What's your take on 21's

Just want to see what everyone thinks of 21's effective or overtrain...

Dang 61 people have look at this post and not a one as an opinion...hmm..

21's for bicepts?

tgriff said:

Dang 61 people have look at this post and not a one as an opinion...hmm..

Click to expand...

lol

21's good for cuttin up

every body is different

i prefer three sets of six heavy dumbell curls and inclined dumbell curls as well as pull ups

21's are great i think... nice work out all around...

I feel 21s are good for biceps once in awhile, just to break up the monotony

try doing them for shoulders sometime.

Completely worthless. They won't "cut you up", and they won't "shock the body". All they'll do is waste energy and tire your biceps which, if able to go through 21's, weren't adequately worked with proper exercises (i.e., rows, pullups, and even deadlifts).

tgriff said:

Dang 61 people have look at this post and not a one as an opinion...hmm..

Click to expand...

Sometimes people think back to the "if you don't have anything nice to say...." and decide not to bother posting. I know the first time I clicked on it, that's what I did.

Overtraining is systemic and primarily has to do with overly fatiguing the CNS through time - it's related to load over a period (you can tolerate more over a few weeks than you can an infinite horizon - hence periodization and dual factor theory) and not diretly related to working an individual muscle and certainly not related to a rep scheme for an exercise. This is probably really beneficial for you to read. I'd venture it might very well change the entire way you view training and will probably add a ton of muscle to you. http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/PlannedOvertraining.html. After you read through that, check out the programs and topics in this thread: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375215

21s have nothing to do with cutting except that in it's inefficiency it probably burns nominally more calories (i.e. when you find some food in your teeth, spit instead of swallow and you get the same effect).

The long-term drivers for arm mass are going to be improvements in the compound lifts like heavy pressing, rowing, squatting and pulling. If there was some magic combination of sets/reps for direct arm work, there shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that the legions of dedicated arm training noodlearms would have found it. Of course the guys who spend their time in the rack squatting and pulling heavy seem to have very developed arms with no where near the dedicated direct work.

Madcow2 said:

Of course the guys who spend their time in the rack squatting and pulling heavy seem to have very developed arms with no where near the dedicated direct work.

Click to expand...

gospel!

Hmm, interesting. Musclemuscle red karmas me swearing that everyone is different. I guess people are so different that general rules of physiology don't apply to them, and the intense burning sensation of 21's is, in reality, the muscle being "shocked" in order to make it grow. Douche bag.

musclemuscle - sware? Oh my GOD!

Tom Treutlein said:

Hmm, interesting. Musclemuscle red karmas me swearing that everyone is different. I guess people are so different that general rules of physiology don't apply to them, and the intense burning sensation of 21's is, in reality, the muscle being "shocked" in order to make it grow. Douche bag.

musclemuscle - sware? Oh my GOD!

Click to expand...

put your money where your mouth is pussy

lets compare pictures....

shall we?

musclemuscle said:

put your money where your mouth is pussy

lets compare pictures....

shall we?

Click to expand...

thats what i thought bitch

musclemuscle said:

put your money where your mouth is pussy

lets compare pictures....

shall we?

Click to expand...

I like the way you think!



I prefer dropsets over 21's.

musclemuscle said:

thats what i thought bitch

Click to expand...

I don't just talk

I PACK

AND I will skin your ass raw BITCH

Enough please (both of you).

1) We can behave with civility and maturity regardless of whether or not we agree on some aspect of exercise.

2) Pictures are crap they will never prove anything in relation to knowledge. One might logically think ProBBers would know something decent about training, yet they are as ignorant as almost everyone else in the gym. Just good genetics, discipline, food, knowledge of diet, and enough roids to overcome a shitty training stimulus. I have yet to meet or hear of one with a good understanding of basic fundemental training science.

Madcow2 said:

Enough please (both of you).

2) Pictures are crap they will never prove anything in relation to knowledge. One might logically think ProBBers would know something decent about training, yet they are as ignorant as almost everyone else in the gym. Just good genetics, discipline, food, knowledge of diet, and enough roids to overcome a shitty training stimulus. I have yet to meet or hear of one with a good understanding of basic fundemental training science.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but not completely. I know a few people who have shitty diets, do not use roids, get no rest, but have the ability to grow muscle like mother fuckers and be cut all year round. Genetics, genetics, genetics. It goes back to the principle that everyone is different and everyone's body will react differently to different training. So hammering a certain exercise (even one I don't like doing) is just as bad as saying that the exercise is necessary for all to do.

