I need help, i'm like 5'11 and 160lbs and im wondering how big around I should get my arms. There 14 flexed right after i get done working out hard, but just limp un-pumped their only 12 inches around.
http://expn.go.com/media/hoffman/2001/photos/hoffmantour/10.jpg <-- i want to get them like, my body pretty much looks like that but i think my arms are a tad bit smaller. So about how big around are that dudes arms because i need a goal. he's 5'11 like me and 165 according to his expn profile if that helps any.

I'm going to start doing bicep and tricep exercise 4 to 7 days a week, i read this artical > http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler23.htm Working my arms out 3 times a week is not making them any bigger. That artical said to try it for 2 weeks and you will be able to tell some difference.

[This message has been edited by bmxryan (edited 07-10-2003).]

The guy in the pic is pretty skinny. I'd be surprised if his arms are any bigger than yours.

I've also just read that article, and there are a few things that, IMO, are wrong about the way the author tells you to train, even for a short period:

"GTG shocks the muscles and stimulates growth by applying the law of repetition. The law of repetition basically states that one will get better at any given activity the more often that one practices the activity.
Why should strength training or bodybuilding be any different? The answer is that it should not."

This is the basic premise of this training principle. It’s BS. Yes, the more you do something, the better you get at it, but this is only relevant to the development of motor skills (which is a type of fitness) e.g. the more you play a sport, the better you get at it. Muscular strength (another type of fitness) is a completely different thing. The article is confusing the two. Strength will not improve by using this "the-more-you-do-it-the-better-it-is" principle. Your muscles don’t work like that. They require time to rest. When you work your muscles, what you're actually doing is damaging the muscle fibres. Your body recognises this, so when it repairs your muscles, it adapts to allow you to do that same amount of work again without causing the damage. That way it doesn't need to go through the whole repairing process again. To do this it needs to make sure it improves the size and strength of the damaged fibres, which means you get bigger and/or stronger. However, if you keep damaging the same fibres again and again on a daily basis, when exactly is your body supposed to do the actual repair work it needs to in order to develop those fibres? The answer is that it cant so you won't grow or get stronger, and in fact would quite conceivably get smaller.

"Do not train to failure. You should not feel tired or strained after each set"
Without overloading your muscles, they have no reason to grow. Your body is inherently lazy and will only adapt to the stimulus if it absolutely has to. I.e. if you ask it to do something which it physically can't do. Without overload, your body doesn't need to change to handle the stress, so it won’t. Yes, there is some debate as to whether or not going to failure is optimal to stimulate muscle growth, but even simply going to overload should make the muscles you're working feel tired. This is why you need rest period between sets to allow you to recover.

Another thing I noticed is that he seems to talk about "gaining size" and then starts talking about strength training. Although the two go hand in hand to a certain degree, the way that you train for size and the way that you train for strength are slightly different to each other in terms of weight used, number of sets, number of reps, speed of execution, time spent training etc.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion. Personally, I'd say you'd be better off sticking to a normal training plan (i.e. training each muscle group 1-2 times a week) and making sure you eat, rest and sleep properly.

thanks for the info http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif