Leg curling vs. squatting

In article <454a1b24$0$20534$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> If you work the lower arms and biceps hard, you probably perform a bit
> >> better when doing rows.
> >> Heavy rows might help you using more in the dead.
>
> >> Which can result in a better sqaut.
>
> >> For me thats logic, anyway...
>
> > Specificity roolz! Never forget it.
>
> > Heavy rows would probably create a motor pattern where you pull with a
> > flexed bicep - so you'd end up tearing off a bicep in the deadlift.
>
> Perhaps that was a bad example because you guys use a lot more in the dead
> as "we" do in rows.
> Heaviest row i EVER did was 130 kilos in the cable and 70 kilo with DBs
>
> > Been there - done that.
>
> > For strength motor patterns are crucial. Strength is a skill as well as
> > a function of muscle size. Isolation movements don't teach that skill
> > and in fact may inhibit skill learning.
>
> I agree with most of this, but if i had to put money on 2 different guys who
> never squat a day in their live, i would put my money on the one who uses
> twice as much wqeight as the other in leg extensions ;-O

Yup.

Deepsquatter had a plate loaded t-bar rowing machine in his gym. So he
was doing them at the end of a Westside workout when I went down to the
Bay area for a football game and took in a workout with him. He was some
pissed because I never did the exercise (didn't have access to it) and
could do 8 or 10 (can't remember what was the maximum amount they could
fit on it) 45 lb plates for 5 or 6 reps pretty easy.

Rowing and chins are two movements I've always been strong in. Which
might explain tearing the bicep tendon off while doing a deadlift from
just below the knee with 765 lbs.

--
Keith

Dnia 2006-11-02 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> What difference would a a stretch of the hams, at the hip, make at the
>>> flexion of the knee?
>
>> Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
>> force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
>> already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)
>
> When you do leg curls, the muscles shorten, no matter what the position of
> the torso is.

But the force they can generate depends if they have enough "shortening
potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
which they simply can't do.

> If your theory about this turns out to be correct, everybody should do all
> tricep work overhead and biceps with the humerus behind the torso, as in
> incline Dbcurls.

If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
as far as mass building goes. They do.

However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).

>> That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
>> needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
>> already vastly shortened position.
>
> I am mot sure what you mean. Okay, the hams crosses 2 joints, so what?
> You can apply force at one side, like in SLDLs or leg curls. If you do leg
> curls the hams have to shorten to move the weight, no matter *what* happens
> at the other joint.

Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion. I advocated for
glute-ham raises, after all.

>> Compare it with SLDL, when top
>> force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
>> a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.
>
> I miss the point here.
>
> When you a SLDL, the hams shorten. And the hip is pulled backwards. There is
> ZERO action at the knee.
>
> When you a leg curl, the hams shorten. And the lower leg is pulled towards
> the hip. There is ZERO action at the hip.
>
> So what?

Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
deliver anything substancial.

> Sure, when you squat or deadlift, there is action at both hip and knee, but
> please note that the hams have ZERO action at the knee in those exercises,
> and that, while they shorten at the hip...
>
> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
>
> Ever wondered about that? i did.

I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.
They can't do it. They *just* shorten. Action of other muscles
prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
shortens. That's it.

> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount at
> the other?

A miracle?

> Besides, there are two major muscles that can cause hip joint extension.
>
> How many muscles do we have for knee joint flexion? The gastrocs dont count
> ;-O

Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
point.

>> No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
>> attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
>> ends.
>
> Which was/is my arguement all along!
> It doesnt matter at which side you pull!

Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion, once again.

>>> So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
>
>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>> would work all right.
>
> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen those,
> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)

Better then 180 degrees.

>> To make them work fine one would need to be able
>> to do curls in bent-over position...
>
> Why?
>
> The hams contract *no matter what position the torso is in.*
>
> Your theory would make all my effert for triceps at the pulley worthless! I
> can assure its not ;-O
> the tris, in this particular exercise,. are *shortened* at the shoulder
> joint, in the same way hams are sjortened at "normal" leg curls.
>
> Same for preacher/Scott curls. Shortened at the *other* joint, not
> stretched!

I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.

>> and additionally make a levers of a
>> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
>> significantly lower than at the beginning.
>
> I dont get this.
>
>> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
>
> We dont use those over here. I am not kidding.
> Is there a site where i can watch that movement?

