Weight training question

[cainxinth]

Presently, in my routine I’m training my chest and shoulders for strength and bulk and my biceps, triceps, back, and legs for endurance. Does this make sense? Should I be training all strength or all endurance? Also, I don’t train my trapezius at all. Is that a problem?

If you’re wondering why… basically my arms bulk up very quickly and easily but my chest and shoulders take a pounding before they show gains.

[anamnesis]

Well, everyone's a little different in terms of technique and what they'd like to achieve, and you seem to be asking a few different questions here. I'm not a trainer, but I've worked with several who all had different approaches, and I think your concern is whether or not you should balance your routine out more. If there is one belief all of them held in common, it's that you should focus on your abs and balance before dedicating time to everything else. I took this to heart and did a lot of abdominal work when I used to train, but I notice you only mentioned your back. Your trapezius doesn't have much to do with your chest, but is responsible for the rotation of the collar bone (or is it shoulder blade?) so it's not something you should neglect because it helps prevent injury if you're doing overhead lifting and bench presses.

Even though I'm not a trainer, I don't think you should train "all" strength or endurance. Building up bulk is more often a matter of high weight, low reps, so if that's your goal, then increase your weight and lower your reps when working on your chest. If you're into this stuff, you probably already know this, but any trainer will tell you it's never a good thing to neglect one area at the expense of over-working another, and that you need to develop your endurance first before you build strength.

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by anamnesis

...and that you need to develop your endurance first before you build strength.

You had me up until this. You definitely don't want to jump into low reps/high weight, but there's no need for endurance training beforehand.

To the OP, training your chest for strength and not training your back the same way is just asking for shoulder problems.

[Burrido]

That the way I generally do it. My chest/triceps are very receptive to excercise. Whereas my biceps are very weak. I train them much harder than I would any other group. Concerning traps, you want to look proportional, so do train them. THey do help out in other excersices as well.

[tremorviolet]

Are you male or female? I've never trained traps specifically because I think bulky ones can look unattractive on women. They get worked enough with other exercises that I don't feel they need additional work.

[Dr_Paprika]

Strength and endurance are a continuum. It is indeed possible to train for both (say 8 sets of 3 at 80% maximum), and probably you would get fewer benefits from trying to train for just strength (5 sets of 2 at 95% maximum) or endurance (one set of 50 at 30% maximum). But this depends on your goals.

People differ. I don't know what works for you. I made very significant improvements after being referred to the www.t-nation.com website.

I would say if train your chest and shoulders for strength, you should train your back for strength as well. You probably get more bang from your buck from doing strength exercises that work several muscles at once -- closer grip bench presses work the triceps and chest. Rows work the back, trapezius and arms. Shrugs work the trapezius and shoulders. You don't need to work each muscle in isolation.

Don't neglect training for your legs. I see little problem in training these for endurance. Nothing wrong with bulky arms -- but train your weak spots earlier in the week.

[CurtC]

I finally grew tired enough of being non-muscular that I decided to do something about it. So more than a year ago (like 1.3 years), I've been working out pretty solidly three or four times per week, concentrating on chest and arms. Mostly I do bench press with free weights, and curls with dumbbells. I will start out bench pressing with weights that I can do eight or nine reps of, then decrease by ten pounds and do as many as I can of that, then decrease again and again, until I can only do ten reps of some piddling weight. Then I'll do curls in a similar way, then go back and do the routine again with bench press, then back to curls. That's my typical workout.

But I expected to have more to show for my efforts. So far, I'm not sure that there is any visible difference, and I was always thin and non-muscular before, so I thought after this much effort, I would obviously more muscular. Are some people just not born to have muscles?

[slortar]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I finally grew tired enough of being non-muscular that I decided to do something about it. So more than a year ago (like 1.3 years), I've been working out pretty solidly three or four times per week, concentrating on chest and arms.

(snip)

But I expected to have more to show for my efforts. So far, I'm not sure that there is any visible difference, and I was always thin and non-muscular before, so I thought after this much effort, I would obviously more muscular. Are some people just not born to have muscles?

If you want to get more muscular, you'll have to focus on more than just chest and arms. Don't ignore your legs and back. Benches, rows, chins/lat pulldowns, shoulder presses, squats, deadlifts--all are pretty important. Heck, I'd just drop the curls altogether and focus on the heavy compounds I just mentioned.

Also, double-check your diet. Make sure you're getting lots of protein. As they say, if you want to get big, you have to eat big.

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Are some people just not born to have muscles?

You are limited by your genes, but it's extremely unlikely that you'd get no growth. slortar's advice is solid.

[Burrido]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I finally grew tired enough of being non-muscular that I decided to do something about it. So more than a year ago (like 1.3 years), I've been working out pretty solidly three or four times per week, concentrating on chest and arms. Mostly I do bench press with free weights, and curls with dumbbells. I will start out bench pressing with weights that I can do eight or nine reps of, then decrease by ten pounds and do as many as I can of that, then decrease again and again, until I can only do ten reps of some piddling weight. Then I'll do curls in a similar way, then go back and do the routine again with bench press, then back to curls. That's my typical workout.

But I expected to have more to show for my efforts. So far, I'm not sure that there is any visible difference, and I was always thin and non-muscular before, so I thought after this much effort, I would obviously more muscular. Are some people just not born to have muscles?

Part of your problem is your routine. You're doing negative reps which is great once in a while to change things up. To build mass (size) train with heavy weights. Instead of doing chest and arms on the same day, do a more extensive chest routine. You've been training a year and half so you can handle the extra load. Doing Legs will give you a nice boost to your overall build.
Your other problem might be you aren't eating enough. You say you've always been thin. Eat more calories. I do best when I eat about 1.5 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight a day. Experiment.
Like ultrafilter said, you are limited by your genes as to how much muscle you have. But you control the SIZE of said muscle fibers. Eat right, train right, and sleep right.