Biceps!

Evening all,

So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...

How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
sixteen inches.

The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
attachment geometry", isn't it?

But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is. Perhaps
if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
shorter!

tom

--
The revolution is here. Get against the wall, sunshine. -- Mike Froggatt

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> Evening all,
>
> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
>
> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> sixteen inches.

It's genetics.

And then triceps, mostly.

> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> attachment geometry", isn't it?

Nope -- depends on genetics, and then triceps.

> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is. Perhaps
> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
> shorter!

I'm at 18" for the right arm, 17-17.5 for the left (thanks to that
mysterious Goddamned elbow injury from June!!). Maybe I can get to
19, but I seem to have hit a plateauing trend....

Genetics, man.

Don't let Arnold tell you differently.

> tom
>
> --
> The revolution is here. Get against the wall, sunshine. -- Mike Froggatt

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051644100.30360@urchin.earth.li >,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> Evening all,
>
> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
>
> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> sixteen inches.
>
> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> attachment geometry", isn't it?
>
> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is. Perhaps
> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
> shorter!

Ummm...

I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.

I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at all
to have 16" arms.

--
Keith

On Dec 5, 12:16 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ummm...
>
> I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.

I think 17" is just starting out...I'm at 18, which isn't much,
either, in bodybuilding terms -- I think you hit 20, then you're
intermediate..."pro" I think would be, what, 22 and up?

What's the top measurement for a natural bodybuilder?

> I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
> curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at all
> to have 16" arms.

Hey, you talking dumbbell curls or barbell curls?? I suspect barbell
-- but I just wanna make sure...ever since that 15 yr.-old kid talked
about benching 325-lbs., I'm ain't certain whom I'm dealing with no
more!

> --
> Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-7214C0.11162405122007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051644100.30360@urchin.earth.li >,
> Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> Evening all,
>>
>> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
>>
>> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
>> sixteen inches.
>>
>> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length,
>> and
>> attachment geometry", isn't it?
>>
>> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
>> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is.
>> Perhaps
>> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
>> shorter!
>
> Ummm...
>
> I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10
> years.
>
> I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a
> problem
> curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at
> all
> to have 16" arms.

Pavel likes seated kettlebell cleans for this - haven't ever tried them,
but since you're taking the legs and hips out of the equation, it seems
to make sense.

Agree 100% with pullup/chinup. Although I have never trained to get
bigger, my upper arms are now a whopping 15 inches, and when I started
lifting a few years ago they were under 13, all this at 150-155 lbs.
bodyweight.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


>
> --
> Keith

In article
<0d58d298-17e4-4c15-be26-a1c204144ba1@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 12:16 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ummm...
> >
> > I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> > 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.
>
> I think 17" is just starting out...I'm at 18, which isn't much,
> either, in bodybuilding terms -- I think you hit 20, then you're
> intermediate..."pro" I think would be, what, 22 and up?
>
> What's the top measurement for a natural bodybuilder?
>
> > I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
> > curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> > weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at all
> > to have 16" arms.
>
> Hey, you talking dumbbell curls or barbell curls?? I suspect barbell
> -- but I just wanna make sure...ever since that 15 yr.-old kid talked
> about benching 325-lbs., I'm ain't certain whom I'm dealing with no
> more!
>
> > --
> > Keith
>

Barbell. And unlike some, most of my lifts are a matter of record - done
in competitions, both PL and OL. And also for the record, I could give
sweet piddly boo about 20" arms. I'd take 12" arms if I could clean and
jerk 400#. Lucky for me I think I can C&J quite a bit without having to
resort to surgery on the arms.