Hobbes posted a link with animated gif. It's not the best illustration
of what guys from Westside do, but it should be enough to give you an
idea.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>
> I hadn't heard of Glute-Ham before. Those look interesting. I wish
> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
> them.

Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105

Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.

Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm

> Out of the exercises I listed the Good Morning seemed the most
> beneficial. I have tried them but I get odd looks from people who
> think I am doing a fucked up squat. The key seems to be in moving
> the hips. I have been going light until I can get the hang of them.

Just use good form, look up and stick your ass out. You should be
fine, especially in a power rack.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Other than a GHR, how else might you do a no-equipment leg curl?
Isometrics at various points in the ROM is one possibility, but I'm thinking
more dynamic.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eid8pt$pj9$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa³(a):
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>>
>> I hadn't heard of Glute-Ham before. Those look interesting. I wish
>> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
>> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
>> them.
>
> Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
> http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105
>
> Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
> natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
> it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.
>
> Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm
>
>> Out of the exercises I listed the Good Morning seemed the most
>> beneficial. I have tried them but I get odd looks from people who
>> think I am doing a fucked up squat. The key seems to be in moving
>> the hips. I have been going light until I can get the hang of them.
>
> Just use good form, look up and stick your ass out. You should be
> fine, especially in a power rack.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>>> Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
>>> force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
>>> already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)

>> When you do leg curls, the muscles shorten, no matter what the position
>> of
>> the torso is.

> But the force they can generate depends if they have enough "shortening
> potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
> shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
> happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
> which they simply can't do.

Again, this doesnt make any sense. When the legs and torso are at 180 degree
angle, the hams shorten to move the loweer legs, and the amount of
shortening is identical as when the angle torso/upper leg is 90 degrees.

>> If your theory about this turns out to be correct, everybody should do
>> all
>> tricep work overhead and biceps with the humerus behind the torso, as in
>> incline Dbcurls.

> If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
> would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
> movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
> as far as mass building goes. They do.

You know better than that.
The reason kickbacks are crappy is because there is a crappy resistance
curve.

Both torso and humerus are parallel to the floor.
When you do pushdowns, both humerus and torso are perpendicular to the
floor, IOW, the angle at which the triceps are worked in kickbacks an
pushdowns are the same.

But pushdowns have a better resistance curve.

And Scot curls place the humerus at about the same angle wrt the torso as
concentrations, but you can build mass nicely with Scottts.

With plain old fashioned barbell curls, the biceps arent stretched nowhere
near as in 45 degree incline curls, but this doesnt mean the inclines are
the superior mass builder.

BTW, when you do pull-ups, or rows, the bis shorten at one end, yet they
lengthen at the other.

When you do dips, the triceps shorten at the elbow, but lengthen at the
shoulder. As in all pushing motions.

I hope you get my point...

> However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
> optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
> account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
> wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).

But it doesnt matter where the stretch is. At one side or the other.

>>> That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
>>> needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
>>> already vastly shortened position.

>> I am mot sure what you mean. Okay, the hams crosses 2 joints, so what?
>> You can apply force at one side, like in SLDLs or leg curls. If you do
>> leg
>> curls the hams have to shorten to move the weight, no matter *what*
>> happens
>> at the other joint.

> Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion. I advocated for
> glute-ham raises, after all.

Okay.

>>> Compare it with SLDL, when top
>>> force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
>>> a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.

>> I miss the point here.

>> When you a SLDL, the hams shorten. And the hip is pulled backwards. There
>> is
>> ZERO action at the knee.

>> When you a leg curl, the hams shorten. And the lower leg is pulled
>> towards
>> the hip. There is ZERO action at the hip.

>> So what?

> Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
> happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
> deliver anything substancial.

What exatly is "top forcë" ?!?!?!

>> Sure, when you squat or deadlift, there is action at both hip and knee,
>> but
>> please note that the hams have ZERO action at the knee in those
>> exercises,
>> and that, while they shorten at the hip...

>> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*

>> Ever wondered about that? i did.

> I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.

Excuse me?
Of course they do!

What else do you think happens during the squat and deadlift ?!?!?!

> They can't do it. They *just* shorten.

That doesnt make any sense!
When you get out of the hole, there is hip joint extension and knee joint
extension *at the same time.*, right? right!

So, what exactly do YOU think the hams are doing *while that happens*?

> Action of other muscles
> prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
> insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
> shortens. That's it.

