| Avoiding Muscle Loss on the Arms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pologazz
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2003
Location:
Posts: 24
|
|
I recently completed a mass gain cycle and went from 172 to 202 pounds in around 5 months. The problem is I have to fight hard for every inch of muscle I get on my arms. The mass cycle helped me add just enough size to make my arms look respectable.
When ever I cut I lose size on my arms extremely fast , which really makes the bulk up a pointless and a waste of time.
My question is what would be the best approach to cutting while not losing muscle mass on my arms ( i understand that some loss will occur ). I hoping to get some insight with guys who have had this similar problem.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
forlife
Level 4
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 4392
|
|
Try a very modest cut and ensure that your lifts don't suffer, especially curls, dips, etc. If you are able to at least maintain the same lifts for a couple of weeks, cut a little deeper. What you don't want to do is immediately jump into a deep cut for months and watch your hard earned gains melt away. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor X
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 32001
|
|
forlife wrote:
Try a very modest cut and ensure that your lifts don't suffer, especially curls, dips, etc. If you are able to at least maintain the same lifts for a couple of weeks, cut a little deeper. What you don't want to do is immediately jump into a deep cut for months and watch your hard earned gains melt away.
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
HolyMacaroni
Level 2
Join date: Sep 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 3650
|
|
i would suggest maintaining your new weight for at least 3-4 months before you try to cut |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor X
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 32001
|
|
HolyMacaroni wrote:
i would suggest maintaining your new weight for at least 3-4 months before you try to cut
Only 3 months? I would recommend that for someone who was already big before dieting down drastically but not someone at this stage who needs more quality size overall.
In fact, going from own experience, if someone really has some decent size on them, I think they should hold that weight or "gain slowly" for longer than 3 months before dropping weight to reduce potential muscle loss. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
dropshot001
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 265
|
|
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders) |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor X
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 32001
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
If people are still doing BACK MOVEMENTS for FUCKING BICEPS, then they need to back away from the computer and find a real gym. I trained back today....IN ORDER TO GET A BIGGER STRONGER BACK. When I get ready to get bigger and stronger biceps, I WILL TRAIN MY BICEPS directly.
I would really love to see pics of the arm development of those who recommend people avoid it. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
HolyMacaroni
Level 2
Join date: Sep 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 3650
|
|
Professor X wrote:
Only 3 months? I would recommend that for someone who was already big before dieting down drastically but not someone at this stage who needs more quality size overall.
In fact, going from own experience, if someone really has some decent size on them, I think they should hold that weight or "gain slowly" for longer than 3 months before dropping weight to reduce potential muscle loss.
okokok. fine.
OP, care to post a picture? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11048
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
Wooo hooo... 2009 representing... there you go.. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carlitosway
Level 1
Join date: Dec 2007
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 2140
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
dropshot001
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 265
|
|
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
seeing as i'm new i'm a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
countingbeans
Level 2
Join date: Oct 2008
Location:
Posts: 4808
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
seeing as i'm new i'm a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain?
Because for some unknown reason people advocate not doing direct arm work these days. They seem to think rows and presses are enough to make your arms big.
Silly newbs believe this and end up with arms behind the rest of their body.
I was a victim of this vicious crime.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Sick Rick
Level 0
Join date: Jan 2008
Location: Holland
Posts: 979
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
seeing as i'm new i'm a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain?
Back exercises are called BACK exercises for a reason. They work your back. If they would work your biceps directly, they'd be called bicep exercises. Doing pulling and pushing exercises won't get your arms up to par, unless those pulling and pushing exercises are called curls, dips and close grip bench presses.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
dropshot001
Level 0
Join date: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 265
|
|
Sick Rick wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
seeing as i'm new i'm a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain?
Back exercises are called BACK exercises for a reason. They work your back. If they would work your biceps directly, they'd be called bicep exercises. Doing pulling and pushing exercises won't get your arms up to par, unless those pulling and pushing exercises are called curls, dips and close grip bench presses.
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a "direct" exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb'er does, but they get big tri's by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
forlife
Level 4
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 4392
|
|
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor X
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 32001
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
Sick Rick wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
dropshot001 wrote:
i would try to up my rowing and pressing movements ad those will be the exercises that put the most "pressure" on the bis and tris (and shoulders)
sigh here we go again....
seeing as i'm new i'm a bit confused about the reactions/responses to my post. anyone care to explain?
