I'm not doing it right: Biceps no growie grow

[Billy R]

So say i wanna start working each body part twice a week, do you do less sets per body part for each session? How many sets&rep ranges per body part do you guys recommend? Also, when working out same body parts multiple times a week do you ignore doms? Or just take it easier/less sets for that body part if you're really feeling sore?

I usually do 3-4 sets of each exercise, with multiple exercises per body part. As a general thing I like heavier weights, ones I can complete 8-10 reps with, but sometimes I like to go to relatively lighter weights and do 20 reps at a time. I have found that after a while I didn't get really "Sore", my body seems to bounce back from the abuse fairly quickly. In my experience, the soreness sets in after people slack off for a while.

 

[sheepdog.tx]

Ideas I'm thinking my help me, gimme feedback:
- move biceps to start of the workout, starting with barbell curls using fat gripz, end sets with drag curls
- superset these with grip up should wide bent over rows
- followup superset is pullups and "21" curls
- end night on underhand grip shrugs with partially contracted biceps for ending strench

 

[wicked442]

Try 21s style chin ups. Killer pump.

 

[Rarchib]

Try 21s style chin ups. Killer pump.

Awesome idea. First time hearing that

 

[sheepdog.tx]

Heres what I came up wth as a balance for overall workout thats compound heavy, hits biceps hard and often on both heads. Doing a little fasted cardio in the morning, lunch workout, then the A/B split (supersetting each movement per block), followed back post workout shake then the post shake bonus movements I mentioned if I have the energy. Thoughts?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[HIT4ME]

You've got a lot of advice here, some I agree with, some I don't.

First, if you are hitting a body part HARD, I don't think most people can train it more than once a week if they aren't geared up. You can work hard, or long, but you can't do both and carrying either to the extreme will increase recuperation time. And recuperation and growing are not the same thing. You don't grow until AFTER you recuperate.

Second, I like the big back = big biceps mentality. Nothing works your arms like heavy lifts, even if you're using your arms as hooks you need to activate the muscles in order to move. Bones don't just move on their own.

Third, the biceps are the smallest muscle group you are going to focus on. Volume and frequency MAY have to be reduced accordingly. Hit them hard and get out.

Fourth, the idea of "training a bodypart" is somewhat of a lie. Your muscles are interconnected. You muscles are not individual rubber bands as we like to think. I'm not sure if you've ever had this happen, but sometimes you will train a muscle and the opposing muscle will hurt to some degree. i.e. - you do a bunch of pull-ups and your chest hurts. This is because everything is interconnected. You should be focusing on certain muscles, but you aren't excluding muscles from activity just because you aren't focused on them. This is part of the reason that heavy compound movements work so well for building mass - you can hit a lot of muscles very hard with heavy weights.

Having said that, even if you are using a split that trains one bodypart once per week, chances are those muscles are getting some stimulation/use in other workouts as well. Obviously you use your legs on back day (deadlifts), your back on squat day, your triceps on chest day, etc.

I have short biceps that have never seemed to grow. What I've been doing lately is training my back and then training my biceps at the end of the back workout. So I've done pullups, bent over rows, under-handed pull-downs and then I go to just one set of barbell curls to failure. Yes, just 1 set and I'm done with Biceps.

I did this two days ago and my back and biceps are so stiff right now I can hardly walk straight or lift my arm.

I also focus on not bringing the bar to my shoulders when I curl. My tendency is to try to reach the top and then I think I have a little further to go and I curl in, but this really just raises my elbows and activates my front delts and releases tension from my biceps. Keep your elbows locked and stop once your arm is bent. You should still feel tension in your biceps. Focus on the negative by lowering slowly.

Sometimes I do a drop set and drop a little weight and bang out a couple more reps.

I focus on 6-12 reps.

Go heavy until you find a weight that limits you to 6 reps and then build it up to 12 and then add weight.

When you do this at the end of your back workout, your arms will be tired already so you may be a little weaker than if you were doing biceps on another day.

And don't hammer your biceps 3X per week or even 2X per week. Do less and let them grow. Keep in mind you are working them on the back workouts too.

I kind of focus on the big muscle groups and view arms and shoulders as supporting groups. These groups support your back and chest movements. Work those movements and lay back on the supporting groups. You are working the supporting groups more than you think.

 

[PaulBlack]

Personally, I am from the school that believes one can train the big stuff and the entire body 2+ or so times per week and especially the smaller groups 3x. (which usually recover in 2-3 days)
I know too many guys (natty) who have and it works well, especially if you are not gunning for singles all the time. And disagree that, you need PEDS to do it.