So ?!?!?!

We both agree that the hams acts as hip joint extonsors, right?
We both agree that the hams are knee joint flexors, right?

When the hams shorten you get either hip joint extension or knee joint
flexion. Right?

So what do the hams do when you get hip joint extensin and *knee* joint
extension?
With extension, in the *knee* as *opposed to *flexion* ?!?!?!

If one muscle at a side of the jont shortens, as quads as in squats, dont
you agree that the antagist, the hams, lengthen. *AT the knee*?

>> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount
>> at
>> the other?

> A miracle?

The end of all life, as we know it?

>> Besides, there are two major muscles that can cause hip joint extension.

>> How many muscles do we have for knee joint flexion? The gastrocs dont
>> count
>> ;-O

> Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
> hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
> exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
> shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
> point.

I still dont get it, Andre.

You have something against peak contraction.

All back muscles do very well bu just that...

>>> No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
>>> attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
>>> ends.

>> Which was/is my arguement all along!
>> It doesnt matter at which side you pull!

> Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion, once again.

Okay.

>>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>>> would work all right.

>> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen
>> those,
>> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)

> Better then 180 degrees.

Why?

>>> To make them work fine one would need to be able
>>> to do curls in bent-over position...

>> Why?

>> The hams contract *no matter what position the torso is in.*

>> Your theory would make all my effert for triceps at the pulley worthless!
>> I
>> can assure its not ;-O
>> the tris, in this particular exercise,. are *shortened* at the shoulder
>> joint, in the same way hams are sjortened at "normal" leg curls.

>> Same for preacher/Scott curls. Shortened at the *other* joint, not
>> stretched!

> I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
> but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.

I dont get it.

>>> and additionally make a levers of a
>>> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
>>> significantly lower than at the beginning.

>> I dont get this.

>>> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!

>> We dont use those over here. I am not kidding.
>> Is there a site where i can watch that movement?

> Hobbes posted a link with animated gif. It's not the best illustration
> of what guys from Westside do, but it should be enough to give you an
> idea.

I saw it.

----
Pete

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa?(a):
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>>
>> I hadn't heard of Glute-Ham before. Those look interesting. I wish
>> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
>> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
>> them.
>
>Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
>http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105
>
>Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
>natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
>it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.
>
>Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm

The second link was the one which came up when I did a search for it.
They use terms like "nastiest", "brutal", and "no walk in the park" to
describe it. Sounds like the special equipment would be a much nicer
route to go.

The first link looks quite a bit different than some of the others I
saw in my search. My gym has mostly Life Fitness equipment and this
is their Hammer Strength version:
http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com...cfm/gluteham_1

You can click enlarge to get a better view. I don't know if we have
one or not. Also check out this odd kneeling leg curl:
http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com...neelinglegcurl

I think we have something like that. I need to look around the gym to
see what we have.

Pete wrote:
> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>
>
> >>From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
> >>don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
> >>work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
>
> > Both work the hamstrings. Hamstrings are two-joint "bi-articulate"
> > muscles, with attachments above the hip joint and below the knee.
> > They both flex the knee and extend the hip. Leg curls and any hip
> > extension exercise will both work the hams. Squats work a lot more
> > muscle groups, though.
>
> Agreed!
>
> John, do you really think it matters at what end the hams are shortened?

I don't think it's so much "which end" as the complexity of the
movement. I suspect that a lot more motor units are recruited, and
firing frequency and patterns are higher and more complex, when
attempting to stabilize a heavy, complex movement like the back squat,
as opposed to an isolated single-joint movement like leg curls. By the
same token, you would probably find the same thing to be true when
comparing back squats to reverse hypers.

This, of course, is theory. I can't find any EMG studies that directly
support that theory.

Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa?(a):
>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>>>
>>> I hadn't heard of Glute-Ham before. Those look interesting. I wish
>>> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
>>> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
>>> them.
>>
>>Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
>>http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105
>>
>>Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
>>natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
>>it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.
>>
>>Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
>>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm
>
> The second link was the one which came up when I did a search for it.
> They use terms like "nastiest", "brutal", and "no walk in the park" to
> describe it.

Coach Davies obviously tried them at least once. ;-)

> Sounds like the special equipment would be a much nicer
> route to go.

