Whether we choose to publicly admit it or not. Whether it's currently our main training goal or not. If given the choice, almost everyone would prefer to have bigger and/or stronger arms.

In fact, after over 30 years in this game (both personally and professionally) it's been my direct observation that your answer to "how big are your arms" is second only to your answer to "Whadda ya bench" in determining the magnitude of your gym accomplishments in the minds of most who go there.

Whether warranted or not, it's hard to deny the status which comes from having a pair of 'Big Guns' holstered by your sides.

So, now that we've established that you do wish your arms were bigger and/or stronger (yes...even YOU), the only question left to find an answer to becomes...

...What's the best way to add muscle to your upper arms naturally?

Well, it's a more complex question than you may first imagine. There are MANY factors at play and variables involved in optimizing your full muscular potential in any muscle group. Too many, in fact, to cover in a single article (which is why I've written a book about it HERE), so on this occasion I will focus on only one, but definitely an important one, namely...

...Getting MUCH 'better' at fewer things.

What does that mean? Well, to quote the late, and very great, Franco Columbu (Two-Time Mr.Olympia, Powerlifter, Boxer and pound-for-pound one of the strongest bodybuilders ever):

"For every muscle group there are a thousand different exercises, but only a handful are any good, and in the end, only one is the best".

While a somewhat overly reductive position to take, there is an overarching truth to it which cannot be denied.

Yes, every exercise has merit. Yes, the magnitude of value for any given exercise is directly proportional to the quality of technical execution and optimality of programming attached to said exercise. And yes, what represents 'The Best' exercise is a relative term and depends on several variables which are always in a state of perpetual flux (including but not limited to injury status, injury history, anatomical shape, flexibility, mobility, training goals, access to equipment etc.).

However, we intuitively know certain exercises are globally more productive for most goals than others. For example, we just know that optimally performed flat and incline pressing with Barbells and Dumbbells produce better results in size and strength for the chest musculature than flies, pec-dec or cable crossovers do.

So, movements with a higher loading potential make the shortlist for any given muscle group over movements with a lower loading potential.

We also know that Barbell and Dumbbell Pressing produce strength gains which are more immediately transferable to unrelated sporting or real-world endeavors than resistance machine pressing.

And this is backed up by both empirical research and a literal tsunami of real-world observable outcomes.

Which indicates that while loading potential is important, there also needs to be a realistic stability challenge for maximum benefits to be actualized right across the board.

So we CAN say that most of the time, certain exercises are better than others, in a general sense at least. Therefore we CAN make a reasonable attempt at assembling that short list of 'good exercises' which Franco spoke of in the above quote.

It's also true that the body possesses a finite amount of resources with which to dedicate to the recovery from, and supercompensation/adaptation to, any given training stimulus.

And we know that performance progression in the various programmatic variables associated with the training goal is the fastest, most potent and dependable method for creating muscular hypertrophy (i.e. getting stronger and stronger in the volume range most closely associated with muscle growth, is the best and most reliable way to achieve hypertrophy in any muscle group).

Additionally, we also know that the body makes its fastest performance progression, in any volume range/percentage of 1RM, when it's given fewer things to adapt to (which also means fewer exercises/neurological movement patterns to master per muscle group).

Also, we know that the relative importance of all these aforementioned factors become even more pronounced when applied to genetically typical, natural lifters.

So, when ALL of this is considered it becomes abundantly clear that the quest to optimize muscular size for any body part, benefits greatly from picking the top 1 or 2 exercises per body part. Then manipulating the mathematical progression pattern around those exercises in such a way which sees you getting as strong as possible within the rep ranges and total volume most closely associated with muscular hypertrophy.

So, how do we best apply this logic to training for bigger, stronger Biceps & Triceps?

Well, most will agree that barbell Back Squats are possibly the ultimate example of an exercise which builds unparalleled size, strength and performance in both a general sense throughout the body, and with the musculature of the lower body most specifically.

So, when trying to narrow it down to THE best exercise for any given body part, it helps greatly to ask yourself..."What Is the equivalent of Barbell Back Squats for this muscle group"?

For example, when applying this logic to the chest musculature you may say that the Bench Press is Chest Squats.

So, when looking for 'Arm Squats' (or more aptly, Biceps Squats & Triceps Squats) a few thing jumps straight out:

1: We are looking for some form of full ROM standing Barbell Strict Curl. The EZ-Bar is fine to use if your wrists can't tolerate the torque of the straight bar. But, if you can, I think the straight bar has a marginal advantage as a mass builder. While both the EZ and straight bar hit the same muscles in a very similar way, the straight bar includes the brachialis more. Which may slightly increase overall arm size.

2: We are also looking for some form of lying barbell or horizontal body weight based Triceps Extensions. Yes, lying Extensions emphasize some heads of the triceps more than others. And overhead extensions emphasize different heads than lying extensions do.

But understand that ALL forms of triceps extension develop ALL heads. And lying extensions usually have a higher poundage potential than overhead extensions. So if you had to choice only one, I'd go with the lying extensions as this will allow for both a greater force based growth stimulus from the heavier load, and a more easily progressable exercise (as the standard weight increments of 5lbs will represent a lower percentage of the 1RM on a stronger exercise and thus will make that exercise more innately programmable).

At this point you may be wondering if I have any real life examples to back all this up, and the answer is yes.

Of course I could point to the now more than 15,000 Amazing 12 body transformations (a group of globally successful programs designed by me), which uses only 1 or 2 exercises per muscle group to consistently cause a magnitude of body transformation, in only 12 weeks, which appear to have taken place in a training time closer to 12 years.

