Thread: Not Training Arms Directly?

I think its a waste of time

My arms are a stubborn part, and if I didnt train them directly, I dont thing they would grow. But everyone is different so it may work for you.

Yeah, I agree that everyone is different. My arms are extremely stubborn too, as are the guy who tried this. He ended up overtraining them the entire time. And taking time off was exactly what he needed.

Well, with my new split my arm have never been this sore... Can hardly brush my teeth lol

Hmmm, maybe you would benefit from stopping hitting them directly? Trust me, it would definitely be tough. But my traps have grown more than ever after I stopped hitting them directly with shrugs, etc.

Dont know... anythings possible. I am going to be on this split for a while though. Like I said before I was hitting arms hard and never got sore, never. Now with my new split they get hammered. I like the feeling of getting sore again. Plus im sure my arms are growing pretty nicely. They just look small in my eyes lol I will be getting a digital camera in the next week or so, then I will have picts.

Originally posted by MonStar
Anyone ever try this?

I know someone who gained nearly 2" on his arms in 6 months by not training them directly at all. Basically all he did was use a little bit of a closer grip on his presses and used an underhand grip on some rowing/pulldown movements.

What do you guys think?

I know someone that ate feces and gained weight, do you think ew should all do that??

OK I know that sounded rude but there are millions of people that get away with a million things and still have some success, that means nothing. I know guys that have great genetics but have no clue about simple science of training or drugs. Yet somehow they gain. Does that mean we should all follow in their footsteps? Fuck no. Alot of guys have genetics that will let them get away with being stupid. Stick to the rules, the shit is a science, treat it like one. Negating a muscle except when it is an antagonist, therefore never inducing direct hypertrophy, will not lead to gains in that muscle group. How does that sound liek a good idea? Quick word of advice and then I will shut up. If you ever find yourself beginning a sentence withe the phrase: I know a guy that does this, or something to that effect, realize that it is a useless thing to say and catch yourself.

Originally posted by gr81
I know someone that ate feces and gained weight, do you think ew should all do that??

OK I know that sounded rude but there are millions of people that get away with a million things and still have some success, that means nothing. I know guys that have great genetics but have no clue about simple science of training or drugs. Yet somehow they gain. Does that mean we should all follow in their footsteps? Fuck no. Alot of guys have genetics that will let them get away with being stupid. Stick to the rules, the shit is a science, treat it like one. Negating a muscle except when it is an antagonist, therefore never inducing direct hypertrophy, will not lead to gains in that muscle group. How does that sound liek a good idea? Quick word of advice and then I will shut up. If you ever find yourself beginning a sentence withe the phrase: I know a guy that does this, or something to that effect, realize that it is a useless thing to say and catch yourself.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly. I have also read about training styles somewhere on this very website/forums where the arms are not directly exercised. If you do mostly or all compound llifts, then your biceps and triceps get a lot of exercise via these lifts. When I have a really good workout I can feel my triceps on chest day and my biceps on back day.

thats great and may work for you, but no matter what anyone says, the way to get huge arms for the genetically average person is NOT to ignore them, but to DIRECTLY stimulate the muscle fibers. Indirect stimulation can only take you so far and it would be foolish for someone to come on here and read that all you need to do for hypertrophy is to not directly train a muscle group. If it works for you congrats, you are lucky. There are a million different styles of training and oce of them will work for someone, but generally if you are lookin to increase a specific muscle group, you need direct stimulation. The nontraining approach won't work for most and frankly it is foolish to think it will. How is this any different than one of the infomercials telling you that you can have the body you want by only working 5 mins a day and shit? Stop lookin for the easy road with less work and train.

I don't believe the answer to this question is as simple as it has been discussed here... of course you can have good growth on your arms not working them directly... it all depends on how well you are indirectly working them... and your diet and routine and genetics and even then, everyone is different...

maybe if you have never trained them before, then you might see some growth. not if you are a experienced weight trainer though. I would love for someone to explain to me how a muscle group is going to grow when the muscle fibers are not being stimulated?? please, someone tell me since we have a bunch of know it alls here....

ok... but they aren't saying you aren't working the muscle fibers.. they are just saying you aren't doing isolation exercises... like curls etc....

yes I know, they are saying that you are not DIRECTLY stimulating the muscle fibers, therefore you are not recruiting enough of the fibers to induce overall hypertrophy, so tell me, how will it work?

