I broke my collarbone when I was 3-4 years old, so it’s not 100% level ont he left/right sides, but wtf, I still love my front squats.
As far as zerchers go, I prefer doing them from the pins, a bit above parallel, to focus on hammies and hips and glutes…not quads. I think as far as that goes, they have use in the PL world…not much in the BB world probably.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1!
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
And no one is arguing with Iron Dwarf because 1) he knows how to post in a calm and moderately respectful manner, and 2 )he just parrots whatever you say anyways. His doesn’t count as a second opinion.[/quote]
is hating on ID? lol
[/quote]
I think it’s fair. ID has made posts regarding X’s larger-than-average penis before. That’s a little…erm…“north” of nuthugging.[/quote]
Huh? Funny you’d make it a point to REMEMBER something like that. I can barely remember when or where I stated that… and most likely it was stated in jest.
And just because I agree with a dude doesn’t mean I’m parroting him (you insinuate I don’t have my own opinion).
Your list of exercises and argument do not address what I’m saying. Of course there’s isometric holding in that list of moves. You don’t seem to understand the ridiculous proportion in which the biceps endure the stress of that hold. I don’t see the benefit of performing Zerchers over other, more superior moves for quad development. Sure, maybe it’s fun to do and gives you bragging rights (for whatever reason you feel the need to brag about it), but for the purity of bodybuilding’s sake, it’s an archaic exercise.
[/quote]
I have a penchant for remembering awkward comments, and that one is definitely at the top of the list. Sorry for partying.
Your point about greater stress on the biceps during that isometric contraction is faulty, as they bear at least as much of the load during a row or pulldown/chin movement. As a matter of fact, I did zercher pulls from the pins as part of my back workout today and the strain on my biceps was minimal to the point of not being noticeable. Unless the bar is REALLY rolling forwards, it just sort of sits there in the crook of your arms and the majority of the stress is focused in your upper back. This is something you would have to actually do the exercise to understand and something you would know if you have done them at some point, which leads me to believe that you are commenting on something you’ve never even tried and that you’re full of shit for doing so.
I do understand the proportion of the strain that is involved in holding a zercher position. I did them less than an hour ago. You, given your comments, ironically, don’t seem to understand the exact thing you’re accusing me of not understanding.[/quote]
My God, you’re boring as fuck. Enjoy your Zerchers.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Also, you weigh 300 pounds.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I broke my collarbone when I was 3-4 years old, so it’s not 100% level ont he left/right sides, but wtf, I still love my front squats.
As far as zerchers go, I prefer doing them from the pins, a bit above parallel, to focus on hammies and hips and glutes…not quads. I think as far as that goes, they have use in the PL world…not much in the BB world probably. [/quote]
It is amazing how you can post without all of the bullshit some others do…over and over and over again.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Lulz. I know you’re joking, but bringing up the 85’s reminded me to do this little math problem:
400x(1/12)=33.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about an inch away from the axis of rotation. That’s not much of a torque, and that’s with a fairly good Zercher of 400.
85x(16/12)=113.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about 16 inches away from the AOR (that’s probably conservative, too).
So we can conclude that curling 85s generates roughly 4x the torque that Zercher squatting 400 does. For shits and giggles, doubling the Zercher to an obscene 800 pounds only produces 66 foot-lbs of torque, still only half of what you get from an 85 pound curl. Obviously torque is not the only factor at play here, but it’s pretty damn important. Those numbers would change slightly if you consider 400 and 85 as masses instead of weight, but it would only mean multiplying by a constant.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
So after at least 3 people have pointed out that this is not the case, why is X still arguing that zerchers are damaging to the biceps tendon?
Did you miss those posts or are you just replying selectively because you want to argue?
The arms are rotated inward towards the midline of the body, meaning the biceps tendon does not come into contact with the bar. So why are you still fucking arguing that compression of this tendon makes this exercise riskier?[/quote]
It’s not just the biceps tendon making contact, it’s the very point of holding a relatively large load in a static fashion while focusing on a lift that benefits OTHER bodyparts that makes it a potential harmful move. A previously problematic bicep/tendon is greatly compromised in that position over the duration of the set.
[/quote]
I already explained that…several times. I also clearly wrote that the problem is not from just the zercher curl but when someone adds that in with very heavy direct biceps training. I even asked who here is curling that much yet no one answered.