--
Keith

In article <5roa1hF15l96fU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-7214C0.11162405122007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051644100.30360@urchin.earth.li >,
> > Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> Evening all,
> >>
> >> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
> >>
> >> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> >> sixteen inches.
> >>
> >> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length,
> >> and
> >> attachment geometry", isn't it?
> >>
> >> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
> >> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is.
> >> Perhaps
> >> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
> >> shorter!
> >
> > Ummm...
> >
> > I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> > 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10
> > years.
> >
> > I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a
> > problem
> > curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> > weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at
> > all
> > to have 16" arms.
>
> Pavel likes seated kettlebell cleans for this - haven't ever tried them,
> but since you're taking the legs and hips out of the equation, it seems
> to make sense.
>
> Agree 100% with pullup/chinup. Although I have never trained to get
> bigger, my upper arms are now a whopping 15 inches, and when I started
> lifting a few years ago they were under 13, all this at 150-155 lbs.
> bodyweight.

Yeah, but for my sports I think I'll leave the legs and hips in...

:^)

--
Keith

On Dec 5, 1:51 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Barbell. And unlike some, most of my lifts are a matter of record - done
> in competitions, both PL and OL. And also for the record, I could give
> sweet piddly boo about 20" arms. I'd take 12" arms if I could clean and
> jerk 400#. Lucky for me I think I can C&J quite a bit without having to
> resort to surgery on the arms.
>
> --
> Keith


I believe in performance first, and then appearance -- but I don't
think I believe you guys who claim you don't care about appearances.

Anyway, I hope I can get my arms to 19 or 20 inches...that would be
really respectable...right now, I just feel like an average gym-goer
under 85!

Good thing your lifts are officially recognized...but, by your logic
of not caring about appearances, I'm not as big on official
recognition because I know I do not cheat on my lifts. I think I'll
"go official" next year, as I work towards a 405 bench and try to get
beyond my 295 deads and squats...but it'll just be post ex facto to
me....

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Dec 5, 12:16 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
>> 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.
>
> I think 17" is just starting out...I'm at 18, which isn't much, either,
> in bodybuilding terms -- I think you hit 20, then you're
> intermediate..."pro" I think would be, what, 22 and up?

Probably. But what's impressive in bodybuilding terms is different to
what's impressive in man-on-the-street terms. Especially
man-on-the-street-who-is-five-foot-seven-tall terms, which are the terms
i'm working within.

>> I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
>> curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
>> weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at
>> all to have 16" arms.
>
> Hey, you talking dumbbell curls or barbell curls?? I suspect barbell --
> but I just wanna make sure...ever since that 15 yr.-old kid talked about
> benching 325-lbs., I'm ain't certain whom I'm dealing with no more!

If i ever meet someone who can curl 60 kg with one hand, i'm going to give
up.

Although there is apparently a guy called Jack Lindsley who's done 13 reps
of (cheat) curls with 120 lbs = 54 kg:

http://www.oddlifts.com/1_arm_db_cheat.html

While weighing 193 lbs and being 17. I should so have started lifting when
i was a teenager.

tom

--
A TEN PINTS

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051925510.5029@urchin.earth.li> ,
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 12:16 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> >> 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.
> >
> > I think 17" is just starting out...I'm at 18, which isn't much, either,
> > in bodybuilding terms -- I think you hit 20, then you're
> > intermediate..."pro" I think would be, what, 22 and up?
>
> Probably. But what's impressive in bodybuilding terms is different to
> what's impressive in man-on-the-street terms. Especially
> man-on-the-street-who-is-five-foot-seven-tall terms, which are the terms
> i'm working within.
>
> >> I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
> >> curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> >> weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at
> >> all to have 16" arms.
> >
> > Hey, you talking dumbbell curls or barbell curls?? I suspect barbell --
> > but I just wanna make sure...ever since that 15 yr.-old kid talked about
> > benching 325-lbs., I'm ain't certain whom I'm dealing with no more!
>
> If i ever meet someone who can curl 60 kg with one hand, i'm going to give
> up.
>
> Although there is apparently a guy called Jack Lindsley who's done 13 reps
> of (cheat) curls with 120 lbs = 54 kg:
>
> http://www.oddlifts.com/1_arm_db_cheat.html
>
> While weighing 193 lbs and being 17. I should so have started lifting when
> i was a teenager.
>
> tom

Dude in the old 'strength online' group who was a navy PE guy from San
Diego did reps with 275 lbs in a cheat curl and deadlifted over 600 in
compeition. I believe he entered the NASA strength sport thing and was
over 225 in the strict curl. All while weighing either 200 or 220 -
can't recall which. Saw the video of him doing the curls. His back was
swaying some and he was cheating, but it wasn't real bad and he did 4-5
reps with 275. I'm saying he was relatively strict even there and most
people in the gym would have called it a semi-strict curl.

