biceps suck!!!

[DaPit26]

my bis are almost 18 inches but they've been that way for about a year now. I mix up my bis (when i hit them) workouts everytime. i figure i hit them enough when i do other workouts (back) they're thick but have no peak and it sucks! what is the best way to stimulate new fibers in my biceps?? thanks bros

 

[Madcow2]

Unfortunately you can't change the shape of a muscle through training. You can make it bigger or allow it to atrophy but no reshaping, stimulating part of a muscle or part of a fiber, or grow new fibers in just the right place to provide a peak. Basically, blame mom and dad and don't worry about it.

 

[DaPit26]

fuckin bastards! well that blows! i think my tri's are actually most of my arm.

 

[Madcow2]

Actually the tricept is the overwhelming majority of everyone's upper arm. You aren't alone. Everybody has things they would change about their body. That said, it's not an option so it's healthier for the mind to appreciate what you have than to focus on what can't be altered.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Actually the tricept is the overwhelming majority of everyone's upper arm. You aren't alone. Everybody has things they would change about their body. That said, it's not an option so it's healthier for the mind to appreciate what you have than to focus on what can't be altered.

^solid advice.

 

[DaPit26]

yeah bro, thanks for the advice. maybe i'll actually just try adding more bis into my routine, though i think with my current back routine, i probably get an average amount of bicep work.

 

[Extra_Strong]

yes that is a fact you can't change your shape only get bigger..
but you said "my bis are almost 18 inches" now those are some fucking big biceps if you ask me.. how big your is your tircep??

 

[Tom Treutlein]

^solid advice.

Solid solid advice.

 

[sonic_death_monkey]

Solid solid advice.

Solid Solid Solid Snake Advice.

 

[caseygabriel]

Using the preacher bench throw in some heavy db negatives to stimulate growth. Worked for me bro!

 

[godfatherjay]

my bis r garbage u can only see a little muscle when i flex them but when i unflex my arms looks like a stick

 

[MsBeverlyHills]

my bis r garbage u can only see a little muscle when i flex them but when i unflex my arms looks like a stick

you need to gain weight to get your arms bigger. Putting on 10-15 lbs of lean mass will gain 1" on your arms.

 

[bicepts101]

yeah i have no peak to my bicep at all...its sucks pretty bad i hate them....

 

[Griz1]

NO!

Biceps lift!

 

[dpc171]

Negatives are KEY!!!

 

[godfatherjay]

i know i need to gain weight to get bigger arms its like imppossible for me to gain weight im 6'0 and like 150 lbs i wanted to see my abs but i dont wanna lose weight either

 

[BOOEY]

try supersets

 

[jdevlin1985]

Solid Solid Solid Snake Advice.

haha wicked avatar - what have you done to that poor cat

 

[jdevlin1985]

try supersets

now that is solid advise - works a treat

Just make sure you shock your biceps every workout with something new i.e. as BOOEY said supersets, drop sets, high reps/low reps, negatives...basically use all the Weider principles you can think of - changing every few weeks

Will grow those babies in no time

 

[Madcow2]

I'm not going to get into what weider principles or whatever will shock the bicepts and get them to grow (I think my stance is pretty well known and fairly evident if one looks around the gym) - suffice to say...there is nothing in this world that can be done in the gym to alter the shape of a muscle. When you have bigger bis, you will have bigger peaks, but the general proportionality of the 'peak' (i.e. reshaping) cannot be changed.

 

[go2failure]

I'm not going to get into what weider principles or whatever will shock the bicepts and get them to grow (I think my stance is pretty well known and fairly evident if one looks around the gym) - suffice to say...there is nothing in this world that can be done in the gym to alter the shape of a muscle. When you have bigger bis, you will have bigger peaks, but the general proportionality of the 'peak' (i.e. reshaping) cannot be changed.

For most people I will agree with you, however, I have personally changed the way my biceps look through various goals of my training (bodybuilding, powerlifting, etc etc--I do both).... I have developed huge biceps with very little peak, small bellies with cannonball peaks, and a combo of both. BTW, this is not easy for me to do--I have to bust my ass for months to achieve what I'm after. It all depends on the extremes a person takes in training and the genetics available to play with.

 

[Madcow2]

Well - if you wish to believe that your dedicated training has allowed you to circumvent anatomy and physiology 101 you are welcome to do so. However, every source in existence will tell you it's not possible to change the shape of a muscle.

