Quitting Curls

Training Bodybuilding
161

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As a beginner, is just made sense to do back and biceps on the same day (even though I have trained many other ‘smaller’ body parts on “back day”). You train back first and then biceps. None of this required me to ignore “compound movements” or “isolation movements”. It was a given that ALL of it would be necessary to build a complete physique.[/quote]

It’s been so long since I’ve heard anyone mention pretty much the best split for most guys: push day, pull day, leg day - aiming for 4-5 workouts a week and keeping those workouts at 60 minutes or less. You start with big muscle groups and end the workout with smaller muscle groups.

I put on 10 pounds each year (natural and gaining nothing around my waist) for 4 consequtive years on that split. I’m not sure how one of the best slits got forgotten.

Most guys either do TBT and don’t traumiaize their muscles enough (seriously, legs 3 times a week? no way they’re training legsl like legs should be trained), or do a specialized program when they don’t have a foundation built. I think CT’s specizliation programs are great… but not for someone who hasn’t been training seriously for years.

162

Being that so many people love training arms as their favourite bodypart, some to the extension of overtraining, it’s just hard to fathom that someone would want to give up curls. Are there really that many people out there not paying enough attention to their biceps just because someone told them to just do chin-ups?

If you’re a beginner, you need to do what the more experienced trainers tell you you should do. Then, once you’ve reached a good level of development, you’ll probably know what to do to bring up certain bodyparts regardless of what a certain expert says. If a person has a great physique, how can you tell them that what they’re doing is wrong?

163

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Modi wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
if you need me to clarify, all i’m trying to say is that you minimize/limit biceps flexion IN COMPARISON to the more commonly used incorrect methods of performing back exercises.gym. but i think it’s pretty clear, now.

You are not getting it, sir. Muscles don’t flex. They contract. Joints flex and extend. You can’t sound authoritative unless you speak the language.

The acion of the biceps is FLEXION and SUPINATION. Please get off that high horse. It’s too big for you.

Get off the high horse? I like it. I can turn around and see you.

The action of the biceps is flexion…of the elbow. Your good advice is drowned out by your being a pompous ass some times.

[/quote]

You didn’t do such a good job of turning that around. The biceps still flexes…something. To throw any sort of fit as if someone is clueless about everything involving lifting weights because they write that the biceps “flexes” is just plain stupid on your part. It doesn’t make you look smart or more educated.

In fact, you come cross as another trainer trying hard to make up for any decreased progress by trying to show off what you think others will believe is your “education”. Try again.

164

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You didn’t do such a good job of turning that around. The biceps still flexes…something. To throw any sort of fit as if someone is clueless about everything involving lifting weights because they write that the biceps “flexes” is just plain stupid on your part. It doesn’t make you look smart or more educated.
In fact, you come cross as another trainer trying hard to make up for any decreased progress by trying to show off what you think others will believe is your “education”. Try again.[/quote]
First, I am a trainer, of 1. Me.
Second, no matter how you dress it, you are dead-assed wrong here. Without biasing a colleague, ask of number of them. Google it. Reference some of the textbooks you have.
I entered only because those two were bouncing back and forth, and the point that one poster wanted to make, was that of muscle activation.
I am not even sweating this part because of your glaring inaccuracy. Your personal attack doesn’t sell your argument either.
Prof, you obviously are a well educated guy. Your delivery, however, has the tact of a wrecking ball. How does one “look” smart? You are either correct or you aren’t.
Is the use of flexing referring to a muscle contraction common? Sure. Does it make it right? Not at all. I don’t see a magazine with the name contract selling.

165

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You didn’t do such a good job of turning that around. The biceps still flexes…something. To throw any sort of fit as if someone is clueless about everything involving lifting weights because they write that the biceps “flexes” is just plain stupid on your part. It doesn’t make you look smart or more educated.
In fact, you come cross as another trainer trying hard to make up for any decreased progress by trying to show off what you think others will believe is your “education”. Try again.
First, I am a trainer, of 1. Me.
Second, no matter how you dress it, you are dead-assed wrong here. Without biasing a colleague, ask of number of them. Google it. Reference some of the textbooks you have.
I entered only because those two were bouncing back and forth, and the point that one poster wanted to make, was that of muscle activation.
I am not even sweating this part because of your glaring inaccuracy. Your personal attack doesn’t sell your argument either.
Prof, you obviously are a well educated guy. Your delivery, however, has the tact of a wrecking ball. How does one “look” smart? You are either correct or you aren’t.
Is the use of flexing referring to a muscle contraction common? Sure. Does it make it right? Not at all. I don’t see a magazine with the name contract selling.

