Why train arms?

Author
Discussion

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Saturday 27th June 2009
quotequote all
In all my years i have never really trained arms...they always seems perfectly big enough so it's never bothered me but i do wonder what other peoples thinking is.

My theory was always that if i do (for example) wide grip pull downs, underhand narrow grip pull downs and some one arm rows my back is shot to bits.....the notion that, at that point, my arms could then do with banging out a few curls seemed daft....they were as knackered as back and if any more back work would push me into the pointless why would it be any different for my arms which are a fraction of the size? (same applied to triceps and chest)

Every now and then i will do some because i may have light day and do high reps and more sets and chcuk some in just to mix it up....but my bog standard workout doesnt include them.

What do you do?

ShadownINja

77,316 posts

287 months

Saturday 27th June 2009
quotequote all
I can see it would be pointless to train them if they're "big" enough but what if they're not useful enough eg for climbing or grappling? For me, it's about strength not bulk. Really not fussed what they look like.

I practice gripping and pullups (both with proper grips and on 1, 2, 3 or 4 fingertips plus static hanging). Also do quick and slow bicep curls and vertical rows to train different muscle fibres plus shoulder raises at different angles, press ups and tricep curls.

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Saturday 27th June 2009
quotequote all
makes sense...but i'm talking about joe average who does his lat pull downs and seated rows then hits the preacher curl.....or bench press, shoulder press, etc and then thinks he needs to do some tricep push downs in case he's not extended his arms enough!

Driller

8,310 posts

283 months

Saturday 27th June 2009
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
In all my years i have never really trained arms...they always seems perfectly big enough so it's never bothered me but i do wonder what other peoples thinking is.

My theory was always that if i do (for example) wide grip pull downs, underhand narrow grip pull downs and some one arm rows my back is shot to bits.....the notion that, at that point, my arms could then do with banging out a few curls seemed daft....they were as knackered as back and if any more back work would push me into the pointless why would it be any different for my arms which are a fraction of the size? (same applied to triceps and chest)

Every now and then i will do some because i may have light day and do high reps and more sets and chcuk some in just to mix it up....but my bog standard workout doesnt include them.

What do you do?
How tall are you?

Henry Hawthorne

6,396 posts

221 months

Saturday 27th June 2009
quotequote all
Because people want bigger arms.

I haven't trained my arms solo for a year, but now they're "big" but not as big as the rest of my body proportionally. I think that's because I don't isolate them - hence my starting to isolate them now.

Just because your arms are big naturally doesn't mean everyone else's are... Everyone has different goals.

Urban_Ninja

1,885 posts

194 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
makes sense...but i'm talking about joe average who does his lat pull downs and seated rows then hits the preacher curl.....or bench press, shoulder press, etc and then thinks he needs to do some tricep push downs in case he's not extended his arms enough!
quite frankly mate, why should it matter what one person does?

its his arms at the end of the day and not yours, he must be doing it for a reason. To get bigger or stronger arms, for many reasons.

why train at all.


cause we can.

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Driller said:
Tiggsy said:
In all my years i have never really trained arms...they always seems perfectly big enough so it's never bothered me but i do wonder what other peoples thinking is.

My theory was always that if i do (for example) wide grip pull downs, underhand narrow grip pull downs and some one arm rows my back is shot to bits.....the notion that, at that point, my arms could then do with banging out a few curls seemed daft....they were as knackered as back and if any more back work would push me into the pointless why would it be any different for my arms which are a fraction of the size? (same applied to triceps and chest)

Every now and then i will do some because i may have light day and do high reps and more sets and chcuk some in just to mix it up....but my bog standard workout doesnt include them.

What do you do?
How tall are you?
6ft 6

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Urban_Ninja said:
Tiggsy said:
makes sense...but i'm talking about joe average who does his lat pull downs and seated rows then hits the preacher curl.....or bench press, shoulder press, etc and then thinks he needs to do some tricep push downs in case he's not extended his arms enough!
quite frankly mate, why should it matter what one person does?

its his arms at the end of the day and not yours, he must be doing it for a reason. To get bigger or stronger arms, for many reasons.

why train at all.


cause we can.
missing the point.......what i am saying is...if you train back hard and get to a point where the muscles involved have had enough, what makes you think that isolating arms is a good idea? I'm not saying it is or isnt....but i am saying that I always thought it made little sense, and i'm curious what others think.

