Now it's official.

Power Rack Barbell Curls going mainstream!

http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/exercises/66

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

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

> Power Rack Barbell Curls going mainstream!

> http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/exercises/66

I noticed the exercise shown above that.

15 degree incline curls. Thats pretty fucking stupid...

----
Pete

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:20:55 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> Power Rack Barbell Curls going mainstream!
>
>> http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/exercises/66
>
>I noticed the exercise shown above that.
>
>15 degree incline curls. Thats pretty fucking stupid...
>

They don't appear to be totally ineffectual provided the elbows are
kept pulled back, thus enabling the entire ROM to be against the
vertical line of gravity.

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:

>>I noticed the exercise shown above that.

>>15 degree incline curls. Thats pretty fucking stupid...

> They don't appear to be totally ineffectual provided the elbows are
> kept pulled back, thus enabling the entire ROM to be against the
> vertical line of gravity.

I think that going through full ROM with this exercise is a mistake. When
you lower the lower arm all the way down, the bicep is stretched to the max.
at both ends of the joint.

Inclices with 45-60 degrees are a better choice.

----
Pete

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:42:29 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>
>>>I noticed the exercise shown above that.
>
>>>15 degree incline curls. Thats pretty fucking stupid...
>
>> They don't appear to be totally ineffectual provided the elbows are
>> kept pulled back, thus enabling the entire ROM to be against the
>> vertical line of gravity.
>
>I think that going through full ROM with this exercise is a mistake. When
>you lower the lower arm all the way down, the bicep is stretched to the max.
>at both ends of the joint.
>
>Inclices with 45-60 degrees are a better choice.
>

I do a double dumbbell arm curl on the bench, sitting with my feet up
on the rack, with the back of the bench angled back about 10-15
degrees from the upright, which again gives a very good ROM.

Of course, I'm not looking to bulk, I'm purely seeking progressive
overload to maintain and gain strength, so I'm not averse to a
complete ROM.

The problem with dumbbell curls is that the because of the shape and
size of the dumbbell, they have to be at the wrong angle to start the
lift, and turned out on the way up. I believe that is not necessarily
as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting position
for comfort or best effort.

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:

>>I think that going through full ROM with this exercise is a mistake. When
>>you lower the lower arm all the way down, the bicep is stretched to the
>>max.
>>at both ends of the joint.

>>Inclices with 45-60 degrees are a better choice.

> I do a double dumbbell arm curl on the bench, sitting with my feet up
> on the rack, with the back of the bench angled back about 10-15
> degrees from the upright, which again gives a very good ROM.

Okay.
So the angle is about 75-80 degrees.

> Of course, I'm not looking to bulk, I'm purely seeking progressive
> overload to maintain and gain strength, so I'm not averse to a
> complete ROM.

Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle, and
full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.

Arnold claimed just that.
And he also claimed that doing incline curls will make the biceps longer.

All you do is put them in a "pre-stretched position.

Just like any exercise for the triceps performed overhead. Both bi/tris have
one head that actually cross the shoulder joint, which explains why you can
stretch then at both ends.

> The problem with dumbbell curls is that the because of the shape and
> size of the dumbbell, they have to be at the wrong angle to start the
> lift, and turned out on the way up.

You mean going from pronation to supination?

> I believe that is not necessarily
> as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
> start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting position
> for comfort or best effort.

Yes.
With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
hips...
According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go all the
way up to 22 inch.

I think its crap...