Note: not muscle group - we are talking a single muscle so maybe something in the way you've developed your arms has accentuated the appearance in one way or another providing the illusion that the shape of a single muscle has changed.

 

[go2failure]

Well - if you wish to believe that your dedicated training has allowed you to circumvent anatomy and physiology 101 you are welcome to do so. However, every source in existence will tell you it's not possible to change the shape of a muscle.

Note: not muscle group - we are talking a single muscle so maybe something in the way you've developed your arms has accentuated the appearance in one way or another providing the illusion that the shape of a single muscle has changed.

I don't believe in "one model/one knowledge" fits all theory or its sentiments. Just because a book or self-appointed expert "says so", does not make the knowledge derived from both incontravariable facts. Successful bodybuilding revolves around an individuals knowledge of HIS/HER OWN body, meaning -->individual makeup, individual habits, individual capability, and individual motivation--and none of those are the same for any one person.

 

[UA_Iron]

it's called "armabolon"

not too many people know about, it was only made in germany in the 1930's - kind of toxic but how else do you think Arnold achieved such amazing bicep peaks??

 

[go2failure]

it's called "armabolon"

not too many people know about, it was only made in germany in the 1930's - kind of toxic but how else do you think Arnold achieved such amazing bicep peaks??

and that's the way you do it!

 

[Madcow2]

I don't believe in "one model/one knowledge" fits all theory or its sentiments. Just because a book or self-appointed expert "says so", does not make the knowledge derived from both incontravariable facts. Successful bodybuilding revolves around an individuals knowledge of HIS/HER OWN body, meaning -->individual makeup, individual habits, individual capability, and individual motivation--and none of those are the same for any one person.

You're missing my point - it's not one person. It's all people. There isn't any qualified person in the field who will tell you differently. We are talking long-term universal consensus at every level in the field from high school teacher through leading researchers. Granted, that doesn't mean they are right (thinking back to the ether theory in space rather than a vacume) but that's some hard science to reject on the basis of a single individual's experience and faith that it adequately contradicts what is very established and thorough science.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Oh lord, more people trying to say that it's possible to shape a muscle. You don't believe in the "one model/one knowledge fits all theory"? How ignorant are you, my friend? Madcow said all that need be said. At this point, you're just being stubborn. You can't shape a muscle. You're the same as everyone else, in that the rules of physiology apply to you as well. Stop trying to refute this point, 'cause you just sound like a complete jackass.

 

[go2failure]

You're missing my point - it's not one person. It's all people. There isn't any qualified person in the field who will tell you differently. We are talking long-term universal consensus at every level in the field from high school teacher through leading researchers. Granted, that doesn't mean they are right (thinking back to the ether theory in space rather than a vacume) but that's some hard science to reject on the basis of a single individual's experience and faith that it adequately contradicts what is very established or thorough science.

I agree that there is evidence and "proof documented as fact" out there, but i do not agree entirely with "science" because of my own experiences in training.

What I have seen and have done that works, I still do. Are my examples best for all? No.

 

[go2failure]

Oh lord, more people trying to say that it's possible to shape a muscle. You don't believe in the "one model/one knowledge fits all theory"? How ignorant are you, my friend? Madcow said all that need be said. At this point, you're just being stubborn. You can't shape a muscle. You're the same as everyone else, in that the rules of physiology apply to you as well. Stop trying to refute this point, 'cause you just sound like a complete jackass.

As mentzer said, "With one who claims to be a expert in all things training, walk away, that person is a fool"....

 

[UA_Iron]

oh yeah,

hit your biceps with some synthol - I have no experience with synthol but that will add some size to them.

Like everyone else on this thread has stated, muscle shape is genetic. there's really nothing more to it, if there was a training method to change it then everyone would have biceps like arnold.

 

[go2failure]

oh yeah,

hit your biceps with some synthol - I have no experience with synthol but that will add some size to them.

Like everyone else on this thread has stated, muscle shape is genetic. there's really nothing more to it, if there was a training method to change it then everyone would have biceps like arnold.

Actually you use Arnold, but his bicep peak evolved through all of pictures I've seen of him... Yeah he always had big biceps, but his peak changed. Even arnold supports the idea that muscle shape can change.