I injured my brachioradialis. Resting a weight on it and then training my biceps as hard as I do would be DUMB…and this has been stated before as well.[/quote]
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
FTR, I have done mid 300s for 4-5 reps, but have never even felt discomfort in my biceps. It seems that everyone in this thread who has done them is also lacking in any kind of injury. Given this information, I think it’s safe to assume it’s not a significant risk in and of itself.
To anyone assuming the bodybuilding perspective, I would say that the jury is still out. I don’t train biceps heavy anywhere close to 2x a week, so I can’t speak to that.[/quote]
Hmmm, I know I’ve written at least three times in this thread that the risk is in doing heavy biceps training along with compresssing that area. I also know that I wrote that I am not saying that the exercise itself will cause a biceps tear.
Most powerlifters aren’t training biceps directly 2 times a week or more with curls with extremely heavy weight. Why? Because their goal is not hypertrophy.
I am honestly trying to understand which posts some of you are reading.
That was the entire reason I mentioned a weight used in curls…to paint the picture of what heavy biceps training even means since so many seem to not even be reading posts before responding.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Lulz. I know you’re joking, but bringing up the 85’s reminded me to do this little math problem:
400x(1/12)=33.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about an inch away from the axis of rotation. That’s not much of a torque, and that’s with a fairly good Zercher of 400.
85x(16/12)=113.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about 16 inches away from the AOR (that’s probably conservative, too).
So we can conclude that curling 85s generates roughly 4x the torque that Zercher squatting 400 does. For shits and giggles, doubling the Zercher to an obscene 800 pounds only produces 66 foot-lbs of torque, still only half of what you get from an 85 pound curl. Obviously torque is not the only factor at play here, but it’s pretty damn important. Those numbers would change slightly if you consider 400 and 85 as masses instead of weight, but it would only mean multiplying by a constant.[/quote]
???
Wouldn’t curls be a NECESSARY part of any bodybuilders routine if their goal is bodybuilding?
Therefore, what is the logic in stressing that areas any more than absolutely necessary?
Talk about missing the point completely.
I can’t believe the bicep tendon thing is still going on.
It’s similar to the whole “high protein intake will cause your kidneys to fail.” It’s an argument based on a great misunderstanding of the subject and flawed logic.
Not only that, there are how many millions of people who have eaten shittons of protein all throughout their life and haven’t had failing kidneys. Similarly, there are tons of people who do zercher lifts who haven’t torn biceps doing them.
And just like how it’s normally the skinny fucks who don’t know shit about nutrition who’ve never actually tried eating a high protein diet, it’s the people in this thread who don’t know much about powerlifting and have never incorporated zercher lifts into their training who are saying they’re dangerous and useless.
Even if some people did even have failing kidneys after a few decades of eating a high protein diet, it’s likely it was from a preexisting condition… That’s not enough reason to dismiss a high protein diet as ineffective for everyone. Similarly, if people don’t like zerchers, it’s likely because of a preexisting injury - but again, that doesn’t mean doing zerchers are ineffective for everyone.
And seriously, what’s with people who aren’t powerlifters telling people who are powerlifters what’s too dangerous for us to do or not to do? Every rep of every set of every workout every one of us do from now until the day we die will come with some sort of potetial risk for an injury. Some lifts are riskier than others, sure, but it’s been pointed out that this one isn’t nearly as risky as some of you are making it out to be. Posterior chain is EVERYTHING in powerlifting, and if potentially risking a bicep tear (for semantics sake and the record, I still don’t think it should even be a concern) comes with the ground of performind a lift that is excellent in generating massive amounts of power in the hips, then so be it. It’s a calculatedly low risk presented by the biceps vs a huge return in posterior chain strength if you utilize them in training.
Even myself, who’s clearly advocating for the use of zerchers in training said in my very first post in this thread said I’d only use them if I were training for a strength sport. I never once said use them for “lower back development” or any of what the ‘non-advocates’ said. I never once suggested they should be doing them, I (along with pretty much everyone else in this thread who’s saying they like zerchers) said they were good for developing posterior chain strength and ‘core’ strength.
The reason prof X gets most of the flak is because of how abrasive he is, as is always the case. On the first page, he determines that looking like that 176lb kid is the result of working up to a 400lb zercher lift. It definitely does not have anything to do with the kids diet, the rest of the 90% of the work he does in the gym, or his goals - being 176 lbs is the direct result of being able to zercher 400lbs and that’s why prof X will choose to “really fucking pass.” Then when he’s ‘challenged’ (for lack of a better word insert ‘challenge accepted’ meme here lol) to do a 400lb zercher lift after he infers that a 400lb zercher lift is something everyone in the gym can do, he brushes it off with “I don’t need to.”