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>
>>> I think that going through full ROM with this exercise is a
>>> mistake. When you lower the lower arm all the way down, the bicep
>>> is stretched to the max.
>>> at both ends of the joint.
>
>>> Inclices with 45-60 degrees are a better choice.
>
>> I do a double dumbbell arm curl on the bench, sitting with my feet up
>> on the rack, with the back of the bench angled back about 10-15
>> degrees from the upright, which again gives a very good ROM.
>
> Okay.
> So the angle is about 75-80 degrees.
>
>> Of course, I'm not looking to bulk, I'm purely seeking progressive
>> overload to maintain and gain strength, so I'm not averse to a
>> complete ROM.
>
> Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
> Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle,
> and full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.
>
> Arnold claimed just that.
> And he also claimed that doing incline curls will make the biceps
> longer.
> All you do is put them in a "pre-stretched position.
>
> Just like any exercise for the triceps performed overhead. Both
> bi/tris have one head that actually cross the shoulder joint, which
> explains why you can stretch then at both ends.
>
>> The problem with dumbbell curls is that the because of the shape and
>> size of the dumbbell, they have to be at the wrong angle to start the
>> lift, and turned out on the way up.
>
> You mean going from pronation to supination?
>
>> I believe that is not necessarily
>> as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
>> start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting
>> position for comfort or best effort.
>
> Yes.
> With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of
> your hips...

Or you can do rotating bicep curls where the starting point is with the
d/bell resting pronated on the quad, the midpoint being the d/bell supinated
at the top of the curl.

> According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go
> all the way up to 22 inch.

According to others, the prime purpose of the bicep is to supinate the hand.

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

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Yes.
>> With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of
>> your hips...

> Or you can do rotating bicep curls where the starting point is with the
> d/bell resting pronated on the quad, the midpoint being the d/bell
> supinated at the top of the curl.

You mean a 360 rotation?

>> According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go
>> all the way up to 22 inch.

> According to others, the prime purpose of the bicep is to supinate the
> hand.

Which muscle causes elbow joint flexion?

BTW... IF you want TRUE results from supinating the lower arm/hands while
doind DB curls, you shouldnt use DBs with plates on each side. Or you should
place the hands near the plates on the outside.

Or use A-symmetric DBs and place the hands in the middle.

Trust me on this one.

----
Pete

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:35:54 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>
>>>I think that going through full ROM with this exercise is a mistake. When
>>>you lower the lower arm all the way down, the bicep is stretched to the
>>>max.
>>>at both ends of the joint.
>
>>>Inclices with 45-60 degrees are a better choice.
>
>> I do a double dumbbell arm curl on the bench, sitting with my feet up
>> on the rack, with the back of the bench angled back about 10-15
>> degrees from the upright, which again gives a very good ROM.
>
>Okay.
>So the angle is about 75-80 degrees.
>
>> Of course, I'm not looking to bulk, I'm purely seeking progressive
>> overload to maintain and gain strength, so I'm not averse to a
>> complete ROM.
>
>Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
>Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle, and
>full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.

The origin and insertion of the muscle means that whatever ROM is
used, the entire muscle is under contraction. However, it is wrong to
assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
ROM, as using the full ROM.

>
>Arnold claimed just that.
>And he also claimed that doing incline curls will make the biceps longer.

There was a theory that there were three separate ranges that could be
developed individually: the inner, middle and outer ranges. Some
people still exercise those ranges.

>
>All you do is put them in a "pre-stretched position.
>
>Just like any exercise for the triceps performed overhead. Both bi/tris have
>one head that actually cross the shoulder joint, which explains why you can
>stretch then at both ends.
>
>> The problem with dumbbell curls is that the because of the shape and
>> size of the dumbbell, they have to be at the wrong angle to start the
>> lift, and turned out on the way up.
>
>You mean going from pronation to supination?

Yes.

>
>> I believe that is not necessarily
>> as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
>> start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting position
>> for comfort or best effort.
>
>Yes.
>With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
>hips...

That was my point.

> According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go all the
>way up to 22 inch.
>
>I think its crap...

