Good rep range for bicep growth?

when I say growth I mean size more then strength really.. my current bicep workout is this

Normal curls. 8-8-drop 5lbs burnt out
incline curls (same rep scheme)
Preachers (same rep scheme for all)
Hammers
Iso.

Im more solid thats for sure.. should I mix it up? Its been 2months

bump

I'd say if what you are doing is working, just gradually up the weight on your current workout. I find it's hard to move up my weight in biceps compared to like for bench/squat etc...I would say if you can add 5 pounds every 2-3 weeks that should be good. Of course if it proves to be too much then just stay at the current weight for another week or so.

Hope this helps.

[url]http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/Moore_Sarcoplasmic.html[/url]

[QUOTE=LukeN.Good;357163321][url]http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/Moore_Sarcoplasmic.html[/url][/QUOTE]

read most of it looked like Chinese to me bub.. thanks for the help though? from what I gathered I should have a heavy weight with low rep part of my bicep workout then a high rep lighter weight to my work out.. is that what that is saying?

[QUOTE=zyrius;357169371]read most of it looked like Chinese to me bub.. thanks for the help though? from what I gathered I should have a heavy weight with low rep part of my bicep workout then a high rep lighter weight to my work out.. is that what that is saying?[/QUOTE]

It's just a review of several studies, as stated in the opening paragraph:

[quote][I]"One of the issues I still see when reading training articles is how the rep range dictates whether any hypertrophic response predominantly influences changes in size of the contractile components of muscle cells or the sarcoplasmic volume. The intent of this article is not to dispute that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy exists but to clarify if the rep range used will dictate which protein fraction will increase and whether or not the rep range specifically induces different changes to the nuclear domain of muscle fibers."[/I][/quote]

If you missed them, here's the concluding paragraphs from the two major sections of the review.

[quote][I]What can be seen when reviewing these and many other papers on the subject is the response to resistance training of fractional elevation remains in line with the results of feeding, both are elevated but the slower turnover proteins (myofibrillar) generally show a larger magnitude in increase. Since these studies show that this holds true with resistance training, dynamic exercise and HFES, all utilizing differing intensities and work output, it seems unlikely that the rep range is the sole cause of any increase in sarcoplasmic fraction up-regulation.[/I][/quote]

[quote][I]In summary, it is very common to see studies reflecting both increased protein synthesis and hypertrophy with a myriad of rep ranges and resistance training protocols. The extent of hypertrophy may be a direct reflection in increased translational efficiency or an increase in pre-translational abundance of mRNA. The differences may be owing to the training status of the individual and not necessarily the rep range used in the resistance training routine. Although it appears that the rep range will have an impact on metabolic shifts in isoform content this does not change the sarcoplasmic vs. contractile protein synthesis ratio but merely dictates which fiber type will experience the greater amount of hypertrophy.
...This coincides very well with the research presented in this article, as it appears that the change in fiber size has a direct correlation to when satellite cells donate their nuclei for continued domain regulation. Therefore moderate increases in nuclear domain are very possible without the aided donation of nuclei from satellite cells and this does not appear to be rep range dependant.[/I][/quote]

It's basically stating that rep range alone doesn't appear to be much of a factor in regards to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (i.e. increase in cellular volume). As you said in your original post, mix it up every now and then. There's really no "officially established ideal rep range for growth."

Simply put - just lift. ;)

hey research and studies have shown this, this helped me get lots of results

8-12 for size
4 to 6 for strenth

People's bodies respond different. For me I stick with 8 reps sometimes I might hit ten if I use to light of weight. 15-20 reps for a warm up set. I gained a fourth inch on my arms in a couple weeks to from training them less. So don't overtrain them either.

8-12

I always do 8-12 reps and 3 sets and only 2 excercises.

I've gained an inch on my arms in the past 2 months.

thnaks guys I think I'll just do

8-8-8 for everything i do now instead of burn out.

I did Standing curls then hammers then preachers like that after my lat work out I was pretty tense so I felt it was enough. that seem good to yall? Maybe through in a close grip EZ bar workout for larger weight?