He then goes on and on about how he won’t do them, when no one told him to in the first place.
He catches even more flak when this ‘discussion’ eventually turns into a pissing match (as it seems to be the case fairly often with him) and then he will avoid any and every valid point that the “zercher advocates” make from now on simply by ignoring it (and acknowledging this fact, at that) but has no issue continuing on with the personal sniping and pissing match until the thread’s so far derailed and off topic that him casually mentioning how he uses the 85’s to curl is semi-relevant. His ‘support’ in the thread is a bunch of no-name posters (besides ID) who have posted no pictures, likely haven’t put up any big lifts, have claimed no experience with the lift, and felt so strongly about not doing zerchers that they wrote a whole line or two about how they’re dangerous for your biceps and dipped out never to return. These are the same posters professor X calls out on the regular during everyday training threads to provide some sort of proof of an advanced physique, and when none of them provide proof of weighing a lean 250lbs, they’re opinion is automatically invalid. He just doesn’t mind they’re here in this particular thread because they have the same stance as he does, and thus he’ll allow their presence.
Could you imagine how it would go over if one of them responded “I don’t need to” or “I don’t take pictures of my physique and post them on the internet for your entertainment” ?? I’ll tell you how it’d go over. It’d go over like a fart in church and that poster would catch the e-reaming of a lifetime from prof X.
Similarly, he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about regarding the zercher lift. In his first post, he said “[zerchers] make no sense.” When in reality, from a physics standpoint, they make perfect sense.
When you stand upright, your center of gravity is… well, centered… and you don’t have to actively engage any of your major muscle groups to stay upright. Obviously your postural muscles are at work, but you get the point.
When you add an external force that changes your center of gravity, you need to actively engage your major muscle groups to remain upright, or you’ll fall over. Ever see a punk-assed high school kid grab the handle of another kids backpack and pull straight down? The kid wearing the backpack needs to actively engage his abs, hip flexors, and quads to keep from having the back of his head slam into the ground.
Now imagine if you did the same thing, but the kid was wearing his backpack backwards (so the ‘pack’ was on his stomach). The kid would need to actively engage his entire posterior chain, lest he pick his teeth up off of the concrete after he’s regained conciousness.
When you hold a bar in front of you in the crook of your arms, gravity is pulling the bar down - and since you’re holding onto the bar - your upper body is being pulled forward (starting from the hips all the way up to your neck muscles) is being pulled forward. So, if we’re gonna invest in that whole “for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction” idea (although, I’m not so sure I’m convinced - Newton didn’t have over 25,000 posts OR 20 inch arms) then you’ll buy into the idea that it is your entire posterior chain, starting from your hamstrings (achilles tendon, really), up to your neck muscles that is preventing you from being face down on the floor with the kid picking up his teeth.
The movement you end up with when you do a zercher lift is very similar to a good morning, but instead of the bar being placed on your back, it’s in a different position creating a completely different movement that’s just as effective as building up your posterior chain strength (and size.)
Along with that, it’s been pointed out already (I forget by who) that correctly doing zerchers are a great way to teach people to keep their ‘core’ tight, sit back and throw your knees out, all while keeping your entire back tight AND developing massive amounts of strength in your hips. When you break it down, zerchers are a hugely beneficial tool for powerlifters and can be used for tons of reasons.
If that’s not reason enough for prof X to catch flak, then this is: He’s a bodybuilder authorititavely speaking on a lift predominantly used by powerlifters, for powerlifters and dismissing them as utterly useless when he’s NEVER even tried them AND there are numerous powerlifters in this thread that claim otherwise.
It’d be like him diagnosing one of his patients with plantar fasciitis (sp?) after complaining about foot pain, then multiple orthopedists saying “well, no, it’s an elevated level of flim flam that’s causing your foot pain” and then having prof X dismiss the podiatrists opinions and using “I’m a dentist, but we both have five toes” as his credentials on why he should be the one making the diagnosis.
Most of the powerlifters and strongmen that I know (we’re talking high level amateurs and pros here, and I know quite a few) train their biceps with heavy weights at least once per week.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Lulz. I know you’re joking, but bringing up the 85’s reminded me to do this little math problem:
400x(1/12)=33.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about an inch away from the axis of rotation. That’s not much of a torque, and that’s with a fairly good Zercher of 400.
