[quote]
LA wrote:
Cam, does a leg curl make the hamstrings bigger/stronger or not?
then
Cam Birtwell wrote:
Just like any other exercise - depends on how you train with it![/quote]
Are strong, healthy hamstrings used in the “functions” of soccer?
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
I actually prefer doucheBAG (for future reference).
cb.[/quote]
How about douche nozzle?
LA
Strength isnt general, just like fitness isnt gereral.
Needs to be specific to the application.
Take elite cyclist/swimmer
One isnt good at the other.
Strongman tyre flipper/Powerlifter Squat.
One isnt good at the other.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
I would think that hamstrings play a greater roll in a soccer players ability to accelerate rather than eccentrically kicking a ball, which the power comes from hip flexin not knee flexion, which raises another point about the hamsting curl machine.
[/quote]
A simple explanation of the eccentric portion of this movement involves decelerating the lower limb (at the knee and the hip) so that the knee is not hyperextended and so that normal gait can continue as part of the sport.
Inadequate eccentric hamstring control/strength may result in a ‘pulled’ hamstring or an ACL tear.
Eccentric control and strength of the hamstrings is easily trained in leg curls.
I’m sure there are other ways but this exercise is quite convenient and effective.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Do you think strongman competitors focus on isolation exercises to develop their massive strength and power?
Do the Westside barbell lifters utilize the pec deck and kickbacks to blast up 500lb+ bench presses? Ever heard of dynamic correspondence?
[/quote]
I really don’t understand this mindset. I have trained next to competetive strongmen (and watched videos of the world class ones- ever seen Magnus Samuelsson curl a ton?)
I have trained next to MMA fighters who fight in Cage Rage over here, BJJ martial artists, rugby players,soccer players, succesful British powerlifters.
Some of them were more focused on compound movements than others, but they all used machines too or did curls just like the rest of us mere mortals.
Noone has ever suggested we should drop squats and do leg curls in perpetuity.
All you have to offer is pedantry and a condescending tone when all the “real life examples” (since people seem so fond of the term)I, and many others have seen, suggest there is some performance merit to isolation movements even if it is merely auxiliary.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Dudes,
You all seem to be agreeing on the same thing and not realising it.
Hamstring Curls - Some carryover strenght to work/sport
Deadlifts - Better carryover to strength to work/sport.
So why would you ever do hamstring curls? They are less functional in all cases I can think of.
Tribulus, you seem to contradict yourself saying that strenght transfers 100%, but then agreeing with my chinup/lat pulldown post.
I would think that hamstrings play a greater roll in a soccer players ability to accelerate rather than eccentrically kicking a ball, which the power comes from hip flexin not knee flexion, which raises another point about the hamsting curl machine.
It works the hammy only across the knee, not the hip, so you would need to do back extensions as well to get a complete workout. Again we have deadlifts, snatches, etc.
[/quote]
If you think that you will be able to perform deadlifts and squats with any modicum of frequency in your workouts as an in-season soccer player (at least, with European schedules, don’t know how often they play/train over there) then I invite you to take up the sport and try.
SO the Prof makes one off-handed comment about strength transferring from an isolated exercise to function, and you guys get your maxi-pads stuck to your short hairs (assuming you are old enough to grow them).
What a bunch of morons. All exercises are transferrable to function. Every fucking one of them.
Are certain execises BETTER for this nystical transferrence? I don’t think you have seen anyone argue against that. Yet you guys keep beating the horse.
Personally - it seems that “functional strength” is a term used by skinny little fucks to justify their skinny little fuckiness.
Let’s ask Brian Urlacher about his “functional strength”.
[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Ever heard of balance training, dickhead? You may take it for granted, but some of us enjoy that fine motor unit control that comes with swiss ball and bosu training. It has a great carry-over into all kinds of sports, so open up your mind, you neanderthal.[/quote]
I consider myself an open minded person, but I find it difficult to take advice from a person who measures his daily excrement with a ruler.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What a bunch of morons. All exercises are transferrable to function. Every fucking one of them.
Are certain execises BETTER for this nystical transferrence? I don’t think you have seen anyone argue against that. Yet you guys keep beating the horse. [/quote]
But see… that’s the point. It’s just a chain of logic.
1.) All exercises have some transferrence.
2.) Exercise A has more transfer to the sport than Exercise B and much more than Exercise C.
3.) Exercise A in included in a training program frequently, Exercise B a moderate amount and Exercise C is excluded.
At some point every trainee has to make a decision on what exercises need to be included. To use a specific example, why would an athlete choose a leg curl over a GHR?
