YB
BannerBanner

bicep thickness and peak

Author
mass
Olympian Member
  • Total Posts : 787
  • Reward points: 4417
  • Joined: 2004/11/03 22:34:03
  • Location: uk
  • Status: offline
2005/08/01 22:48:30 (permalink)
0

bicep thickness and peak

i know i keep posting simalar stuff, but im after bicep thickness and more bicep peak, my arm size at te moment is 15.5 but i think they look crap, most of the size is comming from the tricep, there aint a lot of bicep peak, what is the best exercise in everybodys opinion for thickness and good peak. at the moment im doing seated curls.
#1

17 Replies Related Threads

    dirtyvest
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 52022
    • Reward points: 14484
    • Joined: 2002/04/11 22:19:49
    • Location: UK
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/01 22:50:20 (permalink)
    0
    DB curls or BB curls or close grip chins. Those will get the size there the rest is genetics..... incidently, most of your arm size SHOULD come from your triceps anyway.
    #2
    LMC
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 16185
    • Reward points: 12031
    • Joined: 2004/02/24 11:34:07
    • Location: daarn saaaarf
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/02 11:15:28 (permalink)
    0
    You can make a muscle bigger by lifting increasing weights, you can make a muscle more defined by reducing BF%, but (with the exception of surgical intervention) you cannot change the the shape of a muscle.
    When a muscle gets bigger, it obviously changes in appearance, but its final shape is not up to you or your exercise selection - that is down to genetics. The gap or space between your elbow and your biceps belly is your bicep tendon. No exercise can alter the tendon to muscle belly length ratio. Therefore, this gap cannot be "filled" so to speak so will have no effect on the 'peak' either. All you can do is continually progressively overload the muscle and let them get bigger.
    NB: It is thought that an increase of 1" on the biceps would equate to an overall increase of between 10-15lbs of body weight, therefore if you're not gaining size overall you won't be gaining size specifically in the biceps.
    #3
    PAGAN
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 17017
    • Reward points: 10980
    • Joined: 2004/12/28 15:35:42
    • Location: The back of Fat Pete's Metaphorical Tiger !
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/02 11:24:28 (permalink)
    0
    Mate I need to focus on my biceps too. I intend to try 5x5 on bb curls and maybe throw a couple of sets of 'Ninja curl's ' in at the end. if you dont know what Ninja curls are try doing a search as I couldn't begin to describe them here

    No biggie like, there are a lot worse things for you than using steroids, I mean I probably shouldn't have been smoking crack or getting into bar fights at your age TBH  - drab4

    #4
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/04 23:38:35 (permalink)
    0
    I find hammer curls are good for the peak
    #5
    Chez
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1343
    • Reward points: 7893
    • Joined: 2002/12/14 16:42:11
    • Location: Stockport, United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 00:18:16 (permalink)
    0
    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    I find hammer curls are good for the peak


    Sorry mate but thats just rubbish, you can't work "the peak" its impossible (I thought we had established that) and in terms of a bicep excercise in general there are better ones than hammers too
    post edited by Chez - 2005/08/05 00:20:10
    #6
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 15:47:14 (permalink)
    0
    Sorry mate but thats just rubbish, you can't work "the peak" its impossible (I thought we had established that) and in terms of a bicep excercise in general there are better ones than hammers too


    No i dont agree thats rubbish at all. obviously some exercises hit different portions of the muscle. like incline bench does the upper chest. hammer curl hit the long head of the bicep and the brachialis emphasising width and the'peak' respectively. Obviously you cant change the shape of you muscle but you can enhance certain portions of it otherwise you wouldn't see the peak like seen on Ronnie Colemans arm. and ill think you ll find hammer curls are a popular exercise and reguarded by many as one of the best for arm development.
    #7
    Chez
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1343
    • Reward points: 7893
    • Joined: 2002/12/14 16:42:11
    • Location: Stockport, United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 15:57:37 (permalink)
    0
    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    Sorry mate but thats just rubbish, you can't work "the peak" its impossible (I thought we had established that) and in terms of a bicep excercise in general there are better ones than hammers too


    No i dont agree thats rubbish at all. obviously some exercises hit different portions of the muscle. like incline bench does the upper chest. hammer curl hit the long head of the bicep and the brachialis emphasising width and the'peak' respectively. Obviously you cant change the shape of you muscle but you can enhance certain portions of it otherwise you wouldn't see the peak like seen on Ronnie Colemans arm. and ill think you ll find hammer curls are a popular exercise and reguarded by many as one of the best for arm development.


    You don't have to agree but its a fact that it is rubbish, I don't have time to go into it but I suggest you do some reading round.