85x(16/12)=113.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about 16 inches away from the AOR (that’s probably conservative, too).
So we can conclude that curling 85s generates roughly 4x the torque that Zercher squatting 400 does. For shits and giggles, doubling the Zercher to an obscene 800 pounds only produces 66 foot-lbs of torque, still only half of what you get from an 85 pound curl. Obviously torque is not the only factor at play here, but it’s pretty damn important. Those numbers would change slightly if you consider 400 and 85 as masses instead of weight, but it would only mean multiplying by a constant.[/quote]
???
Wouldn’t curls be a NECESSARY part of any bodybuilders routine if their goal is bodybuilding?
Therefore, what is the logic in stressing that areas any more than absolutely necessary?
Talk about missing the point completely. [/quote]
Oh my God.
You can’t be serious.
I am honestly in awe that someone would be this butt hurt in a thread like this to even write all of the crap above.
Some of you have issues. My initial response in this thread was directly to someone else, not the OP.
I think some of you need medication.
That is some serious shit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Lulz. I know you’re joking, but bringing up the 85’s reminded me to do this little math problem:
400x(1/12)=33.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about an inch away from the axis of rotation. That’s not much of a torque, and that’s with a fairly good Zercher of 400.
85x(16/12)=113.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about 16 inches away from the AOR (that’s probably conservative, too).
So we can conclude that curling 85s generates roughly 4x the torque that Zercher squatting 400 does. For shits and giggles, doubling the Zercher to an obscene 800 pounds only produces 66 foot-lbs of torque, still only half of what you get from an 85 pound curl. Obviously torque is not the only factor at play here, but it’s pretty damn important. Those numbers would change slightly if you consider 400 and 85 as masses instead of weight, but it would only mean multiplying by a constant.[/quote]
???
Wouldn’t curls be a NECESSARY part of any bodybuilders routine if their goal is bodybuilding?
Therefore, what is the logic in stressing that areas any more than absolutely necessary?
Talk about missing the point completely. [/quote]
Whoa now, I didn’t say you should stop doing curls just because they create a greater torque at the elbow. I was hoping to demonstrate via math just how much risk you are assuming doing each.
So as a bodybuilder, are you OK with stressing your biceps to the tune of 1/4 of a 85-lb curl? If so, do Zerchers if you think they improve your physique. If not, train biceps heavy 2x per week and avoid any and all stress otherwise. I’m not making a point either way.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I’ll take a stab at the biomechanics here. Yes, your biceps tendon is assuming a large amount of weight when doing a Zercher even though, as has been pointed out, the bar is not actually resting on the biceps tendon. However, the weight is so close to the axis of rotation at the elbow that it apparently isn’t creating enough torque to put you at serious risk. This is supported by the lack of accompanying biceps injuries from people who do this lift regularly.
[/quote]
DO YOU CURL THE 85’S??? IF YOU DON’T YOUR BIOMECHANICS IS MEANINGLESS!!1! ARE YOU A DOCTOR??? YOU ACT LIKE I DIDN’T TAKE A COUPLE OF ANATOMY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. I’M A DOCTOR!!1![/quote]
Lulz. I know you’re joking, but bringing up the 85’s reminded me to do this little math problem:
400x(1/12)=33.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about an inch away from the axis of rotation. That’s not much of a torque, and that’s with a fairly good Zercher of 400.
85x(16/12)=113.3 foot-lbs of torque assuming the weight is about 16 inches away from the AOR (that’s probably conservative, too).
So we can conclude that curling 85s generates roughly 4x the torque that Zercher squatting 400 does. For shits and giggles, doubling the Zercher to an obscene 800 pounds only produces 66 foot-lbs of torque, still only half of what you get from an 85 pound curl. Obviously torque is not the only factor at play here, but it’s pretty damn important. Those numbers would change slightly if you consider 400 and 85 as masses instead of weight, but it would only mean multiplying by a constant.[/quote]
???
Wouldn’t curls be a NECESSARY part of any bodybuilders routine if their goal is bodybuilding?
Therefore, what is the logic in stressing that areas any more than absolutely necessary?
Talk about missing the point completely. [/quote]
Whoa now, I didn’t say you should stop doing curls just because they create a greater torque at the elbow. I was hoping to demonstrate via math just how much risk you are assuming doing each.