But, arnold's beliefs compared to today's standards equated to either 1) overtraining or 2) being genetically blessed.

 

[go2failure]

Well, I gotta go back to work... I'll continue with with you later...

 

[Madcow2]

As mentzer said, "With one who claims to be a expert in all things training, walk away, that person is a fool"....

While I don't dispute the intent behind what he is saying here and I understand and respect your decision to hold your own opinion as to wether a muscle can be shapped or not, IMO - one would be best served not merely walking from Mentzer but running as fast as possible.

 

[super_rice]

his peaks "changed" because they got bigger - a lot bigger.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Who claimed to be an expert? 'cause I certainly made no such claim. You're not an expert just because you know and preach the basics of something.

 

[go2failure]

While I don't dispute the intent behind what he is saying here and I understand and respect your decision to hold your own opinion as to wether a muscle can be shapped or not,

Thank you for being respectful

IMO - one would be best served not merely walking from Mentzer but running as fast as possible.

Ironically, I found that I had to run towards his philosophies

 

[go2failure]

his peaks "changed" because they got bigger - a lot bigger.

Yes, they did get bigger. They weren't like that in the beggining.


G2F

 

[go2failure]

Who claimed to be an expert? 'cause I certainly made no such claim. You're not an expert just because you know and preach the basics of something.

Do you believe that everyone should follow what you call "basics"?

If you answered yes, then you qualify as a expert because --> everyone would be huge if they knew what you know.

If you answered no, then --> you agree with me that everyone responds differently.

 

[Madcow2]

Thank you for being respectful




Ironically, I found that I had to run towards his philosophies

There was a very lengthy discussion at Fortified Iron that covers HIT and the issues with single factor theory up, down, and sideways. It gets rediculous at times (because gfgomaz is one of the denser individuals on the planet and has never once read anything other than BBing magazines and Heavy Duty and rather than listen to those who are fairly well read and have tried everything - he'd rather hear himself and his very limited knowledge talk) but it's something that is very much worth your while to read simply because there is more at play here than supercompensation and the timing of workouts. There are also a lot of good books referenced and links provided throughout.

It probably best to start on page 4 here. Gfgomaz also doesn't know how to use the damn quotes properly but it's worth pushing through to the end. I think I got involved on page 6 somewhere. But it really is worthwhile reading it until the end because several people go through a lot of pain to try to explain this stuff. Like I said before, believing anything to be the best or possible is fine but it should be in the context of understanding all else that is out there specifically if a method is unequivocably dominant and used worldwide among elite coaches and athletes: http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=6685&st=75

Here is a condensced explanation of basic dual factor theory in a nutshell: http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showpost.php?p=48&postcount=3

The main issue with Mentzer is that he didn't know this stuff or anything about it nor does most of BBing which is a sad state of affairs in training and relies almost exclsuviely on drugs. Strict supercompensationg is very sexy and clean from a logical point of view, but unfortunately if that point of view doesn't accurately describe how the body works it doesn't matter how sexy and clean it is. This becomes far more important the more advanced an athelte becomes. Also, if you are aware of Mentzer's life, it isn't exactly out of character for him to cling to something clean and logical - it probably stabalized his mind to some degree to have a BBing parallel to Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, if you poke hard enough there are some major gaps in HIT and they tend to get glossed over with nifty quotes from Mentzer/Jones/or some other guy who's never read a good training book in his life or something about people not wanting to work hard enough. It's fine to use and believe HIT is the best (there are some qualified people who do - i.e. PSU's strength coach), all that said - one can't legitimately claim best unless one is well versed in the other theories.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Not everyone would be huge. I'm not huge by any means, but that's not 'cause I lack knowledge. Rather, I lack an appetite and consistency in the gym. I know what it is I need to do, I just don't get around to doing it.

 

[go2failure]

There was a very lengthy discussion at Fortified Iron that covers HIT and the issues with single factor theory up, down, and sideways. It gets rediculous at times (because gfgomaz is one of the denser individuals on the planet and has never once read anything other than BBing magazines and Heavy Duty and rather than listen to those who are fairly well read and have tried everything - he'd rather hear himself and his very limited knowledge talk) but it's something that is very much worth your while to read simply because there is more at play here than supercompensation and the timing of workouts. There are also a lot of good books referenced and links provided throughout.

