Tips for Hard Gainers?

[djeclipse]

I see tons of guys at my gym that are massive that do curls

I see guys at my gym doing all kinds of shit, doesn't mean it's optimal, it doesn't mean that is how they got their size.. Some guys live at the gym, are there for 3+ hrs doing all kinds of stuff.

 

[dabuffguy]

The university study I posted shows that if you are doing heavy compound movements you gain NO extra growth in the arms by doing isolation movements such as Curls, tri extensions.

Basically if all you did was curls and tri extensions at the gym, you would get some, but limited growth. As soon as you add in compound movements like Deads, Squats etc. there is absolutley no gain to be had by doing curls on top of these movements, you are literally wasting your time as it doesn't make a difference if you do them or not.

You do realize it's impossible to measure extra gain, in other words, it's impossible to assign which excercise actually produced the gains. We know that a heavy compound excercise will produce overall much greater mass, but how can one measure or even know if an isolatioon excercise did or did not contribute to the gain. If you are doing compound excercises, you are going to grow, but the growth flattens out, you gain less in the same period of time the further you go.

Determining that an isolation excercises contributed to no extra growth is totally bogus on all accounts. How can you know that, especially when gains become more linear vs exponential? The bicep won't whisper it in your ear, and you can't cut off someone's arm and open it count each cell and determine that the isolation excercise didn't contibute to gains. No one cannot possibly say definitively that an isolation excercise didn't contribute to gains. It's inmeasurable. impossible.

If you get gains by doing just isos and get gains by doing just compounds, a combination of compunds and isos will have to show better results than one or the other by itself. Those studies are bogus and they are leaving out the fact that the method of determination to distinguish gains/improvement as a direct result of one excercise or another when stimulating the same muscle is beyond the realm of human possibility. It can't be had and their conclusions of study still have a huge hole in the middle. That hole would be filled by a definitive answer to this question:

"How do you determine which excercise actually produced the stimulating effects that caused the muscle to respond in a positive manner as to grow and strengthen?"

You know what the answer is?

I do, and its:

"Oh, we can't definitvely say that one excrecise or another was a main, lesser or even soul contributor the stimulation of muscle growth. That's impossible."

The hole still remains, and so does the argument that doing curls is a 100% waste of time.


(Closing statement)

So, I will keep doing my curls, and benefiting from them while djeclipse doesn't do them and makes almost a good as progress as he would if he did. Buit that last little bit, however minimal it may be, is not a waste of time.

Let the jury decide. BTW, the jury is every bodybuilder that was ever somebody that made a name for themself, and they will find that doing curls and tricep extensions is not a waste of time.... Unanimously.

 

[dabuffguy]

No? Flat bench, incline bench, decline bench, then do incline dumbell press, "incline flies for the stretch YO!", Decline dumbell press, cable cross overs 6 different ways, some new gay movement they read about in the latest BB mag, the list goes on.

I've seen people do close to 20-30 sets of chest exercises/ w/o, it's hardly an exaggeration.

A fly isn't a bench press is it?

And I think many many people think Decline bench is less productful and a not needed excercise (still, I don't say it's a 100% waste of time). Because a flat bench targets the lower pec anyways, and dips will do the same


Lol, at the "some gay new movement they saw in a BB mag."

I do 12-15 sets on chest presses, bb and DB and dips, plus flies another 4 sets or so. So maybe a maximum of 20 sets of chest excercises which is plenty for me, with 15 being a press of sorts.

30 is 50% more, a huge difference in the context of bbing.

anyway, that doesn't matter we're discussing curls. 30 sets of curls is so over the top. Anyone that knows what they are doing knows that.

 

[MichaelScott]

i do my curls in the squat rack, just sayin'

 

[djeclipse]

You do realize it's impossible to measure extra gain, in other words, it's impossible to assign which excercise actually produced the gains. We know that a heavy compound excercise will produce overall much greater mass, but how can one measure or even know if an isolatioon excercise did or did not contribute to the gain. If you are doing compound excercises, you are going to grow, but the growth flattens out, you gain less in the same period of time the further you go

That is why they did the scientific study!!!

Don't assume it is impossible just because you don;t know how to do it. They do it all the time, it's called science.

Determining that an isolation excercises contributed to no extra growth is totally bogus on all accounts. How can you know that, especially when gains become more linear vs exponential?

It's called a scientific study.

Have you read the study I posted? This is the very reason you conduct a study like this, with 2 control groups.

