True, but the claim that isolation movements are "close to useless" seems a bit over the top. If you get to the point that you're pushing or pulling a lot of weight, everything is going to increase in size. But also if somebody has poor technique and using their arms more than they should for a back exercise, then they're basically doing an arm isolation movement anyway.
Is that how you've always done it though?
Right.
used to do isolation exercises years and years ago and they didn't really grow, now just stick with big compound lifts, dips and flys for chest and I don't have to worry about curls or extensions.
But you’ll often see people with amazing, big, peaked biceps who can’t even bench 400. If you want to build a specific muscle, the most logical course of action is to train it. Of course, don’t neglect compound lifts that build the whole body, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t directly work biceps if you want them to be as big as possible.
This. When I’m doing Pullups I like to minimize arm involvement (thumbless grip, pulling from the elbows, etc), even doing weighted Pullups, as I find if helps me to focus on working my lats properly and fully. So that means my biceps aren’t getting sufficiently worked to grow maximally just by doing back, so I hit them with direct work. This way both my back and arms get worked directly and sufficiently.
True.
Then we get into the realm of bodybuilders are weak and power lifters are fat.
Of course it equals strenght. Any increase in any muscle equals strength. It's all simply relative to what you're training for. If you're only interested in power lifting, then it might not help all that much, but people train for different reasons. I get what you're saying though; if all somebody does is curls, they're not going to be as well-rounded strength-wise as somebody who focuses on complex movements.
Who cares if biceps aren't the most important muscles in regards to maximal strength? If you're a bodybuilder, or not a powerlifter, you may prioritize looking good and having visually appealing/big muscles over lifting a lot of weight or even having functional strength (most anyone who lifts seriously will be "functionally" strong enough for most day-to-day activities anyway). We all have our priorities; I can't tell you what's more important.
Crazy concept, right? Why can’t people do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
No idea lol
Its kind of semantics but your first two sentences aren't completely correct. Increase in muscle mass doesn't automatically equal an increase in strength, definitely strength potential but not inherently strength.
Outside of injecting oil or something else exogenous, what would be an example of increasing muscle size from exercise (the context of this thread being complex movements vs isolation exercises) without increasing strength?
I do see the Aesthetics part.
I guess it may also be because we have no way to test strength in just the bicep.
We don't disagree, but you said the following statement by me wasn't true: "Of course it equals strenght. Any increase in any muscle equals strength." I'm not saying you can't get stronger without getting bigger. I'm simply asking for an example where you can increase a muscle size through exercise and not gain strength.
You can increase your bicep size and it may not increase your bench press, but it is increasing your bicep strength haha. Also, of course someone with smaller muscles may be stronger than someone with bigger muscles, but I assume you’re talking about a bigger muscle being stronger relative to itself, not go another person. I think people here may have different definitions that are causing some confusion.
I'm talking about basic physiology. If you increase the size of a specific muscle through exercise, that correlates with an increase in strength. Why would you use bench press as a measure of bicep strength? That's just ****ty experimental design. And again, I said increased size equals increased strength, not the other way around.
I’m pretty much agreeing with you haha.
I actually agree here. Ever see how nfl lineman have huge arms or a strongman competitors? I guarantee that they both rarely do isolated bicep work.
Exactly powerbuilding is the way to go imo. Start the workout like a Olympic/power lifter and finish like a bodybuilder. Frankly i notice more strength gains this way than powerlifting alone. I also notice more size this way than bodybuilding alone.
It depends on what you mean by “big.” I do believe that direct bicep work from various angles and motions will result in better developed biceps with better shape. There’s a clear difference between an NFL lineman’s biceps, even if they cut down, and a bodybuilders biceps, even if they lift the same amount.
For sure
I misunderstood/misinterpreted what your post was stating. We're on the same page, if the same person increases the cxa of the same muscle on his/her body it will be stronger just on the basis of the progressive overload that stimulated the muscle growth in the first place. As you said, synthol and the like excluded. I assumed you meant interpersonal too, which was a mistake on my part.
Nope, we're all good! I think some others are talking about how curls may or may not transfer into increased bench, deadlift, etc. where I'm only talking about measurements in size and strength specifically at the level of the bicep.
Exactly. You won’t have “small” arms benching 500, but you may not have arms nearly to their potential, or in proportion with your chest/back/etc. I don’t know why so many people think it has to be one or the other; you can lift heavy and do some isolation work.
I do think you also want to incorporate at least some direct bicep work that involves supination, as that’s also a function of the biceps and when the peak is most visible.