As far as being ready to train, but not yet growing!?, I have no idea about that. If my lifts were going up, i was getting stronger, if I was getting stronger I was most likely growing. IMO the human body is always growing, changing and adapting.

I also never really used DOMS as a marker to train or wheterh or not I was set to train. In fact some lighter training when I had bad DOMS, helped me to get rid of them faster. If I train the squat less frequent, my DOMS seemed worse, than if I train the hips, low back and legs 2x (sometimes 3x) per week on average.

 

[HIT4ME]

Personally, I am from the school that believes one can train the big stuff and the entire body 2+ or so times per week and especially the smaller groups 3x.
I know too many guys (natty) who have and it works well, especially if you are not gunning for singles all the time. And disagree that, you need PEDS to do it.

Again, I guess it depends on intensity. If you are training to failure and/or beyond on even a few sets, then I disagree. It just can't be carried out for any length of time. I can train hard enough that 2-3 sets of leg exercises will leave me unable to walk up a flight of stairs or almost even stand. I couldn't do 9 sets like that every week. And I didn't just get to that point overnight.

If you aren't going to failure, and doing more sets at a lower intensity, then you probably need that volume and maybe it is necessary for some.

Some people prefer a little lower intensity and higher volume, some prefer all-out intensity and lower volume. Don't get me wrong when I say that volume workers aren't working as "hard" as I know they are still putting in effort, but in a different way. You just can't do both methods 3X per week.

And, I hate using myself as an example because it is entirely possible I have poor recovery abilities compared to others, but I did just 1 set of biceps after my back workout on Saturday and this morning I woke up and my arm didn't want to bend still. It isn't nearly as pained as yesterday or the day before, but I've still not recovered, never mind grow.

 

[EatMoar]

Personally, I am from the school that believes one can train the big stuff and the entire body 2+ or so times per week and especially the smaller groups 3x. (which usually recover in 2-3 days) I know too many guys (natty) who have and it works well, especially if you are not gunning for singles all the time. And disagree that, you need PEDS to do it. As far as being ready to train, but not yet growing!?, I have no idea about that. If my lifts were going up, i was getting stronger, if I was getting stronger I was most likely growing. IMO the human body is always growing, changing and adapting. I also never really used DOMS as a marker to train or wheterh or not I was set to train. In fact some lighter training when I had bad DOMS, helped me to get rid of them faster. If I train the squat less frequent, my DOMS seemed worse, than if I train the hips, low back and legs 2x (sometimes 3x) per week on average.

I agree. I always train everything 2x and some 3/4x and I'm natural and seen nothing but good. My friends are the overtraining one body part a week people. They weight 150 and 165, I weight 200.

 

[Mperkins]

I agree. I always train everything 2x and some 3/4x and I'm natural and seen nothing but good. My friends are the overtraining one body part a week people. They weight 150 and 165, I weight 200.

Thank you! no matter how hard i work a group i cant i mean it cant train it only once.....im sorry but even being natty i couldnt. ive never met someone who can train chest sohard it take a full week to recover. i train hard and eventhen eat enough and sleep good and BAM im ready again

 

[PaulBlack]

If you aren't going to failure, and doing more sets at a lower intensity, then you probably need that volume and maybe it is necessary for some.

Some people prefer a little lower intensity and higher volume, some prefer all-out intensity and lower volume. Don't get me wrong when I say that volume workers aren't working as "hard" as I know they are still putting in effort, but in a different way. You just can't do both methods 3X per week.

And, I hate using myself as an example because it is entirely possible I have poor recovery abilities compared to others, but I did just 1 set of biceps after my back workout on Saturday and this morning I woke up and my arm didn't want to bend still. It isn't nearly as pained as yesterday or the day before, but I've still not recovered, never mind grow.

This actually rings a bit of Arthur Jones, Dr Ken, Maximum Bob Whelan HIT stuff!?!? (Haha I just saw your username/HIT)
I know there are people who do make gains from (even) 1 set to failure training, but I do believe, they are in the minority and their CNS will most likely not take that kind of beating for constant cycles and keep gaining. Or they will not look forward to training that hard again, so they slowly back off and slowly over time drop the intensity. (At least that is what I found myself doing and I always prided myself on training pretty brutally hard) I used to do old Mentzer Intensity for Immensity and stuff like negs etc. I tried that too (I think I have tried everything really accept SuperSlow)
If you are gaining from it, then that is great and more power to you. I just don't think the masses in most gyms, are into training like that to gain.