To find out if 'X' has any effect you take 2 groups of people, keep everything else the same, give one group 'X' another group does not get 'X', after a period of time test the 2 groups and you will see if 'X' made a difference or not.

In this case 'X' is curls & tri extensions. The results were very clear, 'X' (curls & tri extensions) made no difference in arm size over the group without 'X'. It can't be more clear then that.

You're talking about stuff you are assuming tings, making statements based on these assumptions.

If you read the study you would not be making ignorant assumptions like above. Now you're just talking out of your ass.

 

[djeclipse]

A fly isn't a bench press is it?

And I think many many people think Decline bench is less productful and a not needed excercise (still, I don't say it's a 100% waste of time). Because a flat bench targets the lower pec anyways, and dips will do the same


Lol, at the "some gay new movement they saw in a BB mag."

I do 12-15 sets on chest presses, bb and DB and dips, plus flies another 4 sets or so. So maybe a maximum of 20 sets of chest excercises which is plenty for me, with 15 being a press of sorts.

30 is 50% more, a huge difference in the context of bbing.

anyway, that doesn't matter we're discussing curls. 30 sets of curls is so over the top. Anyone that knows what they are doing knows that.

Stop making assumptions, you brought up Bench, and in this case chest exercises (flies, decline, incline, cables) is to the chest as Curls are to bies... 30 sets is 30 sets, don;t try and change things around now.

 

[dabuffguy]

Stop making assumptions, you brought up Bench, and in this case chest exercises (flies, decline, incline, cables) is to the chest as Curls are to bies... 30 sets is 30 sets, don;t try and change things around now.

Right, and they all benefit.

And your simile comparison is incomplete. Files, decline, incline, and cables is to the chest as rows of various types, pulldowns and curls are to the bicep.


I wasn't trying to switch things around, I just tried to not go off on a tangent about chest.

 

[dabuffguy]

That is why they did the scientific study!!!

Don't assume it is impossible just because you don;t know how to do it. They do it all the time, it's called science.



It's called a scientific study.

Have you read the study I posted? This is the very reason you conduct a study like this, with 2 control groups.

To find out if 'X' has any effect you take 2 groups of people, keep everything else the same, give one group 'X' another group does not get 'X', after a period of time test the 2 groups and you will see if 'X' made a difference or not.

In this case 'X' is curls & tri extensions. The results were very clear, 'X' (curls & tri extensions) made no difference in arm size over the group without 'X'. It can't be more clear then that.

You're talking about stuff you are assuming tings, making statements based on these assumptions.

If you read the study you would not be making ignorant assumptions like above. Now you're just talking out of your ass.

And that study has way to many variables to make a correct conclusion. things such as:

Did these people have the same height, weight, muscle development, genetic code, starting point of muscular anaerobic excercise.

Did they eat the exact same things, at the exact same time with exactly the same food porportion.

did they lift the exact same amount of weight for the exact same amount of repititions and sets, with exactly the same amount of rest between each sets.

These are all variable that can effect a scientific study, all of which I assume are not criteria met.

Besides, i thik you misunderstood what my point was.

When you do, say a set of rows row, it will effect the bicep and stimulate it to grow. Now, if you do a curl in the same workout, it will also stimulate the muscle to grow. How do you determine which excercise actually caused what percentge of amount of the total growth and strength? It is absolutely impossible to say that the row contributed 70% of the growth, and the curl 30%. You can't say that be cause it's impossible to determine. The same applies to this study.

Scientist also did a study that saliva causes cancer, but only when swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. Does that mean saliva actually will cause cancer? No. Not all studies are the upmost authority on the issue.


One more time,

Why do the greatest bodybuilders do curls and tricep extensions?

 

[silverskyline]

You kids make me laugh this arguement has been going on for prolly a month or more now with dj he will never think another way so why waste time on this?

I think it all started in the protein is necessary thread.

well at least your posts will get huge argueing all day long.

 

[dabuffguy]

And another thing, BF%, amount of water retention and just plain old hydration can also play a role in the variable as to how an arm measures, thus adding more variables to the measurement of actual muscle growth if you go by the tape measure method. Another thing this study probably didn't take into account.

and the fact that every person in that study was in a different stage of physical fitness, which also contributes to how much a muscle grows, therefore making an average gain within the group fluctuate by a good amount. A noob can put an inch on his arm in 6 weeks, i know this to be possible. a vet would only put on, let say, 1/8 inch as an example because they would gain slower, in 6 weeks. Even if a vet did deads, and all the good compound excercises, and the noob did just curls, the noob is going to show much greater improvement in overall size gained.