I did 102 sets of arms today. Is that good?

[SSAlexSS]

Why stop at 102 sets? If more is better, why not do 500 sets? Or 1000?
I did, out of sheer desperation, and a measure of stupidity give Poliquin's One-day Arm cure a try. Not because of any sound reasoning on his part or any particular faith I had in him--actually I'm closer to being in the HIT camp and think most "experts" are full of shit--but simply because I figured it was only one day of my life. Why not try it?
If you're not familiar with the program, it consists of doing a very brief arm workout lasting about 7-8minutes every half-hour for about eight or nine hours. I actually did it at a commercial gym, following his dictates to the letter, and was rewarded with a 1/4" of growth as a result. Whether that was worth the time is debatable. And I can tell you from experience that after 5 hours straight at a gym, it certainly didn't seem worth it.
Generally, if you're arms do lack in development I would suggest that rather than increasing your direct arm work you decrease it. Focus your efforts on heavy dips and chins and maybe a few sets of curls now and again, and I think you'll see far more growth than if you sit around doing 100 half-assed sets.

And there is always the Arthur Jones arm-cure:
1 60s chin, followed immediately by
Standing Curls to failure
1 60s dip, followed immediately by
Tricep Pressdowns to failure

Do this 1-2x a week for a couple of weeks and see what happens.

I was pissed off at 102 sets.... I didnt know what to expect.... I didnt want to rip my bicepes off. Now that I am alive next few month or so I will try to supass 102 sets and do atleast twice that.... (204 sets perhaps)...

I dont think that I would do 500 sets as it is scary....


Oh yeh... I don't do any direct arm work.... so this was my arms revenge!!!!

 

[Blood&Iron]

I was being facetious. I hope you are as well. As many others have commented, there is no reason to perform that number of sets. There is an inverse relationship between intensity and volume and, for the most part, you'll get far better results from upping your intensity rather than from taking your volume to such extreme levels.

 

[Lord_Suston]

I'm speechless.........
That someone had 8hours to waist when you could have gotten the same results in 30-45 minutes. You'll probably need to go to tyhe doctor and get some muscle relaxerts and hope to god you didn't pull something. I want to see you do that with squats and deadlifts in the same ratio and then write to us from a wheelchair.


Belial: Good shit

 

[Blood&Iron]

I did not consider a waste of time since, as I wrote, it was a one time thing. If you're serious about training you must be willing to do anything to achieve results(This is especially true of people like myself who don't use AS.) I'm willing to try anything once, provided it is not too dangerous. I consider myself extreme in that regard. The Poliquin arm-routine will not result in injury provided you use good form from start to finish. I have never had an injury from training for this very reason. Actually, Arnold did exactly what you sarcastically suggest, namely a set of squats every 30-40 minutes for an entire day. While much of what Arnold preaches, or at least used to, is vast overtraining for most trainees, he claimed it added a 1/4" to his thighs in one day. In general, though, I do agree that such high-volumes are counter-productive.

 

[GenetiKing]

This is a joke.............right?

 

[BodybuildingUniverse]

now that's different!

 

[enrage]

thats tooooooo fuckin crazy for me to try. my arms are usually pumped to point where i can't even scratch my nose by just doing 8-12 sets for bi's

 

[Grizzly]

I choose to read SSAlexSS' story as the joke it hopefully is, but just to make sure some poor innocent beginner doesn't takes it seriously, doing 102 sets through eight hours is completely ridiculous.

It's continuing wearing out the muscles way after all energy (and sense) has left the body. In a more technical term, it is continuing training several hours into the catabolic zone. And that's not only futile, it's also outright stupid.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous at all. In " The Education of a Bodybuilder" Arnold says that he and his buddies would go out into the woods with a bunch of weight and squat all day while eating and drinking. After an entire days worth of squatting, their legs grew 1/4-1/2 inches in a week or so. Personally, I think that controlled overtraining has its place. Sometimes I like to do 30-50 sets of pull ups just to really shock the ol' lats.

 

[Belial]

I suggest anybody interested looks into "planned overtraining", and studies it to understand the concepts behind it. It doesn't require ridiculous numbers of sets, and under its principles the next few workouts should be just as carefully planned.

Unfortunately, unless incorporated CORRECTLY, shock training (or overtraining) will do much more harm than good. Arms are also one of the worst candidates for this sort of training.

 

[Exodus]

ssalexss

just a few questions to give me some peace of mind

1..... how big are your arms?

2..... how old are you?

3..... why do you do just like most everybody else when it comes to arm training.

i will break this down........... the bicep is 1/3 of the upper arm, and tricep is 2/3 the upper arm size

ok........ why do you do twice as many sets for bicep as you do tricep?..... if you swapped those sets and reps around for biceps and triceps..... you might see something happen

oh yeah...... picking a number of sets that high to do is stupid....... you sacrifice intensity (how hard you work) for density(how long you work out)......... a sad case...... please stop this

X