doing now? Why not just do one set?

I'm going to be honest, there's a compelling argument emerging from some of the minimum volume studies coming out that it might be better for most people just to do really low set volumes per week because the stimulus is acceptable (some are showing are 80% apparently) though not optimal. I'm thinking though that for most of us on a steroid board we are probably going to want to get that extra 20% though .

 

[Test_subject]

Is the EIMD going to be the same for your one set of 4 to 0RiR vs my 3 sets at 7 to 1 RiR?

Nobody is doing 1x4. Where did you pull that from? That’s a great way to hurt yourself doing most movements.

Most 1 set programs use rest pause sets to create multiple failure points and subject the muscle to more mechanical tension throughout the set.

The thing with low volume is that you have to put in maximal effort. I typically do 2 working sets, not because that’s some optimal number that I picked out, but because I CAN’T do more than that and get meaningful reps in with anything even approaching good form. I’m cooked after those 2 sets. Doing more volume on that exercise is not an option.

If you can do more than 2-3 sets and still have gas left in the tank, you’d be better served just raising your intensity in the first place, rather than doing more sets, because you’re applying sub maximal effort. The lower your intensity is, the more junk reps you end up doing to get the same stimulus.

 

[CJ]

Optimal/effective volume is a moving target, depending upon intensity of effort of each set.

You either can work harder, or work longer. I think it's as simple as that.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

Nobody is doing 1x4. Where did you pull that from? That’s a great way to hurt yourself doing most movements.

Most 1 set programs use rest pause sets to create multiple failure points and subject the muscle to more mechanical tension throughout the set.

The thing with low volume is that you have to put in maximal effort. I typically do 2 working sets, not because that’s some optimal number that I picked out, but because I CAN’T do more than that and get meaningful reps in with anything even approaching good form. I’m cooked after those 2 sets. Doing more volume on that exercise is not an option.

If you can do more than 2-3 sets and still have gas left in the tank, you’d be better served just raising your intensity in the first place, rather than doing more sets, because you’re applying sub maximal effort. The lower your intensity is, the more junk reps you end up doing to get the same stimulus.

“Low volume” also uses multiple exercises. There is a lot of carryover from one exercise to another. Bench press is a “chest” exercise but uses triceps and back muscles. So one set to failure for bench press variation then a tricep isolation exercise hits the triceps twice. Then dumbbell flies hits the chest for the second time. Etc.

 

[BRICKS]

Just to be clear, I don't advocate "lowest possible volume at all costs". Volume, however, above and beyond warm ups plus working sets (working sets are those sets to failure) serves what purpose? In my above post if you will note there are 2 working sets for each exercise as well as the 2 warm ups. My warm up sets aren't cheap shit. Those contribut to volume as well. In this light suddenly that volume doubles.
And I agree, your 3 sets of 7 to beats 1 set of 4. I wouldn't waste my time on 4 reps, I'm not training for powelifting.
Also, RIR is pretty subjective. How does one know what they have "in reserve" if they don't hit failure. At best it's an estimate.

 

[Test_subject]

“Low volume” also uses multiple exercises. There is a lot of carryover from one exercise to another. Bench press is a “chest” exercise but uses triceps and back muscles. So one set to failure for bench press variation then a tricep isolation exercise hits the triceps twice. Then dumbbell flies hits the chest for the second time. Etc.

Yep. Exactly. It’s not like we’re doing 1 set of 5 per week and calling it done. A huge part of doing low volume training is intelligent program design.

One of my favourite exercises, CGBP, for example, is both a tricep and chest as well as an anterior delt exercise. I do them on my shoulder/tricep day for extra chest frequency.

 

[Mythos]

Volume doesn't drive hypertrophy. Physiology 101. A neuron delolarizes (fires) or it doesn't. It fires, muscle fibers contract. They do not contracting more or less, they either do or they don't. To optimize hypertrophy the goal is 100% recruitment of the muscle fibers of the target muscle you are working. And studies support that this occurs during the last reps to failure.
My arms tape out at 20.5". I do 2 exercises for tris, 2 for bis every 4 days. 2 warm up sets and 2 working sets. That's working sets for bis and 4 for tris every 4 days. I work bis after back and tris after chest:
Triceps:
skull crushers with the curl bar, 2 warms ups 2 working sets at 135 lbs for 10-15 reps currently.
Pushdowns with a straight bar, 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 135 lbs for 12 reps also
Biceps:
Cable curls using the belt squat, 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 90-100 lbs
Hammer curls 2 warm ups, 2 working sets currently at 50 lbs.
Big weight? Not by any stretch. I train heavy back and heavy chest and when I hit arms this is all it takes to get that 100% fiber recruitment.
Volume isn't the answer.