Huge upper arms on the guy.

--
Keith

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Dec 5, 1:51 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Barbell. And unlike some, most of my lifts are a matter of record -
>> done in competitions, both PL and OL. And also for the record, I
>> could give sweet piddly boo about 20" arms. I'd take 12" arms if I
>> could clean and jerk 400#. Lucky for me I think I can C&J quite a
>> bit without having to resort to surgery on the arms.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
>
> I believe in performance first, and then appearance -- but I don't
> think I believe you guys who claim you don't care about appearances.
>
> Anyway, I hope I can get my arms to 19 or 20 inches...that would be
> really respectable...right now, I just feel like an average gym-goer
> under 85!
>
> Good thing your lifts are officially recognized...but, by your logic
> of not caring about appearances, I'm not as big on official
> recognition because I know I do not cheat on my lifts. I think I'll
> "go official" next year, as I work towards a 405 bench and try to get
> beyond my 295 deads and squats...but it'll just be post ex facto to
> me....

Hey PAW, I am curious as to your build - how about posting a pic?

On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> Probably. But what's impressive in bodybuilding terms is different to
> what's impressive in man-on-the-street terms. Especially
> man-on-the-street-who-is-five-foot-seven-tall terms, which are the terms
> i'm working within.

Indeed. I was actually just wondering about "standards"...as
bodybuilding is all illusion/appearance anyway, certainly 16-inchers
could look more impressive than 17 or 18 ones depending on many other
factors....

> If i ever meet someone who can curl 60 kg with one hand, i'm going to give
> up.

There are probably pros who can do it, right? Ronnie Coleman or
somebody...I think the muscle mags like showing people curling with
120-lb. dumbbells, as it is....

> Although there is apparently a guy called Jack Lindsley who's done 13 reps
> of (cheat) curls with 120 lbs = 54 kg:
>
> http://www.oddlifts.com/1_arm_db_cheat.html

Are those done sitting or standing? I think standing curls (and lat
raises) are much easier, right? And those ("bent-over") concentration
curls are easier than those done with the arms straight at your sides,
IME....

> While weighing 193 lbs and being 17. I should so have started lifting when
> i was a teenager.

Damn, me too. Well, no, I mean, when I was in my early twenties
(teenage, your bones are still growing, and there's the fear of
stunting growth height-wise).

I am encouraged to read about these Mr. Naturals who are all-natural
and in their forties and fifties, though, looking two or three times
the bodybuilder I am! All of them have had back injuries, etc., so I
am further encouraged....

> tom
>
> --
> A TEN PINTS

The difference between a dog and a fox!

On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, "Wotmewurry" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey PAW, I am curious as to your build - how about posting a pic?



Are you serious?? I'd already posted links twice in the past four
months! Lemme see if Craig's List Taiwan is still active...OMG, it's
still up!