BOOEY said:

I agree to an extent, but not completely. I know a few people who have shitty diets, do not use roids, get no rest, but have the ability to grow muscle like mother fuckers and be cut all year round. Genetics, genetics, genetics. It goes back to the principle that everyone is different and everyone's body will react differently to different training. So hammering a certain exercise (even one I don't like doing) is just as bad as saying that the exercise is necessary for all to do.

Click to expand...

and that my freind is why everyone is different

its a little thing they call GENETICS

DIFFERENT PEOPLE REACT DIFFERENTLY

due to GENETICS

that is something this other dumbass doesnt seem to get

the guy is probably 5foot 7inches 123 pounds and talkin shit when he aint

nothin to back it

What's the rationale behind these anyway, something about stressing the bicep throughout the range of motion? Is that possible?

Or is it just a way to psychologically do hi rep bicep curls?

BOOEY said:

I agree to an extent, but not completely. I know a few people who have shitty diets, do not use roids, get no rest, but have the ability to grow muscle like mother fuckers and be cut all year round. Genetics, genetics, genetics. It goes back to the principle that everyone is different and everyone's body will react differently to different training. So hammering a certain exercise (even one I don't like doing) is just as bad as saying that the exercise is necessary for all to do.

Click to expand...

Weighttraining stimulus and driving adaptation are homogenous throughout the population - probably to a great deal accross all mammals not just humans. There are always going to be differences in tolerances to load, the ease with which someone adapts and adds muscle, joint leverages which make certain exercises better/worse for an individual, and some other misc stuff. Everyone is different, but we are not all severe mutations that allow us to respond totally differently from each other. "Everyone is different" while true is widely used to rationalize all sorts of crap. 21s just don't have anything to do with exercise physiology or muscle growth - the effectiveness will be determined by the state of the lifter. Certainly someone who responds better to weight training might grow well off them compared to someone who is not as genetically gifted but this is not due to them being a supperior exercise - this is simply due to him responding better.

Take a total novice, he'll do well with 21s for a time but then a year or so out the gains slow to a crawl. Did the exercise become worse? No. He is simply trained to a degree and more resilient to adaptation. Hence, you don't see advanced periodization plans laid out for novice lifters. Are they better, sure they are, but the state of the novice lifter is that pretty much anything reasonable will work. Later on when he matures, the difference between the results he'll see on a non-periodized program vs. periodized will be night and day. You can't confuse the state of the athlete or his genetics with the viability of an exercise.

In the case of 21s this method has absolutely no backing in science for viability. Granted I can see someone who has been doing all strength work and compound lifts for a period using 21s and seeing some good short-term results but this is do to the state of the lifter and not the exercise being good or supperior in any way.

EDIT:
BTW - damn you Tom for getting me into this thread, I was pretty content in just letting it pass before I saw you post. I generally make it my policy to pass on any thread that I'd group with the "best way to train your inner chest." I kind of indicated as much in my first post.

Jim Ouini said:

What's the rationale behind these anyway, something about stressing the bicep throughout the range of motion? Is that possible?

Or is it just a way to psychologically do hi rep bicep curls?

Click to expand...

That's a good question - I'd like to hear it answered with some type of coherence and not a "well everyone is different and 21s are kinda different so if the differences intersect it will make for good gains in a different sorta way."

My pleasure, MC.

Musclemuscle, I'm not sitting on this damn forum all day and night, so don't act all high and mighty when I don't come within five minutes to make any retort.

Tell me, what is a picture going to prove? Not a damn thing. Argue otherwise all you want, but it's idiotic to say it would showcase my level of knowledge.

Oh, and I'm not 5'7, 123.

Please lord, don't tell me you're trying to act tough on an internet disucssion forum. Are you? You "PACK"? Hahaha wow I feel like I'm still in highschool. Go ahead, skin my ass raw.

Genetics aren't going to cause people to differ so much that they're going to magically "shock" their biceps and grow immensely from a round of 21's or dropsets or any such thing. It might all sound good, but the fact is, there are actual physiological reasons the muscle grows. 21's and drop sets are simply a waste of energy. You certainly won't gain anything from shooting for an intense burn, aside from a long bout of DOMs.