When I started to train pretty much exclusively on compound exercises ie: squats, deads, rows, OHP, BPs then some arm and grip stuff and more for strength (even if for middish range reps) and ate hearty, I did my best with gains.

It is much like Dr Ken used to say..., Given the choice between working brutally hard, or doing more, most trainees (especially novices and intermeds) will opt to do more, or put in more volume and frequency.

To add, T. Derek Sobol (I think his name was) wrote an article once in an old Ironman mag (when they were little and owned by Peary Rader.) about, Are you adapting your body to only respond to ultra high intensity training!? Maybe he was right, as I used to beat myself up so bad and the gains were not always as hard as the work. I seemed to have more colds back than and be more irritable. Prolly was my chewed up CNS.

 

[HIT4ME]

This actually rings a bit of Arthur Jones, Dr Ken, Maximum Bob Whelan HIT stuff!?!? (Haha I just saw your username/HIT)
I know there are people who do make gains from (even) 1 set to failure training, but I do believe, they are in the minority and their CNS will most likely not take that kind of beating for constant cycles and keep gaining. Or they will not look forward to training that hard again, so they slowly back off and slowly over time drop the intensity. (At least that is what I found myself doing and I always prided myself on training pretty brutally hard) I used to do old Mentzer Intensity for Immensity and stuff like negs etc. I tried that too (I think I have tried everything really accept SuperSlow)
If you are gaining from it, then that is great and more power to you. I just don't think the masses in most gyms, are into training like that to gain.

When I started to train pretty much exclusively on compound exercises ie: squats, deads, rows, OHP, BPs then some arm and grip stuff and more for strength (even if for middish range reps) and ate hearty, I did my best with gains.

It is much like Dr Ken used to say..., Given the choice between working brutally hard, or doing more, most trainees (especially novices and intermeds) will opt to do more, or put in more volume and frequency.

To add, T. Derek Sobol (I think his name was) wrote an article once in an old Ironman mag (when they were little and owned by Peary Rader.) about, Are you adapting your body to only respond to ultra high intensity training!? Maybe he was right, as I used to beat myself up so bad and the gains were not always as hard as the work. I seemed to have more colds back than and be more irritable. Prolly was my chewed up CNS.

This is a great post and shows a deeper understanding than "just do more". It says what I wanted to say a little bit better.

I believe you are right. Some people are mentally geared toward doing less but harder, while some people will do more with a little lower intensity. The problems arise when you go to do both. For me, I prefer to learn to work harder. There is something about doing just 2-3 sets and realizing you can't walk ARLEADY that lets you know you have gone all out.

I once had a volume-training friend come workout with me and my training partner. We wrote our exercises in a journal at the beginning of the workout and the friend said to us, "That's all you do?" and we both just said, "Yup".

20 minutes later he said, "I see why that is it now."

Even given my mental inclination toward this type of training, I realize that it takes a toll on my CNS. I have to reduce frequency and volume and actually hold back a little sometimes. This is where I think Mentzer was really onto something, and I think he realized that you could only brutalize yourself so much if you are going to failure. My take on his point was something along the lines of, if 4 sets at 85% of failure is better than 1 set to failure, that's great. But how do you measure 85% exactly? Really, you only know when you've done 0 and failure, but everything in between is difficult to measure, especially if you are progressing.

On the other hand, I think you pointed out after your original statement that sometimes you are tired or sore and go lighter on a workout to compensate - my mentality is why go lighter? I'm either stimulating growth or I'm resting - why do something that is neither of these two options? I may be wrong on this, and I think your method actually has some merits - like you said you may actually recover faster this way (although a lot of research suggests cardio and light weight training sessions actually do not improve recovery speed), and you are training your body to get used to more volume and work everyday. The downside of my training is that your body can be accustomed to low volume, and you can become mentally lazy in your training because it is relatively infrequent.

I think the bottom line is like I said though, you can work hard (as defined by 100% of failure) or you can go long. If you go hard you can stimulate growth, but will quickly fatigue and need recovery time. If you go long, you can't go hard and will have to use volume to make up for the lower intensity - but your body will be better able to take the volume.

Again, I lean toward all or nothing because that's my mentality. In most of the things I do in life I am either on or I am off- no in between. I don't have a dimmer switch I also prefer HIIT cardio to LISS cardio....