My theory was that if you train your back you do arms at the same time....now, given that arms are tiny compared to the huge back muscles.....why does anyone think that the arms need MORE exercise? If the arms arent ready for a rest then why is the back? Its like training a a large man and a small man at the same time...after a while you tell the big guy to have a rest while you get the little one to do more.....why?

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Urban_Ninja said:
quite frankly mate, why should it matter what one person does?
because that person might be right! If they are, i want in...if they arent, good - i was right all along.

_DeeJay_

4,953 posts

259 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
Urban_Ninja said:
Tiggsy said:
makes sense...but i'm talking about joe average who does his lat pull downs and seated rows then hits the preacher curl.....or bench press, shoulder press, etc and then thinks he needs to do some tricep push downs in case he's not extended his arms enough!
quite frankly mate, why should it matter what one person does?

its his arms at the end of the day and not yours, he must be doing it for a reason. To get bigger or stronger arms, for many reasons.

why train at all.


cause we can.
missing the point.......what i am saying is...if you train back hard and get to a point where the muscles involved have had enough, what makes you think that isolating arms is a good idea? I'm not saying it is or isnt....but i am saying that I always thought it made little sense, and i'm curious what others think.

My theory was that if you train your back you do arms at the same time....now, given that arms are tiny compared to the huge back muscles.....why does anyone think that the arms need MORE exercise? If the arms arent ready for a rest then why is the back? Its like training a a large man and a small man at the same time...after a while you tell the big guy to have a rest while you get the little one to do more.....why?
As has been said, I suppose it comes down to each individual's physique. Personally, I struggle to do arms after doing my back. However, it seems to affect others I train with differently - they seem to have more stamina in their arms so the back exercises don't exhaust their arms. Though the back muscles are far larger than the bi/triceps they're also used far more in exercises like rows so it's not simply a straight comparison between the size of the muscles.

I'd say that composite exercises are all that relatively inexperienced gym go-ers (such as myself) should do as you get the most benefit in the shortest time. However, if you want to target specific areas later on due them lacking in development then it makes sense to do so with isolating exercises.

And to answer your question of why most people do bicep curls I'd say it's through lack of knowledge and vanity - they want to be able to flex their arm and show an impressive bicep and think the best way to get that is to do bicep curls.




ShadownINja

77,316 posts

287 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
I think I might be missing the point still, but if you train the arms, then you could work on things like the chest, abs and back without risking injuring the arms which may be big but not very strong, PLUS you need to train the ligaments and supporting muscles that help you do things like barbell presses to avoid injury. Or am I talking crap? (My knowledge of weightlifting is limited.)

Driller

8,310 posts

283 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
Driller said:
Tiggsy said:
In all my years i have never really trained arms...they always seems perfectly big enough so it's never bothered me but i do wonder what other peoples thinking is.

My theory was always that if i do (for example) wide grip pull downs, underhand narrow grip pull downs and some one arm rows my back is shot to bits.....the notion that, at that point, my arms could then do with banging out a few curls seemed daft....they were as knackered as back and if any more back work would push me into the pointless why would it be any different for my arms which are a fraction of the size? (same applied to triceps and chest)

Every now and then i will do some because i may have light day and do high reps and more sets and chcuk some in just to mix it up....but my bog standard workout doesnt include them.

What do you do?
How tall are you?
6ft 6
Ah, right. You've just completely shanted my argument then hehe

(I was going to say if you are small your arms will grow by themselves but if you're tall you'll have much more trouble building them.)



Edited by Driller on Sunday 28th June 19:52

_DeeJay_

4,953 posts

259 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
ShadownINja said:
I think I might be missing the point still, but if you train the arms, then you could work on things like the chest, abs and back without risking injuring the arms which may be big but not very strong, PLUS you need to train the ligaments and supporting muscles that help you do things like barbell presses to avoid injury. Or am I talking crap? (My knowledge of weightlifting is limited.)
I believe the general theory is that if you train using complex movements (i.e. ones that promote multiple muscle groups helping each other to perform the lift) then there is no need to perform isolation exercises (i.e. training a single muscle group specifically).

