opinion on 21s?

are 21s done with a straight bar a good excercise for working the biceps?
They are detailed here for anyone that doesn't know what I am talking about
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/brewster11.htm (near the bottom of the page)
I feel that I get a good pump from doing them but I am wondering if they
are somewhat less than optimal for actually working the biceps?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, rabbits77 wrote:

> are 21s done with a straight bar a good excercise for working the
> biceps? They are detailed here for anyone that doesn't know what I am
> talking about http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/brewster11.htm (near the
> bottom of the page) I feel that I get a good pump from doing them but I
> am wondering if they are somewhat less than optimal for actually working
> the biceps?

Scientific thinking is that that number of reps will drive an increase in
muscular endurance, but not strength, or at least not efficiently. As your
muscles develop endurance, they will get bigger, but i believe only to a
certain extent. You're probably better off with the good old-fashioned 2-3
sets of 8-12 reps.

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!

In news:XbNrh.44346$oA1.38587@newsfe19.lga,
rabbits77 <rabbits77@bigmailbox.net> typed:
> are 21s done with a straight bar a good excercise for working the
> biceps? They are detailed here for anyone that doesn't know what I am
> talking about http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/brewster11.htm (near
> the bottom of the page) I feel that I get a good pump from doing them
> but I am wondering if they are somewhat less than optimal for
> actually working the biceps?

They work the biceps perfectly well. Although if strength is your goal you
would be better served by dropping your rep range and increasing the weight
with something like d/bell curls.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Bully wrote:
> They work the biceps perfectly well. Although if strength is your goal you
> would be better served by dropping your rep range and increasing the weight
> with something like d/bell curls.
So, you are saying they are good for building mass but not
as good for building strength? Do I understand you correctly?

In news:_85sh.46248$oA1.36898@newsfe19.lga,
rabbits77 <rabbits77@bigmailbox.net> typed:
> Bully wrote:
>> They work the biceps perfectly well. Although if strength is your
>> goal you would be better served by dropping your rep range and
>> increasing the weight with something like d/bell curls.
> So, you are saying they are good for building mass but not
> as good for building strength? Do I understand you correctly?

No, they're good for performing 21's !!! For mass you need more weight,
less reps too. But you know, you might want to do them for fun anyway !

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, rabbits77 wrote:
> Scientific thinking is that that number of reps will drive an increase in
> muscular endurance, but not strength, or at least not efficiently. As your
> muscles develop endurance, they will get bigger, but i believe only to a
> certain extent. You're probably better off with the good old-fashioned 2-3
> sets of 8-12 reps.

"Scientific thinking" implies that there is some science behind what
you've said (i.e., not just shit you made up). With all due respect,
if you're going to make the science claim, back it up.

> VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!
Uh, yeah....

implicit_differentiation wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
[...]

> > <snip> You're probably better off with the good
> > old-fashioned 2-3 sets of 8-12 reps.
> <snip>
> if you're going to make the science claim, back it up.

Okay, but

> > VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!
>
> Uh, yeah....

do NOT mock the .sig quote!!!!!

--
Curt

rabbits77 wrote:

> are 21s done with a straight bar a good
> excercise for working the biceps?
^^^^^^^^

Note from the nitpicky speeling nerrd: E-X-E-R-C-I-S-E, thanks.

[...]

> I feel that I get a good pump from doing them
> but I am wondering if they are somewhat less
> than optimal for actually working the biceps?

Fwiw, none other than Ronnie Coleman, our erstwhile Mr. Olympia, is
apparently a fan of 21s. This according to, iirc, a recent issue of
Flex magazine.

Ooh! Aaah!

--
Curt

On Sat, 19 Jan 2007 implicit_differentiation@hotmail.com wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, rabbits77 wrote:
>> Scientific thinking is that that number of reps will drive an increase in
>> muscular endurance, but not strength, or at least not efficiently. As your
>> muscles develop endurance, they will get bigger, but i believe only to a
>> certain extent. You're probably better off with the good old-fashioned 2-3
>> sets of 8-12 reps.
>
> "Scientific thinking" implies that there is some science behind what
> you've said (i.e., not just shit you made up). With all due respect, if
> you're going to make the science claim, back it up.

No problem. See here:

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/pt-core/...media/0202.pdf

Page 367, under 'Loading', has some discussion with links to studies,
concluding by saying:

"It is recommended that novice to intermediate lifters train with loads
corresponding to 60-70% of 1 RM for 8-12 repetitions and advanced
individuals use loading ranges of 80-100% of 1 RM in a periodized fashion
to maximize muscular strength."

The section starting on page 372 talks about training for local muscular
endurance, and on the subject of reps, says:

"For novice and intermediate training, it is recommended that relatively
light loads be used (10-15 repetitions) with moderate to high volume. For
advanced training, it is recommended that various loading strategies be
used for multiple sets per exercise (10-25 repetitions or more) in
periodized manner."

Again, there are plenty of citations there.

tom

--
Your words are mostly meaningless symbols -- Andrew, to Niall