 

[HIT4ME]

Also, I hope I'm clear - I'm not saying that you are not working "hard", just not to 100% failure or beyond. I'm sure some of your workouts would be very difficult for me to complete, if I could complete them at all...I'm just saying you can't work at 100% for long. As Mentzer used to say, even the fastest sprinters are slightly slower at the end of 400 meters than they were at the beginning if they are going all out....

 

[sheepdog.tx]

Guy I love all the input here. Hit4Me I like where youre going with this and I'm going to reread it a few times to digest it but you make some great points.

I do recover quickly but I also vary my intensity throughout the week, usually hitting it extremely hard on last day of the cycle. Even now on my strong exercises like calves and squats I can train to near mechnical failure and train the same thing the next day if I had to. 48 hours is the number though I see on optimum muscle synethsis studies so went A/B side.

I like the idea too of back first then biceps but already tried that, never got growth. I read though in studies that the part you train first grows best so started with biceps and lats to push those hard. They are of everything on me what I think is to most lagging on not just in size but strength.

So what I've bene chewing on is the idea of biceps and lats doing sets of 6-8 heavies after a warmup set of 12 ending on a low weight burnout set of 25+ reps, stopping once lactic acid/ammonia build up gets so bad I literially mechnically failure,.. then trying to get someone to help me with a few negatives. Thoughts?

 

[HIT4ME]

Well, the suggested Back then Bi's routine is actually newer for me. I used to have a 4-day split that was Back on day 1, shoulders/triceps on day 2, one day off, then back on day 4, and chest and biceps on day 5, followed by 2 days off. Again, this was once every week/bodypart, but if you look at it as you used your biceps on back day, and then hit them again on chest day, and then used shoulders/triceps on day 2 and hit them again when you do chest then you realize you are really training the support muscles 2X per week and the major muscles 1X/week.

So, the bottom line on this is that the process is stimulate, recover, grow. The question becomes, are you stimulating muscle growth? And if you are, then the question becomes, "Are you giving sufficient time and nutrition to recover and then grow?". If you are doing those two things then you are growing - and as was pointed out before, you will see it in your weights increasing.

When you tried the back then biceps routine, did you reduce your training to 1-set to all out failure? That is what I would do. If you want to train every other body part 3X week and they are growing, fine. If you aren't growing, strip it down to the bear minimum and then go from there. At least then, if you aren't growing you can be confident it is because you aren't stimulating growth and add some more intensity/volume as necessary. The way you are doing it now, you are kind of shooting in the dark.

I thought of you when I went to the grocery store a little while ago - I was carrying a bunch of bags of groceries out and as I loaded about 15 bags into the car I felt my bicep contracting and said - oh yeah, another use of my arms outside of the gym. We use our arms for everything, and they are small muscles. Start with the minimum and add from their, IMO.

I would just start by doing 1 set to absolute failure. When you think you cannot get another rep, keep trying. Don't put it down until you know for certain you got that last rep in safe form. Then get some rest. Don't do drops, forced reps, negatives, etc. - until a few weeks later. If your weights have not started increasing (or your reps) in 2 weeks, then add in the forced reps and negatives. Instead of forced negatives with a partner, I would go to failure, do a couple cheat or forced reps, and then fight the weight all the way down on each forced rep. I like to stop the weight at 4-5 spots and actually act as if I'm trying to lift it back to the top. This gives you a huge contraction and takes a lot of effort and will kill you. Lower those last two reps or forced reps as slowly as you can.

I don't have huge arms and some of the volume guys here have better arms than I do, but I look for constant progress, even if it is small, and I think this is the method to find that spot.

 

[PaulBlack]

I like the idea too of back first then biceps but already tried that, never got growth. I read though in studies that the part you train first grows best so started with biceps and lats to push those hard. They are of everything on me what I think is to most lagging on not just in size but strength.

Personally, I would not train up to bigger, but that is just me. If I can do some kind of rows with #225-#275 BB rows, low cable, seated pull dwns, chins etc. etc. my arms and body will get the most stimulation from the heavier weights, along with overloading my back and causing growth and stimuli in the larger lats, thus taxing the systems that respond to the big groups. After my back has been beat up, then I may move to arms. (Personally I rarely train biceps directly anymore and my arm and bicep strength has only stayed or got even better.
I have always started with the compounds and trained down and or outwards from the body. If my torso is growing, everything grows to accommodate the new loads. I did not know that when I started 25-30 years ago either.
Food for thought...
Do you think if you bump your row/pulling numbers up another #50-#75 pounds, adding mass to the large back, your curl or arm size will not rise? And a heavy row is sorta like a cheat curl for the bis anyway. Mine has always gone up, with "indirect" work, (maybe more direct than I think) even better than blitzing the bis for tons of sets. Same with dips or BP or even OHP's and then the smaller triceps.