Back exercises are called BACK exercises for a reason. They work your back. If they would work your biceps directly, they'd be called bicep exercises. Doing pulling and pushing exercises won't get your arms up to par, unless those pulling and pushing exercises are called curls, dips and close grip bench presses.
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a "direct" exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb'er does, but they get big tri's by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
This is getting retarded. I'm a big guy. I can row much more than the 315lbs you just spoke of. I also train biceps directly. Why the hell do some of you think in such a limited fashion that you believe this is some type of "either or" situation where you either row OR curl but never both?
I used to train with powerlifters....who also fucking trained biceps and triceps directly. That may be why they were so fucking huge.
Again, please post pics of your own well developed arms that you do not train directly. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Professor X
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 32001
|
|
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.
People like that ALWAYS choose to cut. These are the same types who think you get huge and ripped at the exact same time. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
forlife
Level 4
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 4392
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
alright, i see your point. but why is it that the biggest people with the biggest biceps/triceps have some amazing pressing/rowing power? i mean, what will work your biceps, even if it is indirect more: rowing 315 for 10 or bb curling 115 for 10? obviously its the rowing, the bicep has to stay engaged, even if indirect, for 10 reps with heavier weight than with the 115 even though the 115 is a "direct" exercise.
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb'er does, but they get big tri's by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Nothing will develop your biceps/triceps better than direct biceps/triceps work. Heavy rowing is mostly driven by your back muscles, so you're not recruiting your arms to the same extent as when you are working them directly, without interference from other muscle groups. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11048
|
|
dropshot001 wrote:
its the same concept as why powerlifters have such big tris. they rarely do direct tri work, or at the very least, their direct tri work is significantly less than what a bb'er does, but they get big tri's by working them indirectly through board presses, benching, etc.
Really? Powerlifters don't do significant tricep work? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
HolyMacaroni
Level 2
Join date: Sep 2008
Location: Alabama, USA
Posts: 3650
|
|
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of 'going overboard' on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem's shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you'll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you'll just have him running in one BIG circle |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
waylanderxx
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 5853
|
|
Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Try a very modest cut and ensure that your lifts don't suffer, especially curls, dips, etc. If you are able to at least maintain the same lifts for a couple of weeks, cut a little deeper. What you don't want to do is immediately jump into a deep cut for months and watch your hard earned gains melt away.
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him.
yup |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
waylanderxx
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 5853
|
|
HolyMacaroni wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, he shouldn't be cutting this often at all. He is running in circles because as soon as he gains some size, he diets right back down and loses it. Most of these people need to just realize that it is going to take YEARS to build up some solid size on their bodies so dieting every few months makes no sense.
He needs to build size at a pace that allows him to not have to diet down like this as frequently. If he spent 2-3 years working on size, his arms wouldn't shrink and he would have some real size on him.
Point taken on when he should cut. I was just trying to keep him from cutting too drastically when he does choose to cut.
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of 'going overboard' on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem's shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you'll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you'll just have him running in one BIG circle
I think this checkpoint concept is correct. However, these checkpoints are dictated by common sense, no one can tell him when they come. You just continually check the mirror and make adjustments accordingly. I do not advocate bulk/cut cycles...I know this gets REALLy old but consistency with minor adjustments along the way is all you need to do. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
forlife
Level 4
Join date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 4392
|
|
HolyMacaroni wrote:
negative dude. and too X as well.
i think too many people run the risk of 'going overboard' on a bulk. telling a guy to continue with no checkpoints is setting him up to be in artem's shoes. sure he gained a lot of mass, but a TON of fat as well. then you'll have to spend an ungodly amount of time cutting up, and we all know how how much harder it is to cut than to bulk.
you'll just have him running in one BIG circle
The shorter your bulk/cut cycle, the less overall growth you are going to see. I think people are more likely to "go overboard" on bulking by eating far more than they need to eat, than by eating far longer than they need to eat. As long as the bulk isn't a blatant gorge of excess calories every day, he should be able to bulk for a much longer period of time and see more muscle growth before needing to cut. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article Discussions
