No not a variation on an exercise just a question about why so many people hold barbel curls in such disdain.
Whenever I post a question mentioning that I do curls a whole lot of people think that I must train with the over sixties women’s ballroom dance team or something. When I started weight training a number of years ago cur
ls were treat as one of the staples. Why such a negative attitude are they a complete waste of time??
No, most people here perform some type of curl somewhat regularly.
It’s the negative stigma associated with them-
people in the gym hogging power racks to do curls with horrible form, people who only do curls, people who do curls every friday to get the frat pump going, people you want to punch in the face.
I was dumb enough to not do them for a several months. I wish I hadn’t.
I am doing them again now.
They’re kinda just the extra shit that everybody does but generally don’t make up the core of a workout.
Unless the person’s doing a split in which case they can afford more time devoted to curling.
people are into the no-direct-arm-work fad. they say supinated chin-ups are the way to go. but it is just stupid to completely neglect an exercise.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
people are into the no-direct-arm-work fad. they say supinated chin-ups are the way to go. but it is just stupid to completely neglect an exercise.[/quote]
True. Someone reads an article, wants to be on the cutting edge and just throws common sense out the window. Not trying to hijack the thread but this is just like the leg extensions debate.
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
people are into the no-direct-arm-work fad. they say supinated chin-ups are the way to go. but it is just stupid to completely neglect an exercise.
True. Someone reads an article, wants to be on the cutting edge and just throws common sense out the window. Not trying to hijack the thread but this is just like the leg extensions debate. [/quote]
IDK but I actually think that leg extensions are much more replaceable by, say, lunges, than curls.
OK, I’ll throw my comments in here for the 100th time as well.
In my opinion most non competitive, but serious trainees don’t need or would even benefit much from a separate workout just for arms. Most probably don’t even need a whole ton of direct work in general assuming all other aspects of their program being sound.
On the other hand just about everybody would benefit from SOME isolation work in general. This goes for bi’s, tri,s, abs, calves and especially lateral and rear delts which I think could use more than arms in most cases and maybe a lot more.
Personally, I do several sets of various types of curls usually after back when they’re already tuned up.
Several sets of various types of tricep excercises usually in with chest and shoulders when they’re already tuned up for instance.
Abs get a grand total of 5-6 sets a week and calves get 2 sets standing and 2 sets seated hard and heavy after legs, usually, sometimes before.
This is working quite famously for me thus far though I’m reaching a point where I’m pretty sure I’m going to shake this up soon.
The point? I build my routines around the big money exercises without neglecting enough iso work to round everything out. I’m not one to tell others what they should do, but I really think some general version of this approach would benefit some guys who one one end are relying entirely on the big 4 and on the other work a spilt that’s more complicated than needed.
Not trying to hijack the thread but this is just like the leg extensions debate.
Hijack away there must be many exercises consigned to the scrap heap even though we all possibly are in possession of photographs of the old time pro’s making full use of them. Maybe I should have entitiled this thread the ever on going fashion merry go round or something.