Please, go read up on the HST forums a bit. They actually have a wealth of information there that would be useful to you. Then again, I'm sure you're incapable of understanding half of what's posted there anyway.

I don't think there's any rationale between 21's. The first thing that comes to mind is that three and seven are often viewed as "lucky numbers" in a deal of societies. Twenty-one, being a multiple of seven, seems like the type've thing some superstitious jackass would cook up just to get everyone excited, thinking it's some magical number. Of course, once our body is signalled that the twenty-first repition is hit, it will release an immense amount of GH and your body will spasm, as all the nutrients present in your system are absorbed straight into the biceps, causing a ginormous amount of muscle tissue to form, giving one BULGING BICEPS!!!!

i would give K to madcow2 if i could, but apparently he warranted some just a while ago.....hmmm....probably because HE'S RIGHT!

everyone is different and that makes us all special. we can all go to sleep at night knowing that we are special...but our muscles....are built of the same stuff and react to the same stuff. they react to high reps by building mitochondria and stimulating slow twitch fibers, they react to high loads by stimulating the CNS to recruit as much muscle as possible and develop fast twitch fibers.

so....whats a 21?

21s:- You nominally split the biceps curl into three sections: upper, middle and lower. The middle one overlaps the other two, IIRC. You then do 7 reps in just the upper, 7 reps in the middle and 7 in the lower. It's pretty much guaranteed to give a peak to your biceps.

Ok, that last sentence was bollocks but they're just another way to shoot for pump and burn and they can be very effective in doing that. Whether pump and burn are effective or efficient methods of accruing long-term biceps growth is another matter entirely.

Wow...I didn't want to start an argument or anything...I personally don't do much direct bi work...I usually kill my back then when I'm finished do a couple sets of curls or something (if I'm able to)...But I appreciate everyones opinions..MADCOW thanks a lot for the sites..going to check them out as soon as I finish this post...I was just curious to get the opinions of what you guys though of them...I'm new to the game only about 4 years in and overtrained the shit out of my body for probably 1 1/2 to 2 years of that time...I guess that's what I get for believing everything I read in a mag or hear at the gym...Shoot I just started doing deads and squats this year thanks to EF, but now isn't the time to give my testimony..Just wanted to say appreciate the info...
Thanks
Griff

Blut Wump said:

21s:- You nominally split the biceps curl into three sections: upper, middle and lower. The middle one overlaps the other two, IIRC. You then do 7 reps in just the upper, 7 reps in the middle and 7 in the lower. It's pretty much guaranteed to give a peak to your biceps.

Ok, that last sentence was bollocks but they're just another way to shoot for pump and burn and they can be very effective in doing that. Whether pump and burn are effective or efficient methods of accruing long-term biceps growth is another matter entirely.

Click to expand...

I thought it was 7 in the lower, followed by 7 in the upper and then 7 complete reps? IMO they're good for a pump if nothing else...

You could be right, probably are, or maybe there are just variations. I never did them myself and haven't seen them done in a decade or more. I long ago lost interest in watching people spinning their arms.

zee said:

I thought it was 7 in the lower, followed by 7 in the upper and then 7 complete reps? IMO they're good for a pump if nothing else...

Click to expand...

yeah that is what I was talking about...the 7 upper, 7 lower, the 7 complete..

Have you ever tried alternate one-legged DB 21s? You do the upper 7 with one DB while doing the lower 7 with the other DB simultanously then switch over for 7 and then do the full sevens with each arm out of sync with the other.

Doing it on one leg really gets a pump into the core.

tgriff said:

Wow...I didn't want to start an argument or anything...I personally don't do much direct bi work...I usually kill my back then when I'm finished do a couple sets of curls or something (if I'm able to)...But I appreciate everyones opinions..MADCOW thanks a lot for the sites..going to check them out as soon as I finish this post...I was just curious to get the opinions of what you guys though of them...I'm new to the game only about 4 years in and overtrained the shit out of my body for probably 1 1/2 to 2 years of that time...I guess that's what I get for believing everything I read in a mag or hear at the gym...Shoot I just started doing deads and squats this year thanks to EF, but now isn't the time to give my testimony..Just wanted to say appreciate the info...
Thanks
Griff

Click to expand...