    Almost everything you said there is pure BS - with the possible exception of being able to hit the upper chest (the sternal head of the pectoralis major) which is debatable.

    Sorry to be harsh but thats the way it is
    #8
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 16:55:26 (permalink)
    0
    no I know what your trying to say and have read around the subject area. your of the opinion you cant train a part of the muscle, but the muscle as a whole and its impossible to hit different areas by changing angles etc. yes I know this arguemtnand have read the research around the area. But there are also the other camp which say yes you can. I dont know how anyone who trains regularly and get to know the feeling of muscle burn and doms the next day can say its impossible to hit specific area of a muscle. If i do hammer curls the next day i feel doms in my brachallis, bicep long head and upper forearm. If i do conventional curls with a straight grip i get and ache in the short head. Its obviuos how cant anyone see that. Ohh and incline bench happens to be the exeption to the rule does it, just a one of bodypart who doesnt tie into the thoery and science behind it. if it works on chest it works on anything.
    #9
    QUARANTINE
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 728
    • Reward points: 11071
    • Joined: 2002/07/13 15:27:33
    • Location: United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 18:57:45 (permalink)
    0
    Here is a hint, tense your bicep palms facing inwards so fully contracted, now try and make different areas of the muscle more prominant than others, done that? right!

    So now you see you cant alter the area of focus on this muscle group short of the bicep being fully contracted as in straight bar curls or not fully contracted as in hammer curls.

    The chest is diferent, its a much larger muscle with many more fibers and with greater division within the fibre distribution meaning that, for example contraction on incline will recruit more of the upper chest fibres than lower chest fibres.

    However that said it is far from total isolation and pretty much all the fibers in a given muscel are used during a contraction. No matter what some beast in the olympia line up might say in this months muscle and fittnes its a biological fact!
    #10
    tokar
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 5848
    • Reward points: 2838
    • Joined: 2004/09/28 13:15:10
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 19:04:15 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    no I know what your trying to say and have read around the subject area. your of the opinion you cant train a part of the muscle, but the muscle as a whole and its impossible to hit different areas by changing angles etc. yes I know this arguemtnand have read the research around the area. But there are also the other camp which say yes you can. I dont know how anyone who trains regularly and get to know the feeling of muscle burn and doms the next day can say its impossible to hit specific area of a muscle. If i do hammer curls the next day i feel doms in my brachallis, bicep long head and upper forearm. If i do conventional curls with a straight grip i get and ache in the short head. Its obviuos how cant anyone see that. Ohh and incline bench happens to be the exeption to the rule does it, just a one of bodypart who doesnt tie into the thoery and science behind it. if it works on chest it works on anything.


    1) Yes there are two camps. But one of them has scientific research based reasons to back up their claims, while the other has anecdotal "evidence" from bodybuilders who think that "getting a pump" is what makes muscles grow. Ronnie Coleman, for instance, is blessed with biceps that are the perfect shape for bodybuilding. That he has a good "peak" does not in any way prove that his biceps work targets it.

    2) There is a difference between targeting a muscle (eg, the brachialis- which, it seems, can be focused on with hammer curls) and targeting a part of a muscle. The biceps "peak" is not a muscle; it is a part of a muscle.

    As to the incline bench for upper chest debate, I'm keeping out of that.
    #11
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 20:25:52 (permalink)
    0
    Okay so by the reasoning behind this theory the one with all the science behind it (haha) then all we need to do for each muscle group is one exercise namely in one position and with one same angle every time because it doesnt matter what we do we cant stimulate any other muscle fibres by changing the exercise/angle/hand position. So all we all have to then from now on is:
    Chest = flat bench
    biceps = barbell curl
    delts = military press
    etc

    I dont buy into this theory at all its total bull. All other exercises then are a waste of time and will hit the muscle in the exect same way as any other exercise.

    Okay you guys have read a couple of flex articles or muscle and fitness about this and the next week they are probably contradicting themselves (thats why i dont bother with such trash). Am I right in saying that you are suggesting to me that there is not different portions to the bicep including the long/short head and the same for most other muscle groups. delts posterior/medial/anterior and that by moving in different angles you can stimulate each portion of that muscle. you cant seriously suggest that military press is good for your rear delts. I know what i feel and have experience just cos some boffin in flex has conjured up some stats to suggest that you cant train different parts of a muscle doesnt mean im gonna believe it.
    #12
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 20:28:19 (permalink)
    0
    and by the way the biceps peak is part of a muscle otherwise it wouldnt be there. its overdevelopment of the long head vs the shorthead giving the appearence of a peak. this only appears on some people because they genetically have a longer and more pronounced long head.
    #13
    tokar
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 5848
    • Reward points: 2838
    • Joined: 2004/09/28 13:15:10
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 21:26:33 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    Okay so by the reasoning behind this theory the one with all the science behind it (haha) then all we need to do for each muscle group is one exercise namely in one position and with one same angle every time because it doesnt matter what we do we cant stimulate any other muscle fibres by changing the exercise/angle/hand position. So all we all have to then from now on is:
    Chest = flat bench
    biceps = barbell curl
    delts = military press
    etc

