i heard larry csonka was the only running back ever to get a personal foul while running the ball, or so i have heard.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Some of this might be true but this was posted in a the bodybuilding section not the strength sports section. I happen to love preacher curls. So does Larry Scott and Charles Poliquin. Regular curls make my biceps look like shit.
I’ve been doing hamstring curls for years and never had a problem.
how do barbell curls make the biceps look like shit?
[/quote]
When I switched to preacher curls they developed into a nicer shape with a better peak. I switched back to normal curls for a bit, retained size but lost the peak. After years of experimenting with different exercises, I decided to just stick with preacher curls as my main biceps exercise. Its some thing I’ve noticed over the years. My biceps are one of my less gifted areas. Same with my quads.
Some people do great with regular curls but they usually have a better natural peak. I actually enjoy doing regular curls more. Some guys are the same with squats vs leg press. A lot of bodybuilders feel the leg press working their quads more and they totally ditch squats. After seeing their physique, you can’t argue with them. Now as far as functionality, squats are superior IMO.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< Good luck on the chest,shoulders and triceps workout. I did triceps pushdowns today and so far no catastrophes have befallen me, so you’ll probably be okay. 
>>>[/quote]
Pushdowns, overhead high cable extensions and drop sets of eccentric low cable upright/lateral raise thingys. Near as I can tell I’ll pull through.
[quote]Hagar wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Some of this might be true but this was posted in a the bodybuilding section not the strength sports section. I happen to love preacher curls. So does Larry Scott and Charles Poliquin. Regular curls make my biceps look like shit.
I’ve been doing hamstring curls for years and never had a problem.
how do barbell curls make the biceps look like shit?
When I switched to preacher curls they developed into a nicer shape with a better peak. I switched back to normal curls for a bit, retained size but lost the peak. After years of experimenting with different exercises, I decided to just stick with preacher curls as my main biceps exercise. Its some thing I’ve noticed over the years. My biceps are one of my less gifted areas. Same with my quads.
Some people do great with regular curls but they usually have a better natural peak. I actually enjoy doing regular curls more. Some guys are the same with squats vs leg press. A lot of bodybuilders feel the leg press working their quads more and they totally ditch squats. After seeing their physique, you can’t argue with them. Now as far as functionality, squats are superior IMO. [/quote]
i can agree there and its all prefrence and gentetic makeup. i do better w/ barbell curls but my bicep are one of my stronger points and i do have a pretty nice peak. I do do variations like the preacher from time to time but barbell has been the way for me.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
i do better w/ barbell curls but my bicep are one of my stronger points and i do have a pretty nice peak.[/quote]
You bastard.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Some of this might be true but this was posted in a the bodybuilding section not the strength sports section. I happen to love preacher curls. So does Larry Scott and Charles Poliquin. Regular curls make my biceps look like shit.
I’ve been doing hamstring curls for years and never had a problem.
how do barbell curls make the biceps look like shit?
[/quote]
tapered at the ends and thicker in the middle?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I think the key phrase here is “too much”. I am not arguing that compounds are important, nor am I advocating doing only isolation work, or even building a program with isolation work as the foundation. But, to suggest that isolation work isn’t productive isn’t an accurate statement either.
As far as the free weight debate, I’m all for free weights where applicable and safe. But, to suggest that building strength with machines won’t improve performance isn’t necessarily true.
Probably the best example that I know of to date of athletes using only machines for their strength training and still getting some damn good results is the case of the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
From 1971-1973 the Dolphins performed all of their strength work with legendary bodybuilding coach Arthur Jones (the inventor of nautilus and one of the first if not the first proponent of HIT training). If you don’t already know, in 1972 the Dolphins became the only NFL team to EVER go undefeated since the invention of the Super bowl.
Now, might they have had some fantastic talent on that team? Oh hell yeah. But, have there been teams since then that also had tremendous talent? Yes. Does the fact that they trained with Jones automatically mean that it was this detail that allowed them to go undefeated? Possibly, but not necessarily.
It does however provide some pretty damn strong evidence that strength training with machines at the very least does not hinder performance on the field, and quite possibly (if done correctly) improves it.
Good training,
Sentoguy[/quote]
Maybe, but understand that there’s a difference between optimal and “okay.”
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
<<< It does however provide some pretty damn strong evidence that strength training with machines at the very least does not hinder performance on the field, and quite possibly (if done correctly) improves it.
Good training,
Sentoguy
Maybe, but understand that there’s a difference between optimal and “okay.”
[/quote]
OK, but this doesn’t have to be a debate anymore, actually I’m still trying to figure out why it ever had to be.
Sports performance training is different than physique/bodybuilding/fitness training, yes fitness does belong here. Most people training for so called fitness DO care how they look and the average trainee with a physique emphasis DOES care how long they live and how well they are while doing it.