But, instead I'll use my own arm building journey as the ultimate example of what's possible for the genetically below average to achieve, using a minimalist exercise/optimal programmatic progression pattern, approach to the problem.

In fact, minimalist exercise selection is an understatement for me. For the past 30 years, any time I've trained upper arms directly (which hasn't been the whole time), I've only ever done ONE exercise for biceps and ONE exercise for triceps (there have been very brief periods where I've upped that to two exercise for each, but never more than that) at any one time.

That exercise has almost always been standing Barbell Curls (mostly straight bar, but EZ-BAR here and there) for biceps. And Skullcrushers or Superman Extensions (a bodyweight exercise used as the only direct triceps exercise in The Amazing 12) for triceps. Done.

And the results?

In the first picture here, you can see an actual extract from an old training diary of mine from the 1990s when I was a senior in high school. I had not long started formal weight training with Barbells and Dumbbells, so I'd taken these muscular measurements as a starting point reference.

 

 

It was a modest starting point indeed. In case you're struggling with my handwriting I'd like to draw your attention to three things:

1: My wrists measured 6.5 inches in circumference and my ankles were 8 inches. Which firmly indicates a light bone structure.

2: My flexed upper arm 'stretched' the tape all the way to a mighty 11 inches (step aside Arnold, there's a new king in town)!

3: I tipped the scale at a hulking 8st 3lbs/52.5kg/115lbs. And this was my walking around weight, no dieting and no weight cutting of any kind happening here.

However, as skinny as I was here (and I sure as heck was), it should be noted that I'd already been boxing competitively for 4 years at this point and HAD been doing calisthenics, plyometrics, light-weight-high rep circuit training with explosive rep execution, interval hill sprints, heavy jump rope skipping, and of course hitting things like pads, heavy bags and people, as hard as I could.

All of which can be counted as resistance training. So, although definitely not bodybuilding or powerlifting up to this point, the measurements you see here, unbelievably, are already somewhat enhanced by resistance training for sure!

So what would my natural genetic base measurements have been without ANY training? It's hard to say, but you can probably subtract an inch from the arms and a couple of inches from the chest!

Which might've seen me with 10-inch flexed upper arms and maybe a 35-inch chest!

Given that my flexed upper arms now measure almost 18 inches and my chest 47.5 inches, I'd say I've managed to vastly exceed what most would have predicted possible for me to achieve naturally, based on my genetic starting point.

I can also confirm that at the time of writing, my wrist measurement is still the same size as it was back then. This indicates that these gains have happened on a frame of similar size (some mostly down to muscle gains).

These measurements aren't exactly going to send shivers down the spine of the Mr. Olympia line-up any time soon. But, relative to my almost unfathomably skinny starting point, and lifetime natural status, they do, in my estimation, represent something pretty close to the actualization of my not-so-great full natural genetic potential for muscle size. Which is the very best any of us 'non-genetic freaks/non-chemically enhanced' lifters can hope to achieve.

So, it's reasonable to suggest that several things HAD to have gone very right in both training and diet to cause this to be the case.

For example, when we look at my upper arm gains in a relative sense we see that an estimated 7.5 to 8 inches of solid size added equates to an insane 75-80% gain in upper arm circumference (assuming a completely untrained 10in genetic base measurement)!!

To further illustrate the success this approach can have in the face of less than ideal genetic ability, consider the journey behind these three pictures.  The first picture shows me in my late 20's, about 10 years into formal strength training with Barbells and Dumbbells, with a ripped and natural physique and sporting a pair of 16 inch flexed upper arms. Again, nothing to boast about in an absolute sense, but relatively speaking it's a 60% increase in circumference from my starting point as a high school senior.

 

 

The next picture shows me in my mid-30's after just ONE year of reduced direct resistance training to focus more on my career and my new hobby at the time, bending short steel bars with my bare hands (a story for another time perhaps).

 

 

As you can see my upper arms shrank back down considerably and were only 14 inches here! Which is a strong indication of just how hard it's been for me to fight against my natural genetics, which are trying to return to their original wiry state at all times.

As career goals stabilized in my late 30's, I subsequently re-committed my training efforts towards building maximum muscle and strength (again using minimalist exercise selection as one of the major bedrock principles in that). This saw muscle memory quickly bring me back to my previous high of 16 inches, then making fresh progress to add a further 2 inches of size.

Now in my mid-40's, my arms measure a lifetime high of almost 18 inches, as you can tell from this recent picture below.

 

 

So that's size taken care of, but what about strength? Well, like I've pointed out above, the two are perfectly intertwined. THE most profound and dependable way to get bigger muscles is to get stronger in the rep/total volume ranges most closely associated with muscular hypertrophy.

So, to gain this much muscle my arms simply HAD to get stronger for reps!

In this recent video you'll see the final super set in a workout which included a total of 6 such super sets of 10 reps each set for both Standing Barbell Curls and lying Skullcrushers.

The load used here for all 120 reps (60 reps total for each exercise, last set recorded) is 50kg or 110lbs total. Which again, isn't going to break any world records. But when you consider that this barbell weighs approximately as much as I did, as a senior in high school, when I first began this journey, it gives a good indication of how much progress has been made.

 

 

Obviously maximizing muscle size and strength has many additional factors involved outside of exercise selection (the most important of which is undoubtedly the mathematical progression pattern of the programming itself).

But, it can't be overemphasized enough how huge of an impact that singularity of purpose makes. It's been the key component in the highest human performances in all fields. Our world is driven by specialization in almost all areas at almost all times.

Building muscle size and strength is no different, so when it comes to exercise selection, for big guns, less is more.

Stay Strong.