http://taipei.craigslist.com.tw/rnr/461503435.html

In article
<43f3d298-c7a8-45a1-8a8a-e119e4787d94@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Probably. But what's impressive in bodybuilding terms is different to
> > what's impressive in man-on-the-street terms. Especially
> > man-on-the-street-who-is-five-foot-seven-tall terms, which are the terms
> > i'm working within.
>
> Indeed. I was actually just wondering about "standards"...as
> bodybuilding is all illusion/appearance anyway, certainly 16-inchers
> could look more impressive than 17 or 18 ones depending on many other
> factors....
>
> > If i ever meet someone who can curl 60 kg with one hand, i'm going to give
> > up.
>
> There are probably pros who can do it, right? Ronnie Coleman or
> somebody...I think the muscle mags like showing people curling with
> 120-lb. dumbbells, as it is....
>
> > Although there is apparently a guy called Jack Lindsley who's done 13 reps
> > of (cheat) curls with 120 lbs = 54 kg:
> >
> > http://www.oddlifts.com/1_arm_db_cheat.html
>
> Are those done sitting or standing? I think standing curls (and lat
> raises) are much easier, right? And those ("bent-over") concentration
> curls are easier than those done with the arms straight at your sides,
> IME....
>
> > While weighing 193 lbs and being 17. I should so have started lifting when
> > i was a teenager.
>
> Damn, me too. Well, no, I mean, when I was in my early twenties
> (teenage, your bones are still growing, and there's the fear of
> stunting growth height-wise).

Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.

The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.

Steroid use can cause the epiphyseal plates to prematurally 'seal' or
whatever you want to call it. Weightlifting cannot.

--
Keith

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:32:04 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article
><43f3d298-c7a8-45a1-8a8a-e119e4787d94@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
>other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.


Speaking of basketball ... the day after Thanksgiving I got together
with some friends from high school (we're 45-47 now ... I'm the
oldest) and played some moderately hard ball. You know, as hard as you
can play when the primary goal is to not get hurt.

(There were a couple 20-somethings and 30-somethings in the group as
well.)

I am still sore.

I know the muscles are used differently in basketball as opposed to
cycling (and I ride my bike a lot) and lifting (and I'm one that does
squats), but I didn't expect to have so much aching the next day and
to be sore in places almost a week later.

Despite the aches, it was a good time. I didn't stink up the gym. And
I can afford better post-game beer now than I could when I was in my
20's.

In article <a65el395vg2jlg9al5ck6hdp3togioonbn@4ax.com>,
d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:32:04 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Despite the aches, it was a good time. I didn't stink up the gym. And
> I can afford better post-game beer now than I could when I was in my
> 20's.

LOL!

Isn't that the truth. I'm going to have to steal that line when I play
rugby this summer.

--
Keith

On Dec 5, 3:32 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.

Define "credible" and I'll consider the request. I don't recall there
to have been a definitive statement, but until it's perfectly safe (at
least as safe as saying that there is no God, for example), I'd
consider caution to be in order.

> The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
> other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.

And then some basketball fan will ask for credible evidence that all
that jumping does anything bad...point is, growing bodies are
delicate. Can we agree on that? My own gut feeling is to be on the
safe side of things.

I say that, of course, as someone who never worried about safety, and
am now paying for it, so yes, maybe I'm over-cautious these days as a
result of my own youthful carelessness...but there you have it.

> Steroid use can cause the epiphyseal plates to prematurally 'seal' or
> whatever you want to call it. Weightlifting cannot.

Excuse me as I whistle while waiting for Shu'bert to chime in
concerning how safe steroids are....

> --
> Keith

On Dec 5, 4:22 pm, d wells <d.well...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Speaking of basketball ... the day after Thanksgiving I got together
> with some friends from high school (we're 45-47 now ... I'm the
> oldest) and played some moderately hard ball. You know, as hard as you
> can play when the primary goal is to not get hurt.
>
> (There were a couple 20-somethings and 30-somethings in the group as
> well.)
>
> I am still sore.

Aha, definite proof that all that jumping and carrying about is bad
for the joints!

> I know the muscles are used differently in basketball as opposed to
> cycling (and I ride my bike a lot) and lifting (and I'm one that does
> squats), but I didn't expect to have so much aching the next day and
> to be sore in places almost a week later.

It's amazing how that is, isn't it? Like, a country that's an
economic power tends to be a military power, too, because the two are
what political scientists describe as being "fungible" -- crossover
very easily...but human strength and endurance isn't like that at
all! And neither is intelligence, for that matter...there seem to be
different intelligences, just as different kinds of strengths....

