I was wondering if it is better to have your biceps or triceps stronger or should you try to strive for equality in strength for both?
Is your reasoning purely from an aesthetically pleasing standpoint or would it help prevent injuries?
I tried searching for this but couldn't find anything, so I apologize if this has been brought up many times before.
|
Thread: Biceps vs Triceps strength ratio
-
05-01-2010, 05:47 PM #1
Biceps vs Triceps strength ratio
-
05-01-2010, 05:52 PM #2
-
05-01-2010, 06:04 PM #3
-
05-01-2010, 06:06 PM #4
-
-
05-01-2010, 06:08 PM #5
-
05-01-2010, 06:56 PM #6
-
05-01-2010, 07:21 PM #7
Even though they do separate movements I find a need to compare them since they are muscles that complement each other, you do not have to compare the two but its not as if I'm attempting to compare my obliques to my quadriceps.
As to why I want to get a general idea.
Hamstrings and quadriceps are used for different movements and cannot be easily compared but if you have very strong quadriceps and weak hamstrings you are more likely to obtain a hamstring injury.
-
05-01-2010, 09:01 PM #8
-
-
05-01-2010, 09:15 PM #9
-
05-01-2010, 09:24 PM #10
-
05-02-2010, 03:05 AM #11
Like they said it's about leverage, you can't compare, I can do 25s on EZ bar curl on curls, but I can do 15s on the skullcrusher, yet my triceps are better developed compared to my biceps.
RMCF
♚ Middle Eastern & Mediterranean Crew ♛
The Weeknd is the GOAT artist of this generation crew "XOTWOD"
MISC Wanderlust crew
Positive crew
Electrical and Electronic Engineering crew
-
05-02-2010, 03:16 AM #12
- Join Date: Aug 2008
- Location: London, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,382
- Rep Power: 2803
I just don't see how one can compare the strength of two different muscles to each other since there's no good way to compare. You can only compare lifts.
Strength + Speed = Power
If you never fail, you aren't truly pushing yourself to the limit. If you never push yourself to the limit, how do you know what you're truly capable of?
-
-
03-09-2012, 09:26 AM #13
It's a fairly easy comparison really. They are both dominant muscles of the arm and body buildig world. It's not out there to ask such a question. they both do separate duties, but overall stength, the tricep should be much stronger. The tricep is also significantly bigger than a bicep, by atleast %50. So in short, doing nothing but curls won't beef those guns up alone. Gotta work the tricep to get em bigger!
-
03-11-2012, 05:21 PM #14
Triceps, for purely aesthetic reasons since I think they look cooler.
This meme is actually a myth that has never been proven, and makes no actual sense since the size of either muscle depends on how much the person in question is training it.
Not to mention we've got flexors besides biceps helping it out (brachialis/brachioradialis).
This myth will naturally stick around for years, propogated by guys like me who hate biceps who lack awareness of what motivates their views.
I actually couldn't get anywhere near what I could curl doing pushdowns. But that's because I had always done more biceps work than triceps work.
How much people can do in either iso is circumstantial and means nothing.
They're an agonist/antagonist pair, that's why people care.
Or to get more specific: the biceps' antagonist is the long head of the triceps, and the lateral/medial heads of the triceps are the antagonist of the brachialis and maybe the brachiradialis.
Leverage is a factor, yeah, but it should be possible to compare them.
Maybe the reason your triceps do less in isos is that you pre-exhaust them by relying on them more in pushing movements than you rely on bis during pulling?
Why aren't lifts a good way to compare? You just pick 2 which have similar leverage and strength curves.
1.5:1 is more realistic than 2:1, but still wrong: size depends on training. Short of analyzing the relative size of bicep/tricep on a foetus in the womb before it's born, I don't see any unbiased way of measuring the relative sizes of muscles since they get influenced by the activities they're used to do.
Also wrong, doing curls alone can and does beef up the guns: they can get bigger without working triceps. But obviously doing triceps is smart and would more rapidly lead to a net increase in size. Same reason people should train the entire leg and not just do knee extensions/curls alone.
-
03-11-2012, 05:30 PM #15
Spot on. Plus you said strength? Do you literally mean strength , or are you meaning size( hypertrophy)? Honestly I don't see a problem with everyone of your muscles being freaky strong, but you may have your own wishes of the size. They are different muscles. Completely. One is the antagonist of the other. However I would like to say that if you looked at an EMG during single joint movements, th same activity would occurr between the two. But it makes sense to say triceps are stronger. I've close gripped skull crushers for 135 for reps, and there's no way I can curl that. My biceps pale in comparison
Similar Threads
-
Craziest biceps to triceps ratio EVER!!
By AlasTTTair in forum Professional BodybuildingReplies: 72Last Post: 10-26-2009, 09:12 PM -
Which are best exercises for biceps and triceps during strength and power phase?
By JLopezBasketball in forum ExercisesReplies: 18Last Post: 07-29-2006, 09:23 PM -
Biceps/triceps strength
By chopper69 in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 4Last Post: 10-30-2004, 08:55 PM -
Biceps/Triceps weight ratio help?
By typewriter in forum ExercisesReplies: 3Last Post: 09-02-2004, 10:27 AM
Bookmarks