He certainly in a position to say pretty much what he wanted. However,
I agree with you! ;o)

Dnia 2006-11-01 Charles napisa³(a):
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:35:54 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
[...]
>>> Of course, I'm not looking to bulk, I'm purely seeking progressive
>>> overload to maintain and gain strength, so I'm not averse to a
>>> complete ROM.
>>
>>Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
>>Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle, and
>>full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.
>
> The origin and insertion of the muscle means that whatever ROM is
> used, the entire muscle is under contraction. However, it is wrong to
> assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
> ROM, as using the full ROM.

Dave Tate hit the nail on the head when he said to avoid "majoring in a
minor shit". Bench press uses only a fraction of ROM and it works.
Insisting that using less weight *lying* on a bench burns more energy
then using more weight standing would be, at least in my book, a
classic example of "majoring in a minor".

Want burn energy? Do power curls with as much weight as you can use.
I'm not joking. And start every rep from the floor. Wanna train
biceps? Do whatever curl variation you like. They all work.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:

>>Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
>>Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle, and
>>full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.

> The origin and insertion of the muscle means that whatever ROM is
> used, the entire muscle is under contraction.

Yes.
Its just that some "experts" suggest otherwise.

> However, it is wrong to
> assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
> ROM, as using the full ROM.

For increasing strenth, i dont think energy expenditure is relevant. Strong
contactions are.
Again, the barbell bench press, even wwith "full" ROM, is by defention, a
partial.

As are all upper body movements with a wide, *fixed* grip.
Same for pulldowns. You can go all the way up and down, its still a partial.

>>Arnold claimed just that.
>>And he also claimed that doing incline curls will make the biceps longer.

> There was a theory that there were three separate ranges that could be
> developed individually: the inner, middle and outer ranges. Some
> people still exercise those ranges.

You mean parts of the muscle? Or different range of motions?

>>> I believe that is not necessarily
>>> as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
>>> start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting position
>>> for comfort or best effort.

>>Yes.
>>With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
>>hips...

> That was my point.

I thought so.
Which probably means this whole "supination thing" was originated because of
this.

Even people who dont know what supination/pronation is, will do just that
when they do standing DB curls.

>> According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go all
>> the
>>way up to 22 inch.

>>I think its crap...

> He certainly in a position to say pretty much what he wanted. However,
> I agree with you! ;o)

He also knew that people would believe just about anything he said about arm
training ;-O

----
Pete

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:22:28 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>
>>>Well, sometimes full ROM helps, sometimes not.
>>>Its a mistake to think that a partial ROM works a part of the muscle, and
>>>full ROM works the muscle from beginning to end.
>
>> The origin and insertion of the muscle means that whatever ROM is
>> used, the entire muscle is under contraction.
>
>Yes.
>Its just that some "experts" suggest otherwise.
>
>> However, it is wrong to
>> assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
>> ROM, as using the full ROM.
>
>For increasing strenth, i dont think energy expenditure is relevant. Strong
>contactions are.
>Again, the barbell bench press, even wwith "full" ROM, is by defention, a
>partial.

I've discussed this with Andrzej at length and he too suggested the
same. However, the prime movers in the bench press are the pecs, and
during that lift almost the entire ROM is utilised, apart from a small
crossover potential.

He was confusing the potential ROM of the humerus, as opposed to the
many different muscles employed to put the humerus through its 360
degree range in various directions.

>
>As are all upper body movements with a wide, *fixed* grip.
>Same for pulldowns. You can go all the way up and down, its still a partial.
>
>>>Arnold claimed just that.
>>>And he also claimed that doing incline curls will make the biceps longer.
>
>> There was a theory that there were three separate ranges that could be
>> developed individually: the inner, middle and outer ranges. Some
>> people still exercise those ranges.
>
>You mean parts of the muscle? Or different range of motions?

Both. It was/is believed that one could develop poorly shaped biceps
for instance, by concentrating only on whatever section needed
improving.