Griff, your question was fine. If you never ask, you never learn and judging from what you wrote I'm betting those links are going to be put to great use. Read the dual factor/controlled overtraining article very carefully and then take a look at the 5x5 program (both the dual factor and single factor versions in the table of contents in the other link - there are a ton of things linked so just browse and read whatever you are interested in - I'd suggest just read the topics available first and then go at your own pace).

The way this thread went is the reason I usually like to avoid some topics that I just know are going to get filled with misinformation and make for a pain in the butt. That said, it looks like you are sincerely interested in this stuff so that makes it worthwhile. Best of luck to you and I have every confidence you will find the material eye openning. Also, keep in mind that none of it is cutting edge and all of it is very common around the entire world - it's BBing and Weider that are decades behind and basically rely on drugs to makeup for bad training.

Madcow2 said:

Weighttraining stimulus and driving adaptation are homogenous throughout the population - probably to a great deal accross all mammals not just humans. There are always going to be differences in tolerances to load, the ease with which someone adapts and adds muscle, joint leverages which make certain exercises better/worse for an individual, and some other misc stuff. Everyone is different, but we are not all severe mutations that allow us to respond totally differently from each other. "Everyone is different" while true is widely used to rationalize all sorts of crap. 21s just don't have anything to do with exercise physiology or muscle growth - the effectiveness will be determined by the state of the lifter. Certainly someone who responds better to weight training might grow well off them compared to someone who is not as genetically gifted but this is not due to them being a supperior exercise - this is simply due to him responding better.

Take a total novice, he'll do well with 21s for a time but then a year or so out the gains slow to a crawl. Did the exercise become worse? No. He is simply trained to a degree and more resilient to adaptation. Hence, you don't see advanced periodization plans laid out for novice lifters. Are they better, sure they are, but the state of the novice lifter is that pretty much anything reasonable will work. Later on when he matures, the difference between the results he'll see on a non-periodized program vs. periodized will be night and day. You can't confuse the state of the athlete or his genetics with the viability of an exercise.

In the case of 21s this method has absolutely no backing in science for viability. Granted I can see someone who has been doing all strength work and compound lifts for a period using 21s and seeing some good short-term results but this is do to the state of the lifter and not the exercise being good or supperior in any way.

EDIT:
BTW - damn you Tom for getting me into this thread, I was pretty content in just letting it pass before I saw you post. I generally make it my policy to pass on any thread that I'd group with the "best way to train your inner chest." I kind of indicated as much in my first post.

Click to expand...

He's dedicated and beleives in dual theory man...what can you say? Tom is just layin it down.

You guys remind me of fascists: "No, this is how it is. Deal with it. These exercises suck. Do HST or Madcow 5x5 to see the gains." Jesus H., reading this shit makes me wonder why these members are so respected in this community ..........

You can't argue with the fact that everyone is different. Yeah, we have muscles, and yes, in order to grow you must apply a stimulus and progressively increase either the reps or the weight, and obviously provide the proper nutrition. But you can't deny that some exercises/routines work better for some and worse for others. I, for example, cannot work off a HST-type of program. I've tried it and I didn't get stronger or bigger. On the other hand, when i train conventional style - high volume, 4-5 exercises/bodypart, etc - I get stronger and bigger. Now, my way isn't the only way, nor is it the best way for everyone. It's the best way for ME. To suggest that a program is superior to all others because you and your people have seen results off it is both idiotic and ignorant.

And to cite scientific studies to support your claims does not suffice. Like I've always said, there are "studies" out there that show Cell-Tech to be 1887% better than regular Creatine. There's also "studies" that show decline bench to be superior to the other benches. See my poiint?

(This isn't a defense of 21's, I don't do the exercise. It's a defense against the "do-it this way or no way" attitude I see so often on this board.)

I hear what you are saying and I agree. The Starr 5x5 program is just a really effective and easy to understand implementation of dual factor theory - something that I and the majority of the world thinks is fairly essential to understand or at least consider. The program is not an end all be all and it's really just meant to get people learning and thinking while they get big and strong. However, for it to be most effective it will still need to be tailored to match the individual in certain respects. Something I generally leave to the trainee, making sure that he at least completes the program first to get a frame of reference - especailly people who this stuff is new for.

Look at Bulgarian OL and Russian OL programs, totally different (to a degree - one isn't just stupidly different or anything) in their focus on assistance work and many of their approaches - Bulgaians favoring very little and posting up staggering volumes in the classical lifts. They both produce some outrageously good athletes. Many ways to skill a cat.