It probably best to start on page 4 here. Gfgomaz also doesn't know how to use the damn quotes properly but it's worth pushing through to the end. I think I got involved on page 6 somewhere. But it really is worthwhile reading it until the end because several people go through a lot of pain to try to explain this stuff. Like I said before, believing anything to be the best or possible is fine but it should be in the context of understanding all else that is out there specifically if a method is unequivocably dominant and used worldwide among elite coaches and athletes: http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=6685&st=75

Here is a condensced explanation of basic dual factor theory in a nutshell: http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showpost.php?p=48&postcount=3

The main issue with Mentzer is that he didn't know this stuff or anything about it nor does most of BBing which is a sad state of affairs in training and relies almost exclsuviely on drugs. Strict supercompensationg is very sexy and clean from a logical point of view, but unfortunately if that point of view doesn't accurately describe how the body works it doesn't matter how sexy and clean it is. This becomes far more important the more advanced an athelte becomes. Also, if you are aware of Mentzer's life, it isn't exactly out of character for him to cling to something clean and logical - it probably stabalized his mind to some degree to have a BBing parallel to Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, if you poke hard enough there are some major gaps in HIT and they tend to get glossed over with nifty quotes from Mentzer/Jones/or some other guy who's never read a good training book in his life or something about people not wanting to work hard enough. It's fine to use and believe HIT is the best (there are some qualified people who do - i.e. PSU's strength coach), all that said - one can't legitimately claim best unless one is well versed in the other theories.

Thank you for the articles!


Before I read them...


It was the ridiculous training programs offered up by bodybuilding magazines which drove me to Mentzer's philosophies. Interestingly enough, I end up swapping volume with 1 set HIT every 2 months--I eventually get stagnant in both...

 

[Madcow2]

When you start out with BBing, you wind up with HIT pretty fast because it gets fairly obvious that nobody has a clue what they are doing and HIT makes sense. All that said if you work your way to any of these people - who are never featured or mentioned in the BBing magazines: Medvedyev, Zatsiorsky, Siff, Laputin, Roman, Verkhoshansky - you get some far far better insight into effective training stimulus. I watched BBing go from 3 day on 1 off splits with people doing AM/PM work in the late 1980s to 3 days a week doing a bodypart once per week by the mid-to-late 1990s - all from not having a clue as to why they came back stronger after a layoff and thinking they were overtrained. This runs headlong into a detraining effect but regardless, they never once even hypothesized that there was an independent fatigue component at work - something that was very well known and very well documented and studied years before and in use worldwide by that point. This wasn't advanced - this was training 101.

A lot of people on here quote Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper. Very very few people have ever heard of any of these books yet they are generally and fairly widely accepted to be some of the best ever written on the subject of training. Coming from a BBing perspective it's hard to fathom that all this is out there in maintstream use and you never ever run accross it. Then again, this is the whole thing I'm trying to fix.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

 

[d3track]

my arms suck
i dont have any good advice for ya

 

[go2failure]

Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper.

Hilarious. After reading the book, I ended up just using it for the motivating pictures.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

What are your thoughts on Poliquin?

 

[Madcow2]

Kind of mixed on Poliquin. He knows his stuff - no doubt but sometimes I get the feeling he's just marketing himself to the masses (reasonable from a business sense). I mean, some of the stuff he writes for BBing is just pure common sense, geared to very very low levels, and sometimes just some exotic minutia. I just think some of his stuff is all over the place. As far as what he's using/used for his own athletes you can bet it's some type of periodized template regulating volume/intensity - I guess that's common sense plain vanilla too and why would he even bother writing it but I just see a lot more value in him putting this in words rather than some of the stuff that usually comes out (hell - look at the programs in BBing, they need to hear this). I think it would have more of an impact. That said, if I remember his German Volume Training article this is exactly how this program is layed out but I bet few follow it or think about what's behind it.

Just rambling - like I said, kind of mixed on him but I guess in a nutshell I think he could be having a bigger effect helping the general masses than he is currently. He has the potential to change the way everyday people in the gyms train and empower them to make progress - yet his articles have no such impact and don't convey any of this or really contribute to changing the status quo (where most people are working and making little progress) in any way. Like I said, mixed.