>
>>>> I believe that is not necessarily
>>>> as good as a straight curl, but there is no other way, because to
>>>> start with the dumbbells turned out gives too wide a starting position
>>>> for comfort or best effort.
>
>>>Yes.
>>>With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
>>>hips...
>
>> That was my point.
>
>I thought so.
>Which probably means this whole "supination thing" was originated because of
>this.
>
>Even people who dont know what supination/pronation is, will do just that
>when they do standing DB curls.

But half the lift is then a hammer curl.

>
>>> According to Arnold, supination was the trick that made his arms go all
>>> the
>>>way up to 22 inch.
>
>>>I think its crap...
>
>> He certainly in a position to say pretty much what he wanted. However,
>> I agree with you! ;o)
>
>He also knew that people would believe just about anything he said about arm
>training ;-O

So did Charles Atlas with Dynamic Tension, but then both were
concerned with commercial ventures.

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:

>>> However, it is wrong to
>>> assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
>>> ROM, as using the full ROM.

>>For increasing strenth, i dont think energy expenditure is relevant.
>>Strong
>>contactions are.
>>Again, the barbell bench press, even wwith "full" ROM, is by defention, a
>>partial.

> I've discussed this with Andrzej at length and he too suggested the
> same. However, the prime movers in the bench press are the pecs, and
> during that lift almost the entire ROM is utilised, apart from a small
> crossover potential.

Well, the prime movers are chest/delts (with chest dominant) at the shoulder
joint and tris at the elbows.

The pectorals, in this movement, seem to be dominant at the first half,
after which the tris slowly "take over."
Both Keith and John can confirm this.

This is also the primary reason that when i do low inclines, i go up 2/3-3/4
of the, allready limited, ROM.
So i shorten a movement that was a partial to begin with. Very effective,
though...

> He was confusing the potential ROM of the humerus, as opposed to the
> many different muscles employed to put the humerus through its 360
> degree range in various directions.

I dont think he confused them.
Perhaps he said the same as i did about a month ago. The pecs can pull the
humerus for aprox. 180-220 degrees.
In a lot of effective exercises, you only use a portion of that.

But it doesnt matter.

>>> There was a theory that there were three separate ranges that could be
>>> developed individually: the inner, middle and outer ranges. Some
>>> people still exercise those ranges.

>>You mean parts of the muscle? Or different range of motions?

> Both. It was/is believed that one could develop poorly shaped biceps
> for instance, by concentrating only on whatever section needed
> improving.

I dont think that theory is correct. Shape is mostly genetics. Compare the
biceps of Albert Beckles to those of Bertil Fox. Or Brian Buchanan.

>>> That was my point.

>>I thought so.
>>Which probably means this whole "supination thing" was originated because
>>of
>>this.

>>Even people who dont know what supination/pronation is, will do just that
>>when they do standing DB curls.

> But half the lift is then a hammer curl.

I think 1/3. But i get your point.
It IS a hammer curl for a portion of the movement.

>>> He certainly in a position to say pretty much what he wanted. However,
>>> I agree with you! ;o)

>>He also knew that people would believe just about anything he said about
>>arm
>>training ;-O

> So did Charles Atlas with Dynamic Tension, but then both were
> concerned with commercial ventures.

Arnolds wisdom echoes in Eternity.

His claims are still copied, and pasted, by a lot of beginners...

----
Pete

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:39:55 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>
>>>> However, it is wrong to
>>>> assume that as much energy is expended by using only half the muscle's
>>>> ROM, as using the full ROM.
>
>>>For increasing strenth, i dont think energy expenditure is relevant.
>>>Strong
>>>contactions are.
>>>Again, the barbell bench press, even wwith "full" ROM, is by defention, a
>>>partial.
>
>> I've discussed this with Andrzej at length and he too suggested the
>> same. However, the prime movers in the bench press are the pecs, and
>> during that lift almost the entire ROM is utilised, apart from a small
>> crossover potential.
>
>Well, the prime movers are chest/delts (with chest dominant) at the shoulder
>joint and tris at the elbows.
>
>The pectorals, in this movement, seem to be dominant at the first half,
>after which the tris slowly "take over."
>Both Keith and John can confirm this.