What is the issue here? If competitive sports, including strength sports is your thing then train that way and it may or may not include smaller movements at all.
If training for size, appearance and overall health go ahead and skip the isos. When you show up next year asking about your small-ish arms, calves and possibly shoulders to go with your less than stellar abs we’ll help you out. If you’re happy with your progress then whoopee for you. I don’t get why this has to be endlessly debated, not that I necessarily mind debating it, but why?
For the record I don’t believe most folks need very much smaller movement work anyway, but why avoid it altogether? Like Sentoguy said earlier, it’s like some guys harbor a self righteous eliteness by being able to say they don’t do curls.
I do take issue with your statement about isos leading to smallish arms, calves, and shoulders.
I’m 5’8 191 at ~14% from nothing but bench variations, squats, deadlifts, lunges, military presses, push presses, cleans, pull ups, dips, and rows.
There is no debate. Isolation exercises are reserved for either an addition to a program, or for bodybuilders looking to balance out specific body parts.
The thing is, you don’t NEED isos to look good, while I would say that you do need compound movements to look good.
And let’s not forget about beginners who just walk into the gym and do curls and bench press. That’s really what they do; that or follow Arnold’s program. Those are the people who need to really be using compound movements rather than like an even dose of compound and iso movements. IF it’s even that balanced. I’ve seen people who need basic strength performing like 75% of their gym work with isolation exercises.
So yeah, I guess it is a debate. The debate only exists because we know isolation exercises exist and big guys doing them exist.
It confuses the newb.
--------Interesting anecdote:
I decided not to really do much isolation work until I achieved a 500 lb deadlift, a 300 lb bench, and a 350 lb squat. I did curls here and there, some low back/hamstring work, but that’s about it. But now having achieved those numbers I feel that adding in the isolation stuff is really helping my big 3 strength, and I’m looking more aesthetic all the while.
The debate is not about “If isolation movements work” but it’s about “should you be doing them, and if so, how much?”
I think a lot of this comes down to what context people are viewing things from. A lot of people on this site will say you don’t need isolation movements to look good/ perform good. Well hell, good to me might be great to someone else. Or we might be talking about totally differnet things to begin with but never say it. Using my average bear stats I’m 5’8 205ish and lean enough to see my abs on a good day. I want to look like a bodybuilder(I feel like I’m introducing myself at an AA meeting. Hi I’m Scott and well I’m a bodybuilder).
To most people I’m “good enough” to me I’m just getting started. If you want to be a freak or someone who people know(they don’t need to ask) bodybuilds and you think you are going to get those 18+ inch arms without doing any curls you better have top of the line biceps genetics. If you want to be fit or look in shape, no curls and the like might not be totally necessary for you. I’d love to see people start some of these posts with, well I am a bodybuilder, I want the best arms my genetics will allow, this is why I do curls. Or I’m training for MMA and curls aren’t totally necessary for my discipline. Insead we sometimes get one guy yelling “CURLS!!!” and the other guy yelling " NO CURLS!!!" but if they spoke their minds fully about where they were coming from and why they might just agree in the end.
This obviously isn’t just about curls, but they are a common argument point in this debate so I’m using only them as an example. Some people never need to train calves and have cows, others need to focus on them or else they will be stick on bone. Some people get good lateral delts strictly from pressing and pulling, etc etc etc.
So my thoughts, I need some isolation exercises to fill in the areas that don’t get hit properly with the compounds. 90% of my size is built by presses and pulls and the like, but I want to get 100% development, not 90.
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
And let’s not forget about beginners who just walk into the gym and do curls and bench press. [/quote]
I believe this is the reason the debate has reached these proportions in the first place. The anti-isolation movement seems like some kind of backlash against the trend of training only the ‘beach muscles’.
Why eliminate a potentially useful tool altogether just because some lazy or ill-informed individuals rely too extensively on that tool?
Why try to distinguish yourself from that group by dismissing certain exercises categorically when, assuming you are doing everything ‘right’ yourself, you should stand out by your progress, be it physique or strength levels, anyway?
Lastly, what harm would it do even for a performance oriented athlete to do a few sets of curls at the end of his workout when it can’t interfere with his more important exercises and obviously won’t do much in the way of prolonging recovery time? Do you really believe it will make you slow? Make you more prone to injuries? Make you ‘non-functional’ because your biceps looks better aesthetically, something I guess even a performance oriented athlete would endorse?
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
The debate is not about “If isolation movements work” but it’s about “should you be doing them, and if so, how much?”[/quote]
If they work, then why shouldnt you be doing them?