In case your gym has no machine for GHR, you could still do natural
GHRs with a bit of clever approach. You lean forward to some point
(lets say that you put a bar on top of safeties in a rack) and then
just bend at the hips. Once you get stronger, lower the bar, which
works just as a point of reference (you do not put any pressure on it).

Or, you could hold onto elastic bands for assistance. Attach them to
the top of rack. Or, if rack has a pulley built in, grab a pulley bar
for assistance.

> The first link looks quite a bit different than some of the others I
> saw in my search. My gym has mostly Life Fitness equipment and this
> is their Hammer Strength version:
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com...cfm/gluteham_1

Should work better then leg curls.

> You can click enlarge to get a better view. I don't know if we have
> one or not. Also check out this odd kneeling leg curl:
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com...neelinglegcurl
>
> I think we have something like that. I need to look around the gym to
> see what we have.

How about trying to get good at good mornings? If you like leg curls,
by all means, do them, but they are not necessary for anything. They
are not especially good at building mass, and they give strength
increase at "wrong" position. I see no point to waste your limited
energy on this machine if you could be doing something productive with
a barbell.

Until you simply like this exercise, of course.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-02 Proctologically ViolatedCR napisa³(a):
> Other than a GHR, how else might you do a no-equipment leg curl?

I wouldn't. Why do leg curls, if barbell exercises hit your hams so
well?

> Isometrics at various points in the ROM is one possibility, but I'm thinking
> more dynamic.

If I really wanted to leg curl with limited equipment, I'd try do one
legged leg curls against bands. I'd need some straps around working
leg and some carabiner (or how do you call it) for fast attachment.
I'd lie on a table and attach bands somewhere in front and work one leg
at a time.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with most of this, but if i had to put money on 2 different guys who
>> never squat a day in their live, i would put my money on the one who uses
>> twice as much wqeight as the other in leg extensions ;-O
>
>Yup.
>
>Deepsquatter had a plate loaded t-bar rowing machine in his gym. So he
>was doing them at the end of a Westside workout when I went down to the
>Bay area for a football game and took in a workout with him. He was some
>pissed because I never did the exercise (didn't have access to it) and
>could do 8 or 10 (can't remember what was the maximum amount they could
>fit on it) 45 lb plates for 5 or 6 reps pretty easy.

Are you talking about a more classic T-bar rowing machine, like
Trygve's ...

http://www.trygve.com/tbar02.jpg

Or are you talking about one with cross-membered plate loading, such
as this one?

http://www.rochesterfitnessequipment..._T-Bar_Row.jpg

This Trygve guy is a real bon vivant! Nice electronics behind the machine!
Also nice fitness/lifting dictionary/glossary, seems well-done.
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:d2fkk2hvljmc9j9jr5a4na9a8c9gqq5gp6@4ax.com...
> Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with most of this, but if i had to put money on 2 different guys
>>> who
>>> never squat a day in their live, i would put my money on the one who
>>> uses
>>> twice as much wqeight as the other in leg extensions ;-O
>>
>>Yup.
>>
>>Deepsquatter had a plate loaded t-bar rowing machine in his gym. So he
>>was doing them at the end of a Westside workout when I went down to the
>>Bay area for a football game and took in a workout with him. He was some
>>pissed because I never did the exercise (didn't have access to it) and
>>could do 8 or 10 (can't remember what was the maximum amount they could
>>fit on it) 45 lb plates for 5 or 6 reps pretty easy.
>
> Are you talking about a more classic T-bar rowing machine, like
> Trygve's ...
>
> http://www.trygve.com/tbar02.jpg
>
> Or are you talking about one with cross-membered plate loading, such
> as this one?
>
> http://www.rochesterfitnessequipment..._T-Bar_Row.jpg

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:45:40 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
>would suck. They do.

I am glad someone agrees with that. I see people doing concentration
curls all the time. I tried them a few times and hated them. The
kickback was o.k. but it wasn't possible to get enough force into the
movement. I have tried lots of different bicep/tricep exercises and
these two are probably the worst.

In article <d2fkk2hvljmc9j9jr5a4na9a8c9gqq5gp6@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> http://www.trygve.com/tbar02.jpg

Looked more like that guy, as I recall.

Rows and chins have always been pretty easy for me. I've done true
single handed chins when I was a firefighter and much lighter. I wish
they had a chin-up competition!

So between the deadlifting and just having decent insertions for that
type of thing I do okay without doing them regulalry.