[/quote]

You can’t really think like this. I don’t think ANYONE was confused about the point he was making. You just wanted to make him look bad. It isn’t much different than nit picking the spelling of ‘here’ if someone types “hre” by accident. Yes, you have cleared up all anatomical inaccuracies by trying to make a needless spectacle of the use of “flexion” when related to a muscle belly. I am sure we all needed that lesson. If you don’t understand what is meant by someone “trying to look smart”…you aren’t very much so yourself. Excuse my wrecking ball.

166

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
<<<It’s been so long since I’ve heard anyone mention pretty much the best split for most guys: push day, pull day, leg day - aiming for 4-5 workouts a week and keeping those workouts at 60 minutes or less. You start with big muscle groups and end the workout with smaller muscle groups.>>>[/quote]

I do agree that this is a fine logical and efficient split which is why it’s pretty much what I,m working now and probably will be a for a while yet. It’s so easy for ego to push one into believing that something less basic must work better, but I’ll be doing it as long as it keeps working.

Each individual workout may vary by quite a bit as far as exercises sets and reps depending on a few things, but this basic split still works great for me.

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Whenever I am trying to bring up a lagging body part I train it more often. I have done the same for shoulders and now they stand out pretty significantly whereas they used to be much less developed in relation to everything else.

Your own ability to recover from a workout is also a factor considering some guy who takes much longer to recover shouldn’t do that. Injury prevention is another factor which comes from knowledge of the human body, knowing the difference between real pain that could lead to injury and discomfort that simply means you are working hard. The latter can be trained through.

For instance, I was doing dips last night after having trained shoulders the day before. My shoulder started hurting when I went heavier. I know the difference between minor discomfort and pain that means if I push further I won’t be able to train shoulders for weeks. Therefore, I backed off and went home instead of finishing dips as my last exercise.

As far as training frequency, possibly the only body part I wouldn’t train like that is legs because I have had knee ‘issues’ for years and training legs takes a lot out of me.

I remember for about a year me and guys I used to train with would start every training session, no matter what we were training, with pull ups. Why? because I was weak in that movement. I soon wasn’t and I never “overtrained” them.

None of these concepts are written in stone like you see so many newbies repeating…like you can’t train six days a week or that training any body part more than once leads to overtraining. Much of that is bullshit as most cases of true “overtraining” can be directly related to food intake and overall training knowledge.

Just like the guy who started this thread, you can’t expect your body to make DRASTIC changes in strength and size by barely feeding it enough to just maintain your body weight. That is possibly the most basic concept.

It is also one that too many newbies overlook because they expect to get strong and big while also losing tons of body fat as if this is some doctored DISALLOWED ad. Real life doesn’t work that way.[/quote]

I can’t believe 7 pages on biceps. Amazing. Of course curls are good if you want to build big biceps. That is not rocket science for God’s sake.

However, if you take anything away from this crazy thread, reread what the Prof wrote above. It is the essence of how to build your body up the way YOU want it built. It is a whole freaking book boiled down to a few paragraphs without all the BS added to it. Memorize the above and learn the proper form for a few exercises and you are set for life. Nothing else is needed! In 50 years I have never over-trained. I have, however, under-rested and/or under-eaten.

Kudos Prof.

168

[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
I can’t believe 7 pages on biceps. Amazing. Of course curls are good if you want to build big biceps. That is not rocket science for God’s sake.
[/quote]

I can.

After having spent far too many years reading this site, the forum in the past year or so has become full of these dumbass debates.

What is most telling, is how few posts are made by people using their experience in the gym or in the kitchen, most of these dumbass debates are by people who are just repeating something they have read. Hence why they mostly read like a back and forth between the followers of one author and the followers of another.

All the knowledge in the world cannot replace training with maximum effort in the gym and observing what works for your own body.

169

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
This is what HueyOT means… I’m not in a drawing mood but that still gives you a decent idea.

Obviously in all pulling movement there will be some elbow flexion. BUT to emphasis the back muscles you should have MORE movement at the shoulder joint and LESS movement at the elbow joint. [/quote]

that’s exactly what i’m talking about. and i’m sure i explained it very clearly. you obviously understood what i was talking about.
i think modi was just trying to bait me for a flame war.

170

[quote]Modi wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
This is what HueyOT means… I’m not in a drawing mood but that still gives you a decent idea.

Obviously in all pulling movement there will be some elbow flexion. BUT to emphasis the back muscles you should have MORE movement at the shoulder joint and LESS movement at the elbow joint.

CT, trust me, I get the concept, and was not trying to argue that point, I was questioning his comprehension of anatomical terminology. I may have misunderstood what he was trying to say. My perception was that he was in fact confusing the term flexion for activation.

That is why I started my post of with something along the lines of ‘either I don’t understand what you are trying to type, or your terminology is wrong’.