 

[ilpadrone]

i know i need to gain weight to get bigger arms its like imppossible for me to gain weight im 6'0 and like 150 lbs i wanted to see my abs but i dont wanna lose weight either

Nothing is impossible dude, if you keep on thinking like that you probably wont gain anything. Start thinking positive..very important! It IS possible for you to grow. So start thinking about a good diet. You got a perfect height to put some nice muscles on. Abs are of later concern bro, really, by eating accordingly you will get both. Check for a good diet, maybe someone here can help you with that.
Good Luck

 

[go2failure]

When you start out with BBing, you wind up with HIT pretty fast because it gets fairly obvious that nobody has a clue what they are doing and HIT makes sense. All that said if you work your way to any of these people - who are never featured or mentioned in the BBing magazines: Medvedyev, Zatsiorsky, Siff, Laputin, Roman, Verkhoshansky - you get some far far better insight into effective training stimulus. I watched BBing go from 3 day on 1 off splits with people doing AM/PM work in the late 1980s to 3 days a week doing a bodypart once per week by the mid-to-late 1990s - all from not having a clue as to why they came back stronger after a layoff and thinking they were overtrained. This runs headlong into a detraining effect but regardless, they never once even hypothesized that there was an independent fatigue component at work - something that was very well known and very well documented and studied years before and in use worldwide by that point. This wasn't advanced - this was training 101.

A lot of people on here quote Arnold's Encyclopedia which amounts to a rough roll of toilet paper. Very very few people have ever heard of any of these books yet they are generally and fairly widely accepted to be some of the best ever written on the subject of training. Coming from a BBing perspective it's hard to fathom that all this is out there in maintstream use and you never ever run accross it. Then again, this is the whole thing I'm trying to fix.

www.elitefts.com - Go to the books on training. You'll find the following (in no particular order):
A System of Multi Year Training in Weightlifting
Fundmentals of Special Strength Training in Sport
Supertraining (plus lots of others by Siff)
Managing the Training of Weightlifters
Science and Practice of Strength Training

After reading up on the dual theory and the 5X5 you advocate, I have to ask you what you believe HIT really is?


To me your program is not "volume" rich at all, I perceive to be more like HIT than volume. When the underlying fatigue you refer to appears, you advocate the 3X3--even lower "volume".

So I have 2 more questions for you:

1) Have you ever tried traditional 1 STF programs?

2) What is your belief on what differentiates: DT, HIT, and "volume?"

 

[Sub-Zero]

As mentzer said, "With one who claims to be a expert in all things training, walk away, that person is a fool"....

your most likely an alter and as ronnie coleman says, a "Light waeeieght baaaabaaaaay"

 

[go2failure]

your most likely an alter and as ronnie coleman says, a "Light waeeieght baaaabaaaaay"

Federov will shut Ronnie's hole this year...


If he doesnt, can I play the politics card?

 

[Sub-Zero]

Hilarious. After reading the book, I ended up just using it for the stimulating pictures.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Federov will shut Ronnie's hole this year...


If he doesnt, can I play the politics card?

i dunno what im talkng about i just thought i twould be a cool zinger.

knock yourself out tho

 

[go2failure]

i dunno what im talkng about i just thought i twould be a cool zinger.

knock yourself out tho

 

[Madcow2]

After reading up on the dual theory and the 5X5 you advocate, I have to ask you what you believe HIT really is?


To me your program is not "volume" rich at all, I perceive to be more like HIT than volume. When the underlying fatigue you refer to appears, you advocate the 3X3--even lower "volume".

So I have 2 more questions for you:

1) Have you ever tried traditional 1 STF programs?

2) What is your belief on what differentiates: DT, HIT, and "volume?"

None of them are really my programs. Sometimes my training might look like that, oftentimes it doesn't - lately I hardly seem to train at all. More than anything they are just very simple and general time tested programs that are good illustrations of basic periodization. The volume seems to be about right for most BBers although over time, the training loads one can tolerate - and require - can rise significantly with experience. There's a good chart in Dreschler's Encyl of Weightlifting regarding loads and the monitored progressions of elite lifters if I remember correctly. I don't really advocate any set or rep scheme but 5x5 works fairly decently for people in a general purpose hypertrophy/strength program. Not to say that 6x4 or 4x6 or others may not work just as well. It's not so much in the details but in how training cycle is laid out that differentiates dual and single factor programs.