I need no confirmation and am happy to accept your understanding of
the movement which agrees with my own.

>
>This is also the primary reason that when i do low inclines, i go up 2/3-3/4
>of the, allready limited, ROM.
>So i shorten a movement that was a partial to begin with. Very effective,
>though...
>
>> He was confusing the potential ROM of the humerus, as opposed to the
>> many different muscles employed to put the humerus through its 360
>> degree range in various directions.
>
>I dont think he confused them.
>Perhaps he said the same as i did about a month ago. The pecs can pull the
>humerus for aprox. 180-220 degrees.

You will need to describe such a movement, if I am to understand what
you mean. The pecs have a somewhat limited ROM.

>In a lot of effective exercises, you only use a portion of that.

You appear to be confusing bone movement with specific muscle
contractions of prime movers.

>
>But it doesnt matter.

It's very interesting and in no way meant to be competitive.

>
>>>> There was a theory that there were three separate ranges that could be
>>>> developed individually: the inner, middle and outer ranges. Some
>>>> people still exercise those ranges.
>
>>>You mean parts of the muscle? Or different range of motions?
>
>> Both. It was/is believed that one could develop poorly shaped biceps
>> for instance, by concentrating only on whatever section needed
>> improving.
>
>I dont think that theory is correct.

I don't suggest for one minute that I subscribe to the theory, but
nonetheless it is/was a well-used practice.

>Shape is mostly genetics. Compare the
>biceps of Albert Beckles to those of Bertil Fox. Or Brian Buchanan.
>
>>>> That was my point.
>
>>>I thought so.
>>>Which probably means this whole "supination thing" was originated because
>>>of
>>>this.
>
>>>Even people who dont know what supination/pronation is, will do just that
>>>when they do standing DB curls.
>
>> But half the lift is then a hammer curl.
>
>I think 1/3. But i get your point.
>It IS a hammer curl for a portion of the movement.
>
>>>> He certainly in a position to say pretty much what he wanted. However,
>>>> I agree with you! ;o)
>
>>>He also knew that people would believe just about anything he said about
>>>arm
>>>training ;-O
>
>> So did Charles Atlas with Dynamic Tension, but then both were
>> concerned with commercial ventures.
>
>Arnolds wisdom echoes in Eternity.
>
>His claims are still copied, and pasted, by a lot of beginners...
>

He's the Guvnor (Cockney rhyming slang for Governor, meaning the
boss.)! ;o)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:46:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Power Rack Barbell Curls going mainstream!
>
>http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/exercises/66

I had to wait for the squat racks on monday. One guy was doing
barbell curls and the others was doing sitting presses. I can't
believe the place only has two squat racks. Maybe if people start
doing super arm curl blasts they will break down and buy some more.

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Power Rack Barbell Curls going mainstream!
>
> http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/exercises/66
>

>From the looks of it, the guy pictured would be FAR better off doing
squats in the power rack...


Stu

Pete wrote:
> With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
> hips...

Not necessarily. Maybe it depends on how wide your shoulders are, I
dunno. But I do almost all my DB curls (standing or seated incline)
starting at a supinated, or almost fully supinated position. I'll go
back to a neutral position (neither supinated or pronated) between
reps, and because of wrist problems will sometimes be less supinated at
the start of the rep on heavy sets or towards the end of a set... but I
usually do very little supination during the rep. I find it makes it
too easy otherwise.

For pronated grip there's reverse curls, for neutral there's hammer
curls. YMMV.


Stu

"Stu" <sswain@iname.com> schreef:

>> With most DB-curls, you HAVE to supinate. Or really hurt the side of your
>> hips...

> Not necessarily. Maybe it depends on how wide your shoulders are, I
> dunno.

True.

The size of the dumbells also matter, i guess...

----
Pete