> Despite the aches, it was a good time. I didn't stink up the gym. And
> I can afford better post-game beer now than I could when I was in my
> 20's.

Beer is barbaric. A very, very strange practice.

In article
<2ad722f6-16f6-40c7-8fdb-9edf25f407e1@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 3:32 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.
>
> Define "credible" and I'll consider the request. I don't recall there
> to have been a definitive statement, but until it's perfectly safe (at
> least as safe as saying that there is no God, for example), I'd
> consider caution to be in order.
>
> > The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
> > other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.
>
> And then some basketball fan will ask for credible evidence that all
> that jumping does anything bad...point is, growing bodies are
> delicate. Can we agree on that? My own gut feeling is to be on the
> safe side of things.
>
> I say that, of course, as someone who never worried about safety, and
> am now paying for it, so yes, maybe I'm over-cautious these days as a
> result of my own youthful carelessness...but there you have it.

Find scientific evidence to back up your contention weightlifting causes
premature sealing of bone growth. Anything peer-reviewed will work for
me. Make sure the focus of the study is that and it isn't simply an
opinion of the researchers embedded somewhere in the review.

Also, I didn't say basketball was bad for you. I said the loading on the
joints in weightlfifting is minor compared to most sports and used
basketball for an example.

Growing bodies are not delicate at all. They are incredibly adaptative
and can take an unreal amount of stresses. Much more so than, say, an
aging body. The key, as always, is progression.

In terms of sports weightlifting (and I'm talking olympic style
weightlifting) or powerlifting are relatively safe choices. You may want
your children to stay at home, stay in bed and fear challenging
themselves - I do not. Well, I don't really care what you do with your
children, but my children were (are) involved in a number of sports.

--
Keith

In article
<0ce17c81-87a2-46ab-a0a2-1009f9ec644a@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 4:22 pm, d wells <d.well...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Speaking of basketball ... the day after Thanksgiving I got together
> > with some friends from high school (we're 45-47 now ... I'm the
> > oldest) and played some moderately hard ball. You know, as hard as you
> > can play when the primary goal is to not get hurt.
> >
> > (There were a couple 20-somethings and 30-somethings in the group as
> > well.)
> >
> > I am still sore.
>
> Aha, definite proof that all that jumping and carrying about is bad
> for the joints!
>
> > I know the muscles are used differently in basketball as opposed to
> > cycling (and I ride my bike a lot) and lifting (and I'm one that does
> > squats), but I didn't expect to have so much aching the next day and
> > to be sore in places almost a week later.
>
> It's amazing how that is, isn't it? Like, a country that's an
> economic power tends to be a military power, too, because the two are
> what political scientists describe as being "fungible" -- crossover
> very easily...but human strength and endurance isn't like that at
> all! And neither is intelligence, for that matter...there seem to be
> different intelligences, just as different kinds of strengths....
>
> > Despite the aches, it was a good time. I didn't stink up the gym. And
> > I can afford better post-game beer now than I could when I was in my
> > 20's.
>
> Beer is barbaric. A very, very strange practice.

Where did he say his joints were sore? He said muscles. And unusual
activity will always do that.

Jeez. I give up on this kind of bs. I think you are either an idiot or
an elaborate troll.

--
Keith

On Dec 5, 5:37 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> <snip> I think you are either an idiot

Bingo.

> or an elaborate troll.

I miss John Williams.

--
Curt

On Dec 5, 12:01 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> Evening all,
>
> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
>
> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> sixteen inches.
>
> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> attachment geometry", isn't it?
>
> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is. Perhaps
> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
> shorter!

Old school bodybuilding author Bradley J. Steiner, iirc, recommended
gaining 10 to 15 pounds of bodyweight to encourage each additional
inch of size in the "biceps" department.

I'd say a lot of your arm development is indeed genetic. Some people
are born with looooong biceps and looooong triceps (big potential for
BIG arms) while others have short bis and tris which negates a lot of
size potential. That's the luck of the draw there. With that in mind,
I'd say that "How much do you need to be able to curl to have big
biceps? Let's say sixteen inches." would be terrifically variable.