There are a few scenarios, but I would say that the GHR would be selected for the training program about 80% of the time, maybe more. Therefore, the GHR is generally a “more functional” choice for the majority of team sport athletes. Doesn’t make it better, doesn’t make it worse. For some athletes at certain times, it might indeed be the better choice. But generally speaking, probably not.
Also, I think we should all remember that specificity is not desireable at all times. Does a powerlifter do shirted 1RMs year-round? Should a basketball player never squat because he’ll never do that in a game? No. There’s a time for specificity and there’s a time for general preperation.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cam is a douche. Stop apologizing.
I actually prefer doucheBAG (for future reference).
PS. You really should calm down. Considering your BMI is over 36, rises in your blood pressure may not be healthy 
Peace
cb.[/quote]
Here’s the deal from my viewpoint. At one time in my life I read and studied every printed syllable of exercise/physiological/cellular level micro science I could possibility get my hands on. I spent untold hours in the public library in the days when there was no internet and you had to really work to chase down information.
I became somewhat expert on everything that was current at that time. In the end when I got to the gym I realized one day that all that very fascinating research, which indeed it was, meant almost nothing in terms of influencing how I was going to train that day.
What was a history redefining breakthrough last week was this week’s concession to incomplete study parameters or undue influence by interested parties. Additionally all that high falutent science was overwhelmingly preoccupied with the why which rarely translated usefully into how.
Fast forward 13 years. Long story short. I get back into the game mainly for health reasons, but find out I can still build muscle and headed back down that road. I spent about about 2 weeks of glee researching all the “latest breakthroughs” with the internet now able to bring in seconds what would’ve taken weeks before.
As I progressed the light came on. They don’t know anything substantially more now than they did then to speak of. Everybody still contradicts everybody else, it’s still all about trying to see why with practically nothing still in the how column with any real degree of certainty. I quit for the most part.
I LOVE that shit. I have a very analytical mind and I soak up technical crap like a sponge, but there’s only so many hours in the day and I have more important things to do than remain thoroughly versed in all the 10 syllable words that are pert near meaningless to my goals.
So when I see a guy who likes to throw around “knowledge”, but appears unable to grasp the idea that regardless of how muscles get stronger they are stronger nonetheless, my respect meter plummets like a dropped barbell.
I have no problem with people who do keep themselves up on the “science”. Fine, but if what they say is of no real use I have better things to do. I like Professor X and guys like him because he does have a lot of technical knowledge, but when he says something about training I can put my hands (or feet, you get the idea) on some equipment and do something with it.
You may not be quite the asshole I originally took you for, but it’s guys like you who lead these poor noobs around in circles when all they need is the same basic shit that’s worked for 100 years.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
If you think that you will be able to perform deadlifts and squats with any modicum of frequency in your workouts as an in-season soccer player (at least, with European schedules, don’t know how often they play/train over there) then I invite you to take up the sport and try.[/quote]
Poliquin seems to think that soccer training is 40 years behind the rest of us. Weak and too aerobically fit. I’m not sure if he’s correct, but he smmes to know alot about this stuff.
I dont know that you can prove this stuff really. Some athletes manage to perform no matter how they train, some need to get it spot on.
rainjack
Calling us morons for discussing this stuff is a joke. You lose credibility with comments like that.
I choose the functional/non machine training methods. I just makes sense to me.
rainjack
If you tested your 10RM on a barbell back squat and then did only smith machine squats for 3 or 4 months. Would you expect your barbell squat to improve as a result? Everything else being equal.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What a bunch of morons. All exercises are transferrable to function. Every fucking one of them.
Are certain execises BETTER for this nystical transferrence? I don’t think you have seen anyone argue against that. Yet you guys keep beating the horse.
But see… that’s the point. It’s just a chain of logic.
1.) All exercises have some transferrence.
2.) Exercise A has more transfer to the sport than Exercise B and much more than Exercise C.
3.) Exercise A in included in a training program frequently, Exercise B a moderate amount and Exercise C is excluded.
At some point every trainee has to make a decision on what exercises need to be included. To use a specific example, why would an athlete choose a leg curl over a GHR?
There are a few scenarios, but I would say that the GHR would be selected for the training program about 80% of the time, maybe more. Therefore, the GHR is generally a “more functional” choice for the majority of team sport athletes. Doesn’t make it better, doesn’t make it worse. For some athletes at certain times, it might indeed be the better choice. But generally speaking, probably not.
Also, I think we should all remember that specificity is not desireable at all times. Does a powerlifter do shirted 1RMs year-round? Should a basketball player never squat because he’ll never do that in a game? No. There’s a time for specificity and there’s a time for general preperation.