[quote]Hagar wrote:
Many isolation exercises are basic for bodybuilding.[/quote]
This pretty much should have ended the thread. haha
Beyond the realm of bodybuilding, who do you think would be a more dominant athlete…
The one who only squats
Or the one who squats, and does leg curls, leg extensions, and calf raises?
This should be common sense.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Some of this might be true but this was posted in a the bodybuilding section not the strength sports section. I happen to love preacher curls. So does Larry Scott and Charles Poliquin. Regular curls make my biceps look like shit.
I’ve been doing hamstring curls for years and never had a problem.
how do barbell curls make the biceps look like shit?
tapered at the ends and thicker in the middle?[/quote]
Thicker at the lower part towards the elbow. Not so developed in the middle upper section. For some reason I feel the preacher curls working the upper part more.
I used to think that isolation movements were a waste of time for a beginner, and that one should completely focus on compounds for most of the time. I would red a Chad Waterbury article lamenting on the horridness of isolation exercises and how they are the work of the devil…
Until finally I just said ‘fuck it’, and now I do direct arm work.
And you know what? I really enjoy a few sets of Pushdowns or curls at the end of a gruelling workout. It just feels good, and to be honest, I don’t believe I am going to ‘overtrain’ myself horribly.
I think people just tend to over-think this stuff called weightlifting. There’s a very fine line between science and just brutal, hard work here. I don’t believe men of the past fretted so much about whether that set of curls after his squats would some how make his arms shrink.
The result? Big arms.
This topic is original and exciting.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I used to think that isolation movements were a waste of time for a beginner, and that one should completely focus on compounds for most of the time. I would red a Chad Waterbury article lamenting on the horridness of isolation exercises and how they are the work of the devil…
[/quote]
I think this is why so many people on this site are against isolation movements. I’ve seen pictures of Chad Waterbury and I’m not a fan of his physique what so ever. Why would anyone take bodybuilding advice from this guy?
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
<<< The debate is not about “If isolation movements work” but it’s about “should you be doing them, and if so, how much?”[/quote]
I view it from the other direction. Should you avoid them? If so, why? I have never read or spoken to a single person with more than 15 minutes of lifting time argue that smaller movements should make up the foundational basis and hence the majority of anybody,s work. At least not until they are VERY large and competition may be on the horizon.
Kids working chest and biceps should never even be mentioned where that could be misconstrued as representing in any way proponents of split training and or smaller movements. THAT could mislead noobs.
My very simple point is, if someone wants big arms for instance, WHY NOT do a few sets of arm targeted exercises to support the work they get from the big movements. WHY NOT? it isn’t an earth shattering decision. There’s some appropriate equipment sitting over there, pick the shit up or grab the handle and do a few sets IF you want to. If not fine.
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
Maybe, but understand that there’s a difference between optimal and “okay.”
[/quote]
Honestly, what is more optimal than perfection? The example that I mentioned resulted in the single most dominant, flawless, and successful NFL season OF ALL TIME. Tell me, how is that not the definition of optimal?
And yes, that’s only one example. Once again, I’m not making the suggestion that all athletic teams should switch to doing HIT on Nautilus machines if they want to optimize their performance (though it would be an interesting experiment). All I’m saying is that strength is functional. The way that you go about gaining that strength isn’t as important as the strength gained itself.
Now, as Tribulus stated this thread is in the Bodybuilding forum, so brining up performance based sports is a little off topic and not really all that relevant. From a bodybuilding perspective, then unless you are an absolute genetic freak (and even then I doubt it, I believe both Wheeler and Dillet did isos and they had about as good of genetics as bodybuilding has ever seen), you’re going to need to do at least some isolations exercises if you ever want to reach your potential.
Good training,
Sentoguy
questions and even responses need to be posed with somewhat of a detailed context provided.
myself, I’m intrigued by what some are saying about the point (below) regarding the possible negative aspects of some isolation exercises. I have no problem incorporating some isolations into my programs…mainly biceps at the end of a work-out.
because I’m not trying to compete in the body-building world and my goals are mostly towards overall health and fitness, and recreational sports, I am concerned with that point about the muscle fibers being trained to mis-fire. the points about isolations making you weak or slow I could care less about and don’t necessarily agree with, anyway. But, guys like cosgrove and remedios have mentioned this concept of muscles being trained to fire inappropriately when isolated. For this reason, and since I don’t require peaky biceps, the preacher is out for me. The leg extensions/curls have been out for a while, anyway, but definitely would’ve been dumped after learning of this possibility (mis-firing). Is it highly probable that injuries will be more prevalent or the efficiency of the muscles will be hindered if one does these exercises? No way to really know. but, with my goals being what they are, it makes it easy to make an informed decision regarding my training program. and hell, I seen rich franklin