--
Keith

Dnia 2006-11-02 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> But the force they can generate depends if they have enough "shortening
>> potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
>> shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
>> happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
>> which they simply can't do.
>
> Again, this doesnt make any sense. When the legs and torso are at 180 degree
> angle, the hams shorten to move the loweer legs, and the amount of
> shortening is identical as when the angle torso/upper leg is 90 degrees.

I bet you could move more weight on a machine like Shute showed, then on
a lying leg curl machine. What I wrote does make sense.

>> If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
>> would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
>> movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
>> as far as mass building goes. They do.
>
> You know better than that.
> The reason kickbacks are crappy is because there is a crappy resistance
> curve.

Same goes for leg curls and leg extensions. Resistance curve *is*
crappy there.

> Both torso and humerus are parallel to the floor.
> When you do pushdowns, both humerus and torso are perpendicular to the
> floor, IOW, the angle at which the triceps are worked in kickbacks an
> pushdowns are the same.
>
> But pushdowns have a better resistance curve.

As GHRs have. I simply described *why* this crappy resistance curve of
kickbacks and leg curls is crappy, from a point of view of building mass
and strength.

> And Scot curls place the humerus at about the same angle wrt the torso as
> concentrations, but you can build mass nicely with Scottts.

Highest load with preachers or scotts happens to be when a biceps is
slightly stretched (like, it has long way to go before it is maximally
shortened). At the top of the movement there is *rest* position, just
like in GHRs, squats or GMs. In leg curls there is no rest in top
position, just like in kickbacks and concentration curls.

> With plain old fashioned barbell curls, the biceps arent stretched nowhere
> near as in 45 degree incline curls, but this doesnt mean the inclines are
> the superior mass builder.

Neither I really think they are, but they are still better then
concentration curls.

> BTW, when you do pull-ups, or rows, the bis shorten at one end, yet they
> lengthen at the other.
>
> When you do dips, the triceps shorten at the elbow, but lengthen at the
> shoulder. As in all pushing motions.
>
> I hope you get my point...

I actually do. Your description isn't perfect, but I understand what
you mean. Sure, situations like that happen, but the exercises still
work fine.

>> However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
>> optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
>> account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
>> wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).
>
> But it doesnt matter where the stretch is. At one side or the other.

Sure. What matters is that the muscle must have enough "shortening
possibility" to work hard.

[...]
>> Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
>> happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
>> deliver anything substancial.
>
> What exatly is "top forcë" ?!?!?!

A force opposing worked muscles at the end of a movement. Like in
standing curls, at the end of positive part of movement biceps do not
work hard. During concentration curls they work hardest at this point,
which is not very good.

>>> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
>
>>> Ever wondered about that? i did.
>
>> I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.
>
> Excuse me?
> Of course they do!
>
> What else do you think happens during the squat and deadlift ?!?!?!

They just shorten.

>> They can't do it. They *just* shorten.
>
> That doesnt make any sense!

Neither Aussies walking upside down!

> When you get out of the hole, there is hip joint extension and knee joint
> extension *at the same time.*, right? right!

Exactly.

> So, what exactly do YOU think the hams are doing *while that happens*?

They just shorten. Your foreleg extends because of quads, which must work
against hams and load together. That's what makes squats such a good
movement. Hams and quads working together lessen the stress on the
knee, because they balance each other.

>> Action of other muscles
>> prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
>> insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
>> shortens. That's it.
>
> So ?!?!?!
>
> We both agree that the hams acts as hip joint extonsors, right?
> We both agree that the hams are knee joint flexors, right?

Right! ;-)

> When the hams shorten you get either hip joint extension or knee joint
> flexion. Right?

Or both, right.

> So what do the hams do when you get hip joint extensin and *knee* joint
> extension?
> With extension, in the *knee* as *opposed to *flexion* ?!?!?!
>
> If one muscle at a side of the jont shortens, as quads as in squats, dont
> you agree that the antagist, the hams, lengthen. *AT the knee*?

You could say that insertion point at the knee is moved further out
from the middle of femur (as a reference point), but muscle shortens as
a whole, because insertion point at the hip is brought toward the
middle point of femur even further, so in effect both insertion points
come closer together.

I'm not sure if I did good job at explaining this...

>>> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount
>>> at the other?
>
>> A miracle?
>
> The end of all life, as we know it?