No PubMed at my fingertips, but it seems intuitive (izzat the right
word) that stronger equals bigger and so while it's impossible to
estimate what poundage would be required for you to achieve that 16"
measurement (if that is indeed your goal), certainly the more you curl
then the larger your biceps will become. Rows, close grip benches,
skull crushers, chins and pullups will also add to your arm size.

Wrt body fat, the less fat you carry often makes your arms actually
look bigger while perhaps measuring "smaller" as veins really do put
the capper on a flexed arm. You've, I'm sure, heard the expression
"You can't flex fat."

Anywhoooo, wishing you great success in all of your training
endeavours, Mr. Anderson.

Curt, with the 13-and-a-half-inch pYtH0n!!!!!

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com//i...508942orig.jpg

--

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0712051644100.30360@urchin.eart h.li...
> Evening all,
>
> So, this is a dumb question, probably on multiple levels, but ...
>
> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> sixteen inches.
>
> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> attachment geometry", isn't it?
>
> But roughly. My curling is going well, but i don't seem to be getting
> noticeably bigger, and i'm wondering how long the road ahead is. Perhaps
> if this road led through getting-rid-of-some-fat-land, it might be
> shorter!
>
> tom
>
> --
> The revolution is here. Get against the wall, sunshine. -- Mike Froggatt


Tom,
You are correct that you can not tell how much weight is needed to get your
arms to grow. I have never had strong biceps as far as lifting weight goes,
but I've never had a problem getting them to grow. Just make sure that you
use variety in how much weight you lift and keeping things new.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Rob Schuh"
>
>
> Tom,
> You are correct that you can not tell how much weight is needed to get
> your arms to grow. I have never had strong biceps as far as lifting weight
> goes, but I've never had a problem getting them to grow. Just make sure
> that you use variety in how much weight you lift and keeping things new.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh


Robert, doesn't the "Rep'a" make your arms grow? Just using medium weight
but like three sets of 35 rep's build and cut?


Happy Holidays

Burr

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

> How much do you need to be able to curl to have big biceps? Let's say
> sixteen inches.

Not much.

Not more than 40 kilos.

If you are allready doing heavy back work, and i know you do, than do a few,
2-3, heavy sets, and throw in some higher reps, about 15 or so.

I never used more than 70 kilos, and i weighed 130 when i did. My lower arms
were 16 inches (pumped & flexed) in that period. I wont mention the size of
my upper arms. A bit dissapointing...

At this mmoment i cant use more than 50. Try to curl all the way up to the
eyebrows. Fast, but without momentum and too much involvement from the lower
back and traps. Emphasize the negative.

For your heavy sets, use about 50-60% of what you can use for pulldowns.

Try your lighter sets with a preacher machine, as they provide resistance in
the end position, where barbells do not.

> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> attachment geometry", isn't it?

The length of the belly. Is there much space between the end od the muscle
and the joint?

Are you doing isolation stuff for the triceps?

--
Uncle Bob

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

> I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.

You didnt measure the biceps, you measured the upper arms, and you used the
triceps very intense for a few decades.

> I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
> curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at all
> to have 16" arms.

True.

Dips ans narrow grip pullups work well.

Still, its better to throw in some exercises that work with the elbow joint
only.

I know several bodybuilders who only use the isolation stuff from
may-august.

The other 8 months are compounds only.

--
Uncle Bob

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> Damn, me too. Well, no, I mean, when I was in my early twenties
>> (teenage, your bones are still growing, and there's the fear of
>> stunting growth height-wise).

> Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.

Naim Suleymanoglu & Halil Mutlu!

> The loads on the joints in weightlifting are minor compared to most
> other sports, especially basketball with all the jumping.

> Steroid use can cause the epiphyseal plates to prematurally 'seal' or
> whatever you want to call it.

Only if they aromatize to estrogens. Its the estrogens that "close" the bone
ends.