So what I've bene chewing on is the idea of biceps and lats doing sets of 6-8 heavies after a warmup set of 12 ending on a low weight burnout set of 25+ reps, stopping once lactic acid/ammonia build up gets so bad I literially mechnically failure,.. then trying to get someone to help me with a few negatives. Thoughts?

IMO>, don't think about this sciencey stuff as much. I'm betting, some of the biggest strongest guys in the gym, don't know what a sarcomere is!??
Keep it simple and focus on just adding weight to the big exercises every week or every few weeks thru the cycle, even if it is #2 pounds. In a year that is a good increase of #50-#100 and I am staying low. And your actual mass (not just blood pumped muscles) will show good gains. BTW, eat enough for that growth to manifest.
I know some of you guys want big arms, but trust me, I did too and all the blasting and blitzing of the bis and tris didn't do what the big work and systemic heavy loads on compounds did to my overall body.

 

[HIT4ME]

Maybe we should back up a little - what type of split are you using? What does your back/biceps workout look like exactly? Do you train to failure on all sets? Any sets? Just shy of failure? What is your typical intensity level?

I think you are over-thinking this. It isn't that your biceps aren't growing because of a lack of complexity. They aren't growing either because of not enough intensity, and/or not enough volume. Make things more simple and then go from there. The process is stimulate, rest, grow. Not annihilate, rest, grow.

 

[sheepdog.tx]

Maybe we should back up a little - what type of split are you using? What does your back/biceps workout look like exactly? Do you train to failure on all sets? Any sets? Just shy of failure? What is your typical intensity level?

I think you are over-thinking this. It isn't that your biceps aren't growing because of a lack of complexity. They aren't growing either because of not enough intensity, and/or not enough volume. Make things more simple and then go from there. The process is stimulate, rest, grow. Not annihilate, rest, grow.

I superset between the exercises in the blocks, usually 3 set pyramid up in weight with lower reps, once a week on frday an extra set to failure so I can have extra days to recover. Last night HIT4ME I was thinking of you, ended my bicep decinding failure sets til I couldnt even curl up with the 20 pounder anymore. Disappointed to wake up with no DOMS <sigh>.

Part of my issue I know is sleep and I'm working on that. Other is diet, I'm still in a recomp phase but will have a gentle lean bulk surplus going here in a couple weeks (read my log if want more deep dive).

 

[PaulBlack]

Disappointed to wake up with no DOMS <sigh>.

Can I ask, why?

 

[PaulBlack]

Also, I hope I'm clear - I'm not saying that you are not working "hard", just not to 100% failure or beyond.

Ha ha right and I understand you. As I said I know quite a bit about HIT and the old gurus from HG mag who used it. I do draw the deep line in the sand at SuperSlow however.
Also, using the compound exercises I do as staples, I never feel the need or have to do, forced reps squats or forced rep deads ( I have done negs with deads but sparingly) and don't feel anyone really needs too, to get to their near full potential using that kind of intensity with squats, deads cleans and presses and BP's. I don't curl much anymore, I don't really need to, but when I do, I have been known to spot the pink elephant. ;-). I still on rarer occasions do a set of low cable rows, (did I say I love rowing) with strip sets then go until I can no longer move the stack and then sit in the corner and cry or whimper until someone says pizzas here...!
Another difference for me too, may be, that I am pretty much interested in strength and or maxes or max rep out out puts and the specific HIT protocol, did not fill the bill for me in that pursuit. Although and I do not think I am alone in this, the way I train now, as my strength levels developed over time, has had a very direct correlation to my mass, especially in my hams, glutes, upper and lower back thickness, stringing into my arms shoulders and chest and better than any other regimen I have tried.

I also try to emulate guys training who look more like I do, say taller and longer limbed, than trying to emulate say Eddie Coan's training, since he is built like a fire plug and I am more a Tom Martin. (ha ha I wish...!!!!)
I would also tell lots of younger guys who are starting out, to be careful emulating lifters who use a lot of PEDS. As I did this long ago and was never able to build what they promised me.
Lots of guys lifting heroes, don't really have the same body type as they themselves, but they still try to copy their training, which seems to me to be harder to do if you are expecting the same outcomes or muscle mass. Just sayin'

 

[sheepdog.tx]

Can I ask, why?