Some interesting points guys. Still no conclusions.

And you cannot jump to final conclusions at all, for a trainee with average genetics, because you have not tried it yourself. If you consider yourself someone with average genetics, then maybe give no direct arm training a shot, and then come back and say that it doesn't work. I just think that it's a really negative habit to get into to try and critique a variety of training principles before ever experiencing them. Maybe you know you're body more than anyone else, which is fine, but trying to say "that just won't work." Without actually trying it, is just ridiculous.

Let me add my 2 cents:

At various times of the year I DO in fact stop training arms for periods of up to four weeks. Unless your arms are a glaring week point, I feel this is something that can be of benefit to many. The arms DO get so much stimulation that they can easily become overtrained or incur injury.

What I will often do is drop arm training and simply do a split like this:

chest (2-3 extra sets)
back (2-3 extra sets)
off
legs (2-3 extra sets)
delts (2-3 extra sets)

I allow myself a bit of extra volume on the other days b/c of the lessened volume from lack of arm training.

This allows you to focus a bit more on larger bodyparts (usually you will notice a strength increase as well) and maybe work on some weak points.

One thing I can say is that when you do this you should have zero fear of losing arm mass b/c that will NOT happen. In fact, you may gain some. Also, when you go back to direct arm training your pumps will be even better and you MAY THEN see renewed growth in your arms.

Give it a shot.

Gopro, do you do the same thing with delts? When I'm doing higher volume workouts on chest and back day, I can tell my delts start getting overtrained. When that happens, I only do direct shoulder work every other week.

Originally posted by JerseyDevil
Gopro, do you do the same thing with delts? When I'm doing higher volume workouts on chest and back day, I can tell my delts start getting overtrained. When that happens, I only do direct shoulder work every other week.

I have never done it with delts as they have been a lagging bodypart for me. However, yes, the same logic can be used.

For the first 6 months or so that I trained I never did and lifts directly targeting my triceps. However, I did military press and becnhpress. These two lifts were enough to stimulate growth in my triceps. As long as you do a lot of compound lifts that use your arms as synergist and stabilizers, then you should see some kind of gains.

Well I am old enough to remember when people said "If you lift weights you won't be able to scratch your head" "Jack Lalanne will be dead eating that way before he's 50" "Those gyms Vic is opening will go broke in no time, people will never pay to work".

Now I don't say that anything will not work. So with that in mind as I read this thread I search through the few brain cells I have left and this is what I came up with.

the smaller a muscle the easier it is to over train. If you tear fiber down as fast or faster than your bodies ability to rebuild you don't make progress. So looking at those things I think GoPro's approach makes good sence. Of course since I build all my programs primarily on compound movements the logic appeals to me.

what works for some wont work for others... i dont see whats with all the negativity just becuase monstar suggested something that might work.... it just so happened, i never trained my triceps and only did 1 set of biceps for the first year i worked out, and my arms are proportionally a lot bigger than the rest of my body. both those muscles are stimulated with back and chest work, and i can see that it woudl be easy to overtrain and maybe a good thiing to take some time off.... dont be so quick to say that a routine is "just bad." most routines WILL work for most people with persistence and nutrition, within reason. thats just my opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by TwoWalks
Well I am old enough to remember when people said "If you lift weights you won't be able to scratch your head" " "Those gyms Vic is opening will go broke in no time, people will never pay to work".

LOL! How about, "If you lift waits it stunts your growth (height-wise)."

Willing to try anything on my delts, worst of my body parts.

Actually many coaches for football dont really want their players to train arms directly, at least not very often because it cause their main compound lifts to suffer. When I train football players I usually DO incorporate arms, but to a very low volume degree of one set for biceps and one for triceps, hard and heavy. I know many players who decided to only use the 4 basic "football" lifts all offseason and put a good 2 inches or so on their arms because lifting heavy is lifting heavy, and the whole body grows.

They would only do
Deadlifts
Bent Rows (Occasionally)
Squats
Press (Military)
Press (Flat or Incline Bench)

Their triceps grew, as did their biceps. It works well, and is possible, but for someone not doing a pure sport routine, it also isnt nessecary.
Besides, training arms is so fun!

You forgot to mention powercleans. That could be the reason their arms grew... Most people dont do powercleans outside of football.