To Huey, If your original intent was to point out that less flexion at the elbow joint and therefore of the biceps would lead to greater activation of the intended muscle group (lats, rhomboids, etc.) I apologize for my harsh reaction.

If that is the case, I retract my statement, and do not wish to get into a name calling argument with you.

EDIT
PS Nice diagram by the way.[/quote]

i think it was pretty clear that you were trying to bait me in order to flame me. i didn’t use any terminology incorrectly and the points i made were very clear to anyone who actually wanted to pay attention.

171

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Modi wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
if you need me to clarify, all i’m trying to say is that you minimize/limit biceps flexion IN COMPARISON to the more commonly used incorrect methods of performing back exercises.gym. but i think it’s pretty clear, now.

You are not getting it, sir. Muscles don’t flex. They contract. Joints flex and extend. You can’t sound authoritative unless you speak the language.
[/quote]

from dictionary.com:

flex1 /flɛks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fleks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object) 1. to bend, as a part of the body: He flexed his arms to show off his muscles.
2. to tighten (a muscle) by contraction.

read the second definition. and let me say this, through the mere fact that you made this post <in which you were incorrect, as you can flex muscles… we all know that, except you apparently…> in order to try and argue semantics <again, incorrectly, embarassing yourself> shows that you’re not here to share anything. you’re just trying to troll around here.

let me guess, do you also take issue with posters who say they had a ‘really intense workout’ lifting only 60% loads?

get real, man.

172

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Modi wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
if you need me to clarify, all i’m trying to say is that you minimize/limit biceps flexion IN COMPARISON to the more commonly used incorrect methods of performing back exercises.gym. but i think it’s pretty clear, now.

You are not getting it, sir. Muscles don’t flex. They contract. Joints flex and extend. You can’t sound authoritative unless you speak the language.

The acion of the biceps is FLEXION and SUPINATION. Please get off that high horse. It’s too big for you.

Get off the high horse? I like it. I can turn around and see you.

The action of the biceps is flexion…of the elbow. Your good advice is drowned out by your being a pompous ass some times.

You didn’t do such a good job of turning that around. The biceps still flexes…something. To throw any sort of fit as if someone is clueless about everything involving lifting weights because they write that the biceps “flexes” is just plain stupid on your part. It doesn’t make you look smart or more educated.

In fact, you come cross as another trainer trying hard to make up for any decreased progress by trying to show off what you think others will believe is your “education”. Try again.[/quote]

unfortunately for him, the biceps still flex when doing curls. and ya, that’s still grammatically correct.

a lot of weird people on this site…

173

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You didn’t do such a good job of turning that around. The biceps still flexes…something. To throw any sort of fit as if someone is clueless about everything involving lifting weights because they write that the biceps “flexes” is just plain stupid on your part. It doesn’t make you look smart or more educated.
In fact, you come cross as another trainer trying hard to make up for any decreased progress by trying to show off what you think others will believe is your “education”. Try again.
First, I am a trainer, of 1. Me.
Second, no matter how you dress it, you are dead-assed wrong here. Without biasing a colleague, ask of number of them. Google it. Reference some of the textbooks you have.
I entered only because those two were bouncing back and forth, and the point that one poster wanted to make, was that of muscle activation.
I am not even sweating this part because of your glaring inaccuracy. Your personal attack doesn’t sell your argument either.
Prof, you obviously are a well educated guy. Your delivery, however, has the tact of a wrecking ball. How does one “look” smart? You are either correct or you aren’t.
Is the use of flexing referring to a muscle contraction common? Sure. Does it make it right? Not at all. I don’t see a magazine with the name contract selling.

[/quote]

you’re still wrong. muscles CAN and DO flex. a contracted muscle is a flexed muscle.

it seems to me you’re not here to contribute anything or learn anything in this thread. seems like you’re just here to jump on any inaccuracy you think you see and just run with it… next time though, pick an inacuracy that’s actually an inaccuracy, and not a WELL-KNOW synonym for the same idea.

we all know muscles flex. except you.

175

It is a colloquial use of flex. Go ahead and think what you want. Want something else to get your cyber muscles “flexed”? Anatomists cringe when using the term leg for the entire lower limb. The leg is the part between the ankle and knee. It too has become blurred. “irregardless”, it is OK. I am busier now worrying whether or not to label the defenses here a bandwagon fallacy or a argumentum ad populum.
In the interest of fun, I picked out a few people of noted authority and emailed them. Awaiting their reply.
Thank you

176

[quote]Modi wrote:
I think these beginners are doing isolation work first out of ignorance, not as a pre-exhaustion technique.