I don't really know what "volume" training is per se. The way I and I think most people frame it is that there are two theories:

Single Factor, which looks at stimulus and immediate supercompensatory recovery afterward where timing of this wave becomes important. Here, HIT really is a good illustration of this because what they are doing is attempting to minimize unnecessary inroads into recovery, recover, and then train again. If "volume" is traditional BBing program then I guess what they are doing is saying that a single set is not enough and maybe training to failure is not required for stimulus so they use a lot of volume and then time the same supercompensation wave before hitting that muscle again.

All of this is really the same to me in that for each case they believe that the body will adapt to each training session and then they will train it again before they lose the supercompensation effect - so linearly they just scale up and up each session.

Dual Factor, takes into account accrued fatigue as well as delayed compensation and the fact that the body can tolerate much higher loads over a short time frame than a long or infinite time frame. Here periodization is used to manipulate and control the fatigue factor and provide for greater stimulus (loading) and rebounding compensation (appears in the deloading phase). It doesn't have to be 5x5 and 3x3 but lowering volume and frequency while maintaining high intensity (% 1RM) is a workable way to go about it but certainly not the only one nor the best one in all situations.

A dual factor program may employ a ton of volume or not so much at different points in the year. An elite athlete's deloading might have a ton more volume and higher frequency than an average person's loading period. The differentiator is not really high or low volume or high or low intensity but the way the program is laid out and periodized. This is basically the foundation of periodization and you'll find examples just about everywhere you look.

I don't know if that answers it or doesn't for you but just about all programs fall into these groupings. If that doesn't cover all of it, you might need to help me out on a few acromnyms just so I can actually answer properly "1 STF", "volume", and "DT". You would not believe how long it took me to figure out what people were saying when they referred to Dogcrap or whatever.

 

[KenBraggofCarroltonGA]

NO!

Biceps lift!

that is absolutely correct. bi's don't suck. it is a scientific proven fact that bi's lift. Very strict concentration curls are suppose to hit you peak... and don't CHEAT when you do them. Make sure you fully contract them at the top and squeeeeeeeeze.

 

[chase152]

Dam dude. sorry to hear your arms suck. I've had had big arms since I was a kid.

 

[DaPit26]

Dam dude. sorry to hear your arms suck. I've had had big arms since I was a kid.

shut up, your're not sorry.. lol but anyways everyone's saying negatives where i lift. i can hit bis all day and they die before they burn. i always lift intensly, superset, shock the shit out of them (15-25 non stop minutes) - no growth...tris are growing like fuckin weeds. it's just the way my bi's are shaped, fuck it...i'll move on with my life.....thanks bros

 

[rbtrout]

If you're 6' and 150#, you need to start eating more and putting on some weight. You'll never (or extremely slowly) get any of your muscles much bigger than they are without some more body weight. Add another clean meal to your eating schedule and pound the weights.

 

[Dieselgoku23]

Dude I have the same problem my tries are huge but my bicep suck no peak!!!! is flat so have to live with it!! I still got decent 19 inch guns but not as ripped as I want to be

 

[Tweakle]

wait a minute, 150lbs with 18" arms? did I skip a couple of posts here... lol. That would give you roughly 23" arms if you weighed the same as me so its not all bad

 

[tsolis]

shut up, your're not sorry.. lol but anyways everyone's saying negatives where i lift. i can hit bis all day and they die before they burn. i always lift intensly, superset, shock the shit out of them (15-25 non stop minutes) - no growth...tris are growing like fuckin weeds. it's just the way my bi's are shaped, fuck it...i'll move on with my life.....thanks bros

have to tried resting your biceps for a week and then resume biceps once a week?

 

[GOHVYORGOHME]

I also have the same problem. I started doing a lot of incline db curls and and that seemed to beef up the lowest part of my bicep which helped. Another thing that is obvious is get leaner. You will appear to have more of a peak if the bodyfat around that upper and lower bicep is gone. These are obvious things but help.

 

[DaPit26]

have to tried resting your biceps for a week and then resume biceps once a week?

yeah, i usually rest between a week or two weeks. depends how hard i hit back and forearms.

 

[d3track]

wait a minute, 150lbs with 18" arms? did I skip a couple of posts here... lol. That would give you roughly 23" arms if you weighed the same as me so its not all bad

lol
totally
i don't think my arms are 18" and i'm getting close to 220.....