--
Uncle Bob

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.

> Define "credible" and I'll consider the request. I don't recall there
> to have been a definitive statement, but until it's perfectly safe (at
> least as safe as saying that there is no God, for example), I'd
> consider caution to be in order.

I was pressing barbells (about 10 kilo or so...) overhead when i was 9-10
years old.

When i was 14, i did several sets of overhead presses 20-25 kilo...) every
night just after dinner. Ate lots of horse steak, too.

My delts got huge and stayed huge. I grew to be 6 feet.
If i knew then what i know now, i would have started to train serious from
the age of twelve.

And eat even more horses.

--
Uncle Bob

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> schreef:

> Pavel likes seated kettlebell cleans for this - haven't ever tried them,
> but since you're taking the legs and hips out of the equation, it seems to
> make sense.

Knowing that Tom asked about bicep development, why would ANYone choose to
perform seated snatch with a kettlebell instead of a seated dumbell curl?

Please enlighten me...

--
Uncle Bob

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
>> attachment geometry", isn't it?

> Nope -- depends on genetics, and then triceps.

The factors described are not a result of genetics?

For big arms you need long muscle bellys. Hard work. Enough protein and
Kcals in general.

And androgen levels shouldnt be too low.

--
Uncle Bob

On Dec 6, 4:30 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> schreef:
>
> > Pavel likes seated kettlebell cleans for this - haven't ever tried them,
> > but since you're taking the legs and hips out of the equation, it seems to
> > make sense.
>
> Knowing that Tom asked about bicep development, why would ANYone choose to
> perform seated snatch with a kettlebell instead of a seated dumbell curl?

Anti kettlebell. This is more evidence that Pete Is Amongst Us!

> Please enlighten me...
>
>
> Uncle Bob

--

On Dec 6, 3:08 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hobbes" <khobman...@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> > I just measured my biceps, which aren't huge. But they are just under
> > 17" at 210-215 lbs and I haven't curled a weight for at least 10 years.
>
> You didnt measure the biceps, you measured the upper arms, and you used the
> triceps very intense for a few decades.
>
> > I do perform pull-ups, cleans, etc. I suspect I wouldn't have a problem
> > curling 135 lbs as I can do things like a muscle snatch with that
> > weight. But the short answer is - you don't have to perform curls at all
> > to have 16" arms.
>
> True.
>
> Dips ans narrow grip pullups work well.
>
> Still, its better to throw in some exercises that work with the elbow joint
> only.
>
> I know several bodybuilders who only use the isolation stuff from
> may-august.
>
> The other 8 months are compounds only.
>
>
> Uncle Bob

Pete, izzat you???

--

On Dec 6, 4:37 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> The answer is "it depends on your wrist size, body fat, arm length, and
> >> attachment geometry", isn't it?
> > Nope -- depends on genetics, and then triceps.
>
> The factors described are not a result of genetics?
>
> For big arms you need long muscle bellys. Hard work. Enough protein and
> Kcals in general.
^^^^^^^^^^

I had this photo book titled something like "Elvis is Everywhere". I'm
having a similar experience here with my Pete sightings!

Kcals! It's Pete. Welcome back.

> And androgen levels shouldnt be too low.
>
>
> Uncle Bob

--

On Dec 6, 3:27 am, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> Supply even an ounce of credible evidence to support that statement.
> > Define "credible" and I'll consider the request. I don't recall there
> > to have been a definitive statement, but until it's perfectly safe (at
> > least as safe as saying that there is no God, for example), I'd
> > consider caution to be in order.
>
> I was pressing barbells (about 10 kilo or so...) overhead when i was 9-10
> years old.
>
> When i was 14, i did several sets of overhead presses 20-25 kilo...) every
> night just after dinner. Ate lots of horse steak, too.
>
> My delts got huge and stayed huge.


> I grew to be 6 feet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pete!

> If i knew then what i know now, i would have started to train serious from
> the age of twelve.
>
> And eat even more horses.
>
>
> Uncle Bob

--