They want big arms so the train their biceps first (forgetting that there are muscles on the back side of the arm as well). And not realizing that because their biceps are fatigued, their back workout will suffer. And since their back can’t grow because they are too prefatigued to lift heavy enough weights, their bodies will only support so much arm growth.

I would much rather see the beginner hammer the compound movements and then finish off the workout with some direct arm work, rather than starting with it, or dedicating a whole day to it.

Professor X wrote:

I think it would be better if people quit using the terms “compound” and “isolation” so damn much and went back to training “big muscle groups” first and then “smaller muscle groups” last. It was a simple concept to begin with and it still is. Because people are now trying to sell books and become “leading fitness experts” we now get terms that do nothing but cause this much confusion from beginners.
[/quote]

Prof X,

I agree that you want to keep it as simple as possible for the beginners. I use the terms compound and multi-joint interchangeably. The same goes for isolation and single joint.

So if it helps a beginner to think biggest muscles to smallest and compounds to isolations, I don’t see a problem. Again, assuming that someone is not doing a pre-exhaustion technique, I would recommend that they train their compound movement first (bench press, shoulder press, pullup, etc) and then do their isolations afterwards (flyes, shoulder raises, pullovers, etc).

I also refer to most direct arm work as isolation exercises, since they are single joint exercises.

I’m assuming that you agree with the principle just not the use of the terminology?

177

As it turns out, I never did quit the curls although I lightened up on them a bit. But anyways, my main focus is still the same…

to gain strength while gaining as little extra mass as possible.

Now I’ve read from several folks that this is nearly impossible to do. So the next logical question is if I increase calories so that my muscle mass starts going up as well as fat mass, then in the next stage how do I go about losing the fat without losing the new muscle?

178

[quote]GhostNtheSystem wrote:
As it turns out, I never did quit the curls although I lightened up on them a bit. But anyways, my main focus is still the same…

to gain strength while gaining as little extra mass as possible.

Now I’ve read from several folks that this is nearly impossible to do. So the next logical question is if I increase calories so that my muscle mass starts going up as well as fat mass, then in the next stage how do I go about losing the fat without losing the new muscle?[/quote]

Gain more muscle. Put more Mitochondria in your body’s cells with sprinting interval based workouts and high-rep burnout sets that will not make you significantly stronger but will better your V0-2 max and speed up your metabolism.

Are you just bodybuilding or is your training directed at a sport?

Are you doing assisted dips where you only apply a force of 135 or are you doing weighted dips with 135 on the belt?

179

[quote]SkinnySwimmer wrote:
GhostNtheSystem wrote:
As it turns out, I never did quit the curls although I lightened up on them a bit. But anyways, my main focus is still the same…

to gain strength while gaining as little extra mass as possible.

Now I’ve read from several folks that this is nearly impossible to do. So the next logical question is if I increase calories so that my muscle mass starts going up as well as fat mass, then in the next stage how do I go about losing the fat without losing the new muscle?

Gain more muscle. Put more Mitochondria in your body’s cells with sprinting interval based workouts and high-rep burnout sets that will not make you significantly stronger but will better your V0-2 max and speed up your metabolism.

Are you just bodybuilding or is your training directed at a sport?

Are you doing assisted dips where you only apply a force of 135 or are you doing weighted dips with 135 on the belt?[/quote]

My main goal is athletic strength for gymnastics. I want to be able to do iron crosses, planches, etc… strength moves where both strength and body weight are important.

I’m doing weighted dips with 135lbs on the weight belt. My dip strength is pretty decent although it still needs to be higher for the planche I think.

180

[quote]GhostNtheSystem wrote:
SkinnySwimmer wrote:
GhostNtheSystem wrote:
As it turns out, I never did quit the curls although I lightened up on them a bit. But anyways, my main focus is still the same…

to gain strength while gaining as little extra mass as possible.

Now I’ve read from several folks that this is nearly impossible to do. So the next logical question is if I increase calories so that my muscle mass starts going up as well as fat mass, then in the next stage how do I go about losing the fat without losing the new muscle?

Gain more muscle. Put more Mitochondria in your body’s cells with sprinting interval based workouts and high-rep burnout sets that will not make you significantly stronger but will better your V0-2 max and speed up your metabolism.

Are you just bodybuilding or is your training directed at a sport?

Are you doing assisted dips where you only apply a force of 135 or are you doing weighted dips with 135 on the belt?

My main goal is athletic strength for gymnastics. I want to be able to do iron crosses, planches, etc… strength moves where both strength and body weight are important.

I’m doing weighted dips with 135lbs on the weight belt. My dip strength is pretty decent although it still needs to be higher for the planche I think.

[/quote]

I think you should visit the Cross-Fit website if you haven’t yet.