The smaller muscle groups and ligaments will get strengthened along the way. However, if you find yourself with unbalanced muscles (i.e. supporting muscles aren't capable of providing the necessary assistance) to larger muscle groups then you may need isolation exercises (like preacher curls) to allow them to catch up.

The question was 'why does everyone seem to be performing isolation exercies when the OP doesn't feel he needs it'.


ShadownINja

77,316 posts

287 months

Sunday 28th June 2009
quotequote all
I don't think I was talking about proper isolation exercises. I only had free weights in mind.

stackmonkey

5,077 posts

254 months

Tuesday 30th June 2009
quotequote all
As other have said, much of it is down to the individual.
One of my regular workouts is back and then biceps.
My back is quite strong for my size, but my arms are still relatively skinny, so I tend to do some arm work once I've finished doing my back, including some dumbell curls.

Digger

15,093 posts

196 months

Tuesday 30th June 2009
quotequote all
I am intrigued that there has not been much if any mention of REST for the muscles. I am with Tiggsy but only in the sense that I do alot of intense cardio, incl x-trainer, rowing and feel that my arms look good as a result.

Hmmm. . . Thinking of starting a thread about gym-bunnies, exercise ,and vanity!!?

Tiggsy

Original Poster:

10,261 posts

257 months

Tuesday 30th June 2009
quotequote all
stackmonkey said:
As other have said, much of it is down to the individual.
One of my regular workouts is back and then biceps.
My back is quite strong for my size, but my arms are still relatively skinny, so I tend to do some arm work once I've finished doing my back, including some dumbell curls.
this is a great post to explore the point....why do you think your arms do not get enough when trying to help out your "strong for its size" back? If your strong back doesnt need anymore, why do your arms? If your back was not as strong would you advocate doing more exercises than you currently do?

Its the same theory )or lack of) for people that have one arm 1 inch smaller than the other....to get the small one bigger do you give it more to do.....and if it's that simple can people who's arms are equall just add more exercises and also see a 1 inch gain????

ShadownINja

77,316 posts

287 months

Tuesday 30th June 2009
quotequote all
Digger said:
Hmmm. . . Thinking of starting a thread about gym-bunnies, exercise ,and vanity!!?
There are enough of those eg losing gut for summer, how do I build a six pack etc etc. I'd like to see some functional fitness threads. (I saw one once... someone was asking about martial arts to help with rugby.)

_DeeJay_

4,953 posts

259 months

Wednesday 1st July 2009
quotequote all
Digger said:
I am intrigued that there has not been much if any mention of REST for the muscles. I am with Tiggsy but only in the sense that I do alot of intense cardio, incl x-trainer, rowing and feel that my arms look good as a result.

Hmmm. . . Thinking of starting a thread about gym-bunnies, exercise ,and vanity!!?
It's actually a good point. My OH was complaining yesterday because I was pleased that the gym were getting some larger dumbbells. Since we'd agreed that I was going to the gym to 'get fit' per point was that I didn't need heavier weights to do that.

I suppose she has a point. I was actually looking forward to the heavier weights so I could push myself further. Ultimately, I know that will build muscle. I don't actually need the muscle to do anything practical so, other than the fact that I enjoy pushing myself and seeing progress in terms of the weights that I can lift, it was difficult to justify on anything other than vanity reasons.

Maybe another thread would be useful to determine why people actually go to the gym, especially those who don't do it to assist with a sport.

M400 NBL

3,529 posts

217 months

Wednesday 1st July 2009
quotequote all
I didn't specifically train arms for a very long time (years) because I didn't want large bent arms. I liked training but I also likes squash and tennis, so large bulky arms wouldn't have helped.

I'm now recovering from a shoulder injury that occured originally from a snowboarding accident, and almost a year later from a near 3 hour session of squash. So I am now training every body part with my new training partner which includes a small amount of training arms.

Triceps after a session on chest, biceps after shoulders and forearms after legs.

But a lot of people goto the gyms specifically to get big arms. Training shoulders and legs is TOO much hard work for some.

It does depend on your generics and natural strength though. I didn't train legs much either because I didn't want them to get bulky. The reason they'd get bulky is because they are naturally strong.

Being half caste though means getting a decent pair of calves is difficult, so I can understand why there's a need for some to train a body part and not others.