Thanks for the response bricks. This is mind boggling size for such little and light arm work, but then you are saying you're training heavy arms and back... Would you really have all that size without all the back and chest compounds? If not then isn't what we are looking at here a bunch of extra stimulus at relatively low 1rm for the ancillary muscles?
I mean for real..I bet I'm not alone in this: I have tried routines where I'm doing pretty low volume on arms, not that low, maybe closer to four or five working sets per four days at comperable weights and almost the exact exercises you named and it simply does not put on as much muscle for me as fast as 10 to 14 sets a week. But then I wasn't doing huge weight on compounds like bench and bb rows either so.
I respect size, I do. I just have had pretty poor results from bro splits and low volume and comparably pretty damn good results from just what I consider pretty reasonable rep and set ranges, especially true for arms. Ive also had exponentially fewer injuries in these ranges. This is why I get up on my soap box about this.. I just have had a much better overall growth and frankly enjoyment going from low volume low frequency low reps to what I'm doing now. I used to be that guy that would grind out three or four arm sets to failure at 5,4,3,3 and anything less I would consider some pussy shit. After the experience and results I've had upping a few sets, upping frequency a bit and and getting the rep range to 8 - 10 for arms at 2-0 RiR, I'm not going back. Ffs I got better results from this off cycle than I had on previous cycles.. Full disclosure there were some consistency factors there but I think that's related to the training as well tbh.

 

[Mythos]

Yep. Exactly. It’s not like we’re doing 1 set of 5 per week and calling it done. A huge part of doing low volume training is intelligent program design.

One of my favourite exercises, CGBP, for example, is both a tricep and chest as well as an anterior delt exercise. I do them on my shoulder/tricep day for extra chest frequency.

Ok but in your example the tricep is still probably only involved enough to the point where the equivalent %1rm is a lot lower than you would ever accept out of an isolation exercise.. So what does this amount to? More volume at lower %1rm? Is it not?
I know CGBP can probably be done in ways to where your triceps are the limiting factor but even then...

 

[Test_subject]

I respect size, I do. I just have had pretty poor results from bro splits and low volume and comparably pretty damn good results from just what I consider pretty reasonable rep and set ranges, especially true for arms. Ive also had exponentially fewer injuries in these ranges. This is why I get up on my soap box about this.. I just have had a much better overall growth and frankly enjoyment going from low volume low frequency low reps to what I'm doing now. I used to be that guy that would grind out three or four arm sets to failure at 5,4,3,3 and anything less I would consider some pussy shit. After the experience and results I've had upping a few sets, upping frequency a bit and and getting the rep range to 8 - 10 for arms at 2-0 RiR, I'm not going back. Ffs I got better results from this off cycle than I had on previous cycles.. Full disclosure there were some consistency factors there but I think that's related to the training as well tbh.

You’re conflating “low volume” with “low reps done super heavy at a low frequency.”

That’s a misapplication of the term

Low volume doesn’t mean put as much weigh as you can on the bar and ego lift it like a spastic. It means keeping your work effective and doing as little junk volume as possible.

I do 90% of my training in the pretty typical 8-12 rep range. Compounds sometimes 6-10, stuff like facepulls 10-15.

 

[BRICKS]

Like testsubject said in his post. I like to train, I'd probably do more for arms but A) I can't. B) I don't need to.

 

[Test_subject]

Ok but in your example the tricep is still probably only involved enough to the point where the equivalent %1rm is a lot lower than you would ever accept out of an isolation exercise.. So what does this amount to? More volume at lower %1rm? Is it not?
I know CGBP can probably be done in ways to where your triceps are the limiting factor but even then...

They’re involved enough that my triceps are completely toasted afterward and I can barely bang out a couple sets of bodyweight dips/overhead extensions/whatever I’m doing that day.

Keep in mind that you can CGBP a lot more weight than you can do on a skullcrusher etc. There’s a reason that they’re a powerlifting staple.

 

[Bridgestone]

They’re involved enough that my triceps are completely toasted afterward and I can barely bang out a couple sets of bodyweight dips/overhead extensions/whatever I’m doing that day.

Keep in mind that you can CGBP a lot more weight than you can do on a skullcrusher etc. There’s a reason that they’re a powerlifting staple.

Do you have any tips on form for getting triceps to take the load?

I always come back and try to incorporate them but find as I go up in weight my chest takes over regardless of hand width, elbows flared vs at the sides (lats) and I feel it turn into a chest exercise by the end. Too close hand grip and I get some serious wrist pain as well.

Suicide grip is what I've been doing instead.

 

[Test_subject]

Do you have any tips on form for getting triceps to take the load?

I always come back and try to incorporate them but find as I go up in weight my chest takes over regardless of hand width, elbows flared vs at the sides (lats) and I feel it turn into a chest exercise by the end. Too close hand grip and I get some serious wrist pain as well.

Suicide grip is what I've been doing instead.

Grip as close as you can comfortably go without wrist pain and flare your elbows out a bit like you’re doing diamond pushups.

It will feel weird, so start a bit light, but you’ll feel it in your triceps big time.