Take a look at it this way. Muscle has a muscle belly, which can
shorten. At both ends it has unshortenable tendons. It can't shorten
at one end or other because tendons do not shorten. It can shorten
only in the middle, bringing insertion points together in effect.

>> Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
>> hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
>> exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
>> shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
>> point.
>
> I still dont get it, Andre.
>
> You have something against peak contraction.
>
> All back muscles do very well bu just that...

You mean like chins and rows? To make both slightly more effective I
use pausing at the top. Without it I do not think they work all that
great. Similar goes for shrugs. And, funny enough, similar tactics
are widely used on leg extensions or concentration curls.

I use chins and rows because I do not know any better movements for
back, but I try to overcome their shortcomings by smart execution.

[...]
>>>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>>>> would work all right.
>
>>> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen
>>> those,
>>> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)
>
>> Better then 180 degrees.
>
> Why?

Push yourself out with hands to see if you can pull more this way.

>> I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
>> but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.
>
> I dont get it.

Have a look at pec-dec machine. If you used it how it's supposed to be
used, by putting your forearms against pads, and if you wanted to make
the pads meet in the middle, you would have to use some microscopic
loads. Some really big guys wouldn't probably be able to make the pads
meet even with no load at all! Is it good exercise for chest?

I do not think so, and I remember that you use it differently, and you
are actually able to get something out of this machine.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:13:54 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article <1162439103.695333.253270@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> "Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> Curt wrote:
>> > Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
>> > response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>>
>> In the hamstrings? Not for me. Squats and leg presses don't
>> sufficiently tax my hamstrings, which is why I train hams on a
>> different day to quads. But then, I'm not normal.
>>
>You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?

Or not squatting very wide.

>
>If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
>to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
>
>Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
>partial squats.

Stu wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the
> > DOMS response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>
> In the hamstrings?

No.

In "the general."

> Not for me. Squats and leg presses don't sufficiently tax my
> hamstrings, which is why I train hams on a different day to
> quads. But then, I'm not normal.

Cool.

Obviously, I wasn't clear in my statement. I meant that I'd guess that
a compound movement with heavy weight would create a more significant
DOMS response as compared to an isolation movement with lighter weight.


> Stu

--
Curt

Bully wrote:
> Curt wrote:
[...]

> ><snip> leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
> > response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>
> No,

Well, I was speaking in general terms. Guessing, if you will.

> because there is only a 25% load transfer (or whatever)

Or whatever? Oh. Okay, you were guessing, too.

[...]

> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

Curt
Oyster bars: http://www.docksoysterbar.com/

--

Pete wrote:
> Perhaps that was a bad example because you guys use a lot more in the dead
> as "we" do in rows.
> Heaviest row i EVER did was 130 kilos in the cable and 70 kilo with DBs

You're kidding me...

I did 130kg cable rows last night. You're talking normal seated rows,
right? I'd have thought you were using more than that.


Stu

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Curt said the likely reason I got doms in the
> hams doing squats was because

A guess was all, PV. It just seems obvious that DOMS would occur after
a substantial effort with greater poundage versus the much lighter
(typically, but not in your case as you es'plained) leg curls.

> I was simply doing more weight than I was leg curling.
> But here's the thing:
> I generally don't squat much cuz, well, I cain't squat fer
> shit, not being all that comfortable with it.
> And the clean and jerk, with moderate albeit vigorous
> weights, gets the hams real good as well.
> As does goddamm *weed pulling*.

That first week of cross country would always (and absolutely) KILL
seemingly every fiber of muscle in my legs from toes to hips.
AAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!

> BUT, Leg curling on the old Nautilus machines,
> *with all my might*, multiple sets, yielded no doms whatsoever.
> Seems odd, as "perceived exertion" is a somewhat reliable
> predictor of muscle stress.
>
> Is it that "attacking" the muscle from two different ends/
> attachment points (if that makes sense), from the knee-end
> vs. the hip-end, makes that much of a diff?
> I'm thinking in analogy to "upper ab" exercise vs "lower ab"
> exercises, which I never quite believed anyway.

If one believes what's written in Zinczenko's The Abs Diet then the
lower versus upper abs is indeed a hoax. It's one muscle, according to
Z.

--
Curt

Hobbes wrote:
> You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
>
> If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
> to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
>
> Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
> partial squats.

Define partial...

I call a partial squat anything less than parallel, but it sounds to me
like you'd call partial anything less than attg?