    I dont buy into this theory at all its total bull. All other exercises then are a waste of time and will hit the muscle in the exect same way as any other exercise.

    Okay you guys have read a couple of flex articles or muscle and fitness about this and the next week they are probably contradicting themselves (thats why i dont bother with such trash). Am I right in saying that you are suggesting to me that there is not different portions to the bicep including the long/short head and the same for most other muscle groups. delts posterior/medial/anterior and that by moving in different angles you can stimulate each portion of that muscle. you cant seriously suggest that military press is good for your rear delts. I know what i feel and have experience just cos some boffin in flex has conjured up some stats to suggest that you cant train different parts of a muscle doesnt mean im gonna believe it.


    I don't know whether this is in reply to me, but not a single sentence of the view that you caricature here is either stated or implied by my post.

    So- no, you are entirely wrong in thinking that I am suggesting to you any of the points above, and it seems to me quite odd that you should have thought that I was.
    #14
    tokar
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 5848
    • Reward points: 2838
    • Joined: 2004/09/28 13:15:10
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 21:28:22 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    and by the way the biceps peak is part of a muscle otherwise it wouldnt be there. its overdevelopment of the long head vs the shorthead giving the appearence of a peak. this only appears on some people because they genetically have a longer and more pronounced long head.


    Who is this in reply to? If you read my original post you will notice I said myself that the biceps peak was part of the muscle. You are arguing with no one.
    #15
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/05 23:03:42 (permalink)
    0
    1) Yes there are two camps. But one of them has scientific research based reasons to back up their claims, while the other has anecdotal "evidence" from bodybuilders who think that "getting a pump" is what makes muscles grow. Ronnie Coleman, for instance, is blessed with biceps that are the perfect shape for bodybuilding. That he has a good "peak" does not in any way prove that his biceps work targets it.


    from this it seems that you are disagreeing with me but if your not then iam arguin with myself cos Chez cant reply with a relevant arguement. and i fancy avin a debate
    #16
    tokar
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 5848
    • Reward points: 2838
    • Joined: 2004/09/28 13:15:10
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/06 00:13:37 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: bulldog*

    1) Yes there are two camps. But one of them has scientific research based reasons to back up their claims, while the other has anecdotal "evidence" from bodybuilders who think that "getting a pump" is what makes muscles grow. Ronnie Coleman, for instance, is blessed with biceps that are the perfect shape for bodybuilding. That he has a good "peak" does not in any way prove that his biceps work targets it.


    from this it seems that you are disagreeing with me but if your not then iam arguin with myself cos Chez cant reply with a relevant arguement. and i fancy avin a debate


    In the above quote I am saying two things: (1) isolation of a muscle has research to back it up, whereas isolation of specific heads of a muscle has (as far as I know) only anecdotal evidence to back it up, and (2) (since you mentioned Coleman earlier) you can't show a cause and effect relationship between a BBer's biceps work and the particular appearance of his biceps, with respect to the peak.
    #17
    bulldog*
    Olympian Member
    • Total Posts : 682
    • Reward points: 2470
    • Joined: 2005/03/31 15:19:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: bicep thickness and peak 2005/08/06 20:59:29 (permalink)
    0
    (2) (since you mentioned Coleman earlier) you can't show a cause and effect relationship between a BBer's biceps work and the particular appearance of his biceps, with respect to the peak.


    No i cant show cause and effect relationship because i havent followed such an experiment becuase im not a scientist im a bodybuilder. Im just stating my opinion and by using my own experiences thru training i can suggest that by doing particular exercises ceratin areas of the muscle have developed more than others, namely the area i was specfically aiming for. and by using proprioception (mind body link) I can feel certain exercises hitting certain areas of the muscle. some muscles are harder to seperate than other such a single joints but all i believe can be hit in a slightly different angle.
    #18
    Jump to:
    ©2018 All content is copyright of MuscleTalk.co.uk and its use elsewhere is prohibited.
    (posting guidelines | privacy | advertise | earnings disclaimer | contact us | supported by)
    © 2018 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.5