All that said, any program or process should be based on how the body works. Granted, some things we don't know or aren't sure of but many we are. There are a lot of people that swear that performing XYZ builds the peak on their bicepts - this is a violation of basic human physiology 101. Granted I'm sure they will say that we are all different but that doesn't make them right. Facist or not, very very few will contend otherwise and no one can support it with anything more than an "I believe..."

Studies produced by companies with a marketing agenda are biased - think Arthur Jones/HIT(i.e. Nautilus) and I'm guessing CellTech. They just can't be trusted. However, there are tons and tons of studies that have been confirmed, reproduced, and recomfirmed countless times that are largely unbiased (many of those in Eastern Bloc/Russia had access to a large body of elite athletes which makes them even more pertinent and desirable). This is how research is done in every field. You can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Healthy skeptisism is good but a lot of this stuff is very broadly accepted as accurate for the simple reason that it has been confirmed again and again - some of the stuff I post might seem different or advanced but really this is basic blocking and tackling that has been around for a long time.

We are all different but gravity works the same for you as it works for me (of course I'm sure there are some that don't believe that either), I might be a bit more aerodynamic and fall at a faster rate for a bit but that doesn't change the underlying principle. There is a reason why people have based their programs on such principles and the fact that people who earn their living by producing high level athletes have tested and universally implemented these programs worldwide - it's because they work better accross the entire spectrum of athletes. They still tailor many aspects to the individual as any good program should, but the underlying principles employed are common and produce better results accross the board.

This is why I don't supply %'s, am very careful with the volume I suggest to people, and encourage them at all times to learn about their own tolerances and weak points to layout their own training programs to address this. This is why I tend to stick to basic general programs on here simply because to do much better, I need to be much closer to someone to tailor a program to them or have a good understanding of what they can currently tolerate - and the vast majority of programs in use are to flawed to convey anything worthwhile.

So, while I agree with what you say and I certainly know that one can find a study (obviously biased or not) to support almost any contention, you can only take this so far before you wind up in fantasyland and throw out a lot of valuable insight into the human body.

There comes a point in any discussion like this on almost any worthwhile topic where you have to look at whether a solution is topical or fundamental. A topical solution being one that works in a restricted set of circumstances and a fundamental one being one that applies at all times and can also explain why a topical solution works when it does and why it fails at other times.

If dual-factor training can take and enhance a few tens of thousands of lifters and general athletes who have tried conventional training and hit long-term plateaus and can also explain why they were hitting those plateaus then I have to think that it offers a more fundamental understanding of how the body is working. You simply do not find successful athletes who train by conventional bodybuilding methods without copious quantities of drugs. They don't even train horses or dogs that way.

I wouldn't suggest that it offers a complete understanding of how to grow and perform better but it does offer another step beyond the simple "train and grow" that we all begin with.

Madcow's 5x5 is just one program built around the dual-factor method. It's not some holy grail of bio-enhancement and he most of all suggests that once you have an understanding of the principles involved that you should be tailoring your own program for your own needs. Westside does the same: Tate has a 9-week beginners' program after which you're your own coach.

It's in the details where we get down to all of us being different yet fundamentally the same. We end up with differing applications of the underlying fundamentals. It's important to reach the fundamentals first, though, and these are what most of the discussions on here on dual-factor topics relate to: knowing why it works; why it must work for everyone and how to make it work best for an individual. Part of that knowledge is going to include knowing why the old, conventional BB methods really don't measure up and yet also why they are valid methods.

Oh so it is like working the inner chest

Madcow - I agree with you. Bicep peaks, inner chest, upper/middle/lower chest, etc are definitely myths that need to be corrected. I think it is most important for someone to know why they are doing an exercise - for example, one shouldn't do preachers to develop a bicep "peak", but rather use it because it will stimulate the muscles in the bicep. I see what you're saying, and I think we are at an agreement. I was more speaking towards those who say an exercise is ineffective when just about anything that will stimulate the muscle will promote growth (with other factors present, naturally, such as diet, etc.)

The main factor which should be present is a program.

Any exercise can be productive. Equally, that same exercise can be a waste of time and effort in the wrong context or even counter-productive; done with too little or too much weight or too often or too infrequently.