I squat below parallel, but yes I could go deeper, ie until my
hamstrings and calves are squashed together... which is probably going
about 2-3" further. Maybe next week I'll try full attg squats and see
how I go, but I'm still willing to bet my hamstrings are worked nowhere
near as hard as when I train them separately.

Stance width is probably 1.5 times shoulder width, maybe slightly more
- am working on going wider to maybe 2x shoulder width.


Stu

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> What do you do for hams?

Heavy leg curls, good mornings, sometimes standing 1-legged curls.

This week it was 2 super sets, each consisting of heavy curls, then
good mornings, then negatives on leg curls. After that I did a drop set
on 1-legged curls to finish off.

Stu

On 2 Nov 2006 17:08:07 -0800, "Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Hobbes wrote:
>> You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
>>
>> If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
>> to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
>>
>> Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
>> partial squats.
>
>Define partial...
>
>I call a partial squat anything less than parallel, but it sounds to me
>like you'd call partial anything less than attg?
>
>I squat below parallel, but yes I could go deeper, ie until my
>hamstrings and calves are squashed together... which is probably going
>about 2-3" further. Maybe next week I'll try full attg squats and see
>how I go, but I'm still willing to bet my hamstrings are worked nowhere
>near as hard as when I train them separately.
>
>Stance width is probably 1.5 times shoulder width, maybe slightly more
>- am working on going wider to maybe 2x shoulder width.
>
Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.

> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>
> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
> *killed*--doms for days.


You want this article:
http://ajsm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/518

Basically, squats activate a whole lot more of a muscle than leg
presses or leg curls.

DOMS is much more an indicator of bad conditioning, than of work done.

Best luck.

> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.

And I quote from this other article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

"Overall, the squat generated approximately twice as much hamstring
activity as the leg press and knee extensions."

If you can, squat.

Best luck.

John Hanson wrote:
> Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.

And how much would you suggest John, given that you have no idea what
I'm squatting?

Just because I'm not squatting as much as you doesn't mean I'm wussing
out. So, respectfully, fuck off.

FWIW, my best squat was a few years ago, 2 sets of 3 @ 220kg, all below
parallel. For various reasons I've had a lot of time off since then,
and am working on bringing my squat weight back up. At the moment I'm
at 2 reps @ 180kg. I know I have more strength there; I've just got to
work on the technique - including confidence since I'm used to having a
spotter behind me and now I'm training alone at home. (I never used to
go to 4 plates without a spotter).

One problem I'm working on is that I drop too fast, ie not enough
control on the descent, and recently I've found that doing some
partials is helping. Two weeks ago I deliberately did 5 half reps on 4
plates (180kg), then 2 sets of 2 "full" reps at that weight. (The week
before that I only managed 2 singles). Working to a lesser controlled
depth is helping me reach "full" depth with more control instead of
dropping like a sack of spuds. ("Full" depth meaning my normal depth
btw). I'm confident that with a bit of time working on technique I'll
be back up to 5-6 reps @ 180kg.

Btw I finished off squats that workout with 2 sets of 8 pause reps @
140kg (ie pause at the bottom of each rep).

Interestingly I felt pain in my quads a lot more in the half reps than
the full reps. Strange.

I don't know if that classifies as some fucking weight on the bar or
not. But no hamstring DOMS, ever. Only quads.


Stu

"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Pete wrote:
>> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>> >>From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
>> >>don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
>> >>work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
>>
>> > Both work the hamstrings. Hamstrings are two-joint "bi-articulate"
>> > muscles, with attachments above the hip joint and below the knee.
>> > They both flex the knee and extend the hip. Leg curls and any hip
>> > extension exercise will both work the hams. Squats work a lot more
>> > muscle groups, though.
>>
>> Agreed!
>>
>> John, do you really think it matters at what end the hams are shortened?
>
>I don't think it's so much "which end" as the complexity of the
>movement. I suspect that a lot more motor units are recruited, and
>firing frequency and patterns are higher and more complex, when
>attempting to stabilize a heavy, complex movement like the back squat,
>as opposed to an isolated single-joint movement like leg curls. By the
>same token, you would probably find the same thing to be true when
>comparing back squats to reverse hypers.
>
>This, of course, is theory. I can't find any EMG studies that directly
>support that theory.

OK. Now I have found an EMG study. And my theory fails ... big time.

Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).

http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683

That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
activation of the motor units.

[Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
small margin (60% vs. 55%)]