[/quote]
I’m all for logic - but my point was that ProfX made one statement about leg curls, and that brought the “functional strength” crowd out like a bunch of hyenas.
It has been pretty much agreed that specificity is only such when applied specifically.
But that still doesn’t excuse the “functional strength” crowd for their swiss balls
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m all for logic - but my point was that ProfX made one statement about leg curls, and that brought the “functional strength” crowd out like a bunch of hyenas.
It has been pretty much agreed that specificity is only such when applied specifically.
But that still doesn’t excuse the “functional strength” crowd for their swiss balls [/quote]
Agreed and agreed. I think the problem with this argument (and many similar ones) is that the crazies tend to ruin them. As soon as one person says “functional” now, most people automatically envision some 145# trainer standing on one leg with a bosu ball doing 15# curls, which… sadly enough is actually what I think it’s turned into. I’m still not sure what exactly that’s functional for…
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m all for logic - but my point was that ProfX made one statement about leg curls, and that brought the “functional strength” crowd out like a bunch of hyenas.
It has been pretty much agreed that specificity is only such when applied specifically.
But that still doesn’t excuse the “functional strength” crowd for their swiss balls
Agreed and agreed. I think the problem with this argument (and many similar ones) is that the crazies tend to ruin them. As soon as one person says “functional” now, most people automatically envision some 145# trainer standing on one leg with a bosu ball doing 15# curls, which… sadly enough is actually what I think it’s turned into. I’m still not sure what exactly that’s functional for…
[/quote]
I dont see it as that at all. That kind of crap is a waste of time. I’m still a fan of many swiss ball exercises. I’ve used them (with a CHEK 2 assesment)to get my shoulder much better than previous attempts with physios and osteos, etc.
I dont use them for power or strength training though, with the exception of a swiss ball chest press sometimes.
I even like to occasionally jump on the ball and bust out a few squats. Purly for the fun of it. Not for clients. Entertainment training is entertaining, like doing backflips off the rope swing. All good fun.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
rainjack
If you tested your 10RM on a barbell back squat and then did only smith machine squats for 3 or 4 months. Would you expect your barbell squat to improve as a result? Everything else being equal.
[/quote]
Better yet, test the 10RM squat then train the involved muscles with leg extensions, back extensions, and leg curls. Since “strength is strength” as Tiribulus put it, one should see improvement if their isolation numbers go up?
Thanks for adding your insight to this (I mean your own) thread… I’m pretty sure you and I are on the same page here!
cb.
This whole thread is now full of dancing strawmen and misunderstanding that is becoming increasingly difficult to view as sincere as hard as I’m trying.
[quote]Vyapada wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
A simple explanation of the eccentric portion of this movement involves decelerating the lower limb (at the knee and the hip) so that the knee is not hyperextended and so that normal gait can continue as part of the sport.
Inadequate eccentric hamstring control/strength may result in a ‘pulled’ hamstring or an ACL tear.
Eccentric control and strength of the hamstrings is easily trained in leg curls.
I’m sure there are other ways but this exercise is quite convenient and effective.[/quote]
Agreed. Eccentric strength is related to incidence of hamstring pulls and you can effectively train eccentrically on a leg curl machine. I would contend that doing GHR negatives are just as easy and potentially more beneficial.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
But see… that’s the point. It’s just a chain of logic.
1.) All exercises have some transferrence.
2.) Exercise A has more transfer to the sport than Exercise B and much more than Exercise C.
3.) Exercise A in included in a training program frequently, Exercise B a moderate amount and Exercise C is excluded.
At some point every trainee has to make a decision on what exercises need to be included. To use a specific example, why would an athlete choose a leg curl over a GHR?
There are a few scenarios, but I would say that the GHR would be selected for the training program about 80% of the time, maybe more. Therefore, the GHR is generally a “more functional” choice for the majority of team sport athletes. Doesn’t make it better, doesn’t make it worse. For some athletes at certain times, it might indeed be the better choice. But generally speaking, probably not.
Also, I think we should all remember that specificity is not desireable at all times. Does a powerlifter do shirted 1RMs year-round? Should a basketball player never squat because he’ll never do that in a game? No. There’s a time for specificity and there’s a time for general preperation.
[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
cb.
[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
Eccentric strength is related to incidence of hamstring pulls and you can effectively train eccentrically on a leg curl machine. I would contend that doing GHR negatives are just as easy and potentially more beneficial.[/quote]
Dammit kid - just walk away from the leg curl, and leave it alone. You have completely missed the argument in an effort to prove just how smart you are. Sadly - in doing so you have proven your inability to prove much of anything. I think you need to work on your functional intelligence.