For proof of something new hit I guess. I know lack of DOMS does not = failure to work but still nice to feel the burn when you hit something hard to confirm your suspisions

 

[PaulBlack]

For proof of something new hit I guess. I know lack of DOMS does not = failure to work but still nice to feel the burn when you hit something hard to confirm your suspisions

Gotcha. DOMS happen to me more so when I hit an exercise I have not done for a while, or if it is a bigger one with a long ROM, say like squats, then doing more reps than I might usually do.
Ether way I wouldn't sweat it too much, or go more by rep progression and or adding a little weight!?

 

[HIT4ME]

Agreed with Paul as well as with what you said - DOMS is not necessarily an indicator of success. I am not trying to be critical of your training regimen, but I don't seem a lot of reasoning behind it? I also think your supersets are possibly counter productive. I usually use supersets to pre-exhaust a particular muscle. For instance, I will do flyes and then incline bench presses - so that my chest gets the full benefit of the bench press.

You finished with the 20s, what weight did you start with on the curls? How many pullups can you do?

If it were me, and everyone is different, I would re-arrange what you do slightly and get rid of some of the movements. You don't have to do them all just because you can.

I like to start big and work down. For instance, I train chest, shoulders and triceps (in that order) on one day. As I train chest, my shoulders and triceps are getting stimulation, as I train shoulders (depending on what exercise I'm doing) the triceps continue to be stimulated, and then I train triceps last. If I train triceps first I will lift the heaviest weights in those exercises, but my chest and shoulders will suffer because my triceps will now be weaker and will thus become a big limiting factor in how much weight I can push.

If this were me, I would train around the big three - Deadlifts, Squats and Bench Presses. On back day start with deadlifts, then go to rowing, then pull-ups, do your under-handed pull ups right before your biceps routine.

I would then do 1-2 curling motions for the biceps.

On the curls, throw on as heavy a weight as you can handle for 6-8 reps. Go to failure and keep the volume low.

I can bang out a back/biceps workout in 30 minutes and I will be sore for days after. You may just not get DOMS very much....lucky. But I know what you mean about getting validation. It hurts so good

Cut out all the post workout curls and **** like that. You are either stimulating growth or recovering.

Cut out your lunch and post workout workouts. It is safe to say you have not recovered or grown since your morning workout when you get home at night - stimulating again will NOT create extra protein synthesis and will only burn up calories and such. You are wasting time/effort here I think.

If you really want to workout 2X/day then I would do all of your back in the morning and then just your biceps in the afternoon. In other words, training the same body part twice in one day is kind of pointless. Train it all at once and let it rest.

Or you could re-arrange so that you did Back in the morning, chest and triceps in the afternoon and then Legs in the morning of day be and shoulders/biceps in the afternoon. This would get you in twice/week for each bodypart if you worked out 4 days/week.

 

[Mystere3]

I've had a on-going struggle with bi size also; genetically I have never had big peaked biceps despite having a lot of strength (175-185 lb bb curls with only a little cheating) and despite having lifted for 15 years or so I never really got the results I wanted from them; In the past year and a half, I've managed to add almost 2" to biceps by really focusing on hitting them 2-3x weekly with huge intensity and a decent amount of volume.

I like the HIT concept, in theory, but I've never found them to work that well for biceps like they do for chest/legs because they're a small muscle and can't lift that much so unless you're doing a really brutally long big drop set with putting just a bunch of 10s on an olympic bar, it's hard to get them to total failure.

I found FST-7 to be very good for biceps with not even that much volume; I do them on arms day and do 12/10/8 reps on standing bb curl with big weight, 12/10/8 reps on concentration db curls with big weight, and then high cable curls 12 x 7 with pretty low weight (50-60 lb) and get a pretty ridiculous pump. I then add a couple 3x12 sets of standing db and bb spider curls during other times in the week. That's it really; about 25 sets a week; gotten great results with this program.

Another recommendation I read a couple months ago seems pretty good as well; they recommend doing bicep curls with relatively low weight (I use 30 lb db) during your rest interval for db and bb bench presses. Supposedly it helps with blood flow to the upper arm and helps tighten the antagonists which improves pressing motions; I am not sure about that but it's a good way to get a couple extra bicep sets in.