So as a bodybuilder, are you OK with stressing your biceps to the tune of 1/4 of a 85-lb curl? If so, do Zerchers if you think they improve your physique. If not, train biceps heavy 2x per week and avoid any and all stress otherwise. I’m not making a point either way.
[/quote]
I feel like I am being talked down to by high school students…who for some reason assume the guy they are speaking to is an idiot as if the progress appeared out of thin air.
Everyone knows there is a risk in ALL weight lifting…and the guys who are huge, strong and relatively injury free in older age are the ones who took the NECESSARY risks avoided the unnecessary.
If your goal is 20" arms, you had better avoid doing serious damage up to that point. The stronger I get, the more I know my tendon is at risk…thus why a weight range was mentioned.
This is not about being completely risk free…and if you really need further explanation after that, something is wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL at the lack of “guns a’blazin’” over what Iron Dwarf wrote. The people here are way too fucking transparent.[/quote]
Hey BG, since I’m pretty sure X is talking about us, can we pull the race card on his last sentence? Post that picture of the little black kid “THAT’S RACIST” GIF, quick! lol
Just kidding, professor. Just remember what you wrote on page 5:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am laughing.[/quote]
Honestly, rrjc5488…I had no idea you were this petty.
I mean, seriously. Zercher squats forced you to write a novel?
LOL. Dude, have a great life. I hope you get over that one day.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If your goal is 20" arms, you had better avoid doing serious damage up to that point. The stronger I get, the more I know my tendon is at risk…thus why a weight range was mentioned.
[/quote]
It’s not OP’s goal to have 20 inch arms. If a person is focusing on powerlifting over bodybuilding, it’s a safe bet to say that they’re more focused on developing massive amounts of strength in his or her posterior chain than they are focused on getting 20 inch arms.
Your ENTIRE argument is based on the platform that it’s EVERYONES goal to have 20 inch arm and NO ONE should be doing zerchers - and that’s just flawed on so many levels.
Aside from the fact that, you know, sorostitutes flock to big arms.
If you’re really SO worried about powerlifters tearing biceps, have a thorough and deep hate for mixed grip deadlifting. I’d bet my left nut and my right thumb that someone would tear a bicep in their underhand gripped hand during a max effort deadlift sooner than they would during a zercher lift.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Honestly, rrjc5488…I had no idea you were this petty.
I mean, seriously. Zercher squats forced you to write a novel?
LOL. Dude, have a great life. I hope you get over that one day.[/quote]
This is my point, no matter how much evidence numerous people can present on how ridiculous of an argument you’re putting up, you will read it - realize how many valid points are made - and you will ignore all of it and continue on with the personal insults. (I touched upon that in the ‘novel’ by the way.)
It’s the same thing iron dwarf did when all he could come up with is “you are boring” to refute strongholds valid argument about the bicep issue.
Talk about curls all you want, dude. For some reason, people think I’m out to get you. Hardly. I take what you say seriously when it’s about matters on getting big, but that’s about it. Otherwise, when you write out ridiculous bullshit as you do, some people call you out on it. What makes you immune to providing legitimate ideas and facts to back up your completely assanine and bold claims?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The average person working on physique development is training biceps and back alone once or twice a week and purposely resting that much weight on the area when it could be avoided is not something I would do.
This was a fucking DISCUSSION…until some people decided to make it a personal attack.[/quote]
The average person working on strength (and moreover, doing zerchers) is not training biceps once or twice a week. That ends your point, assuming you had one.
As far as personal attacks go, you made an unflattering backhanded comment about the kid’s physique. Want me to quote it back for you?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
[quote]xjusticex2013x wrote:
On a more serious note, thanks a lot for the advice and nice compliments guys; I appreciate that. Never thought of doing zerchers with bands! And that guy who zerchered 650 from pins is one BAMF. As far as bicep tendons being at risk, well your discs are “at risk” too during round back deadlifting, but tell that to Bob Peoples or Kevin Nee. Some guys can get get by fine with it, others can’t. End of story. ;)[/quote]
Op - if that’s you in the video no offense was inteded by the 6’ 190 joke but its funny how these forums take a nose dive. This started out as a decent forum and then did a 180 after page 2. Open discussion, honest opinion and then it turns into - Say hello to the Bad Guy.
X - you can’t win. Heaven forbid you have an opinion on anything around here.
[/quote]
I am laughing at how unorginal this shit is at this point. It is always the same people and the same arguments. You apparently have to petition that crew for permission to make a post before doing so.[/quote]
It’s the same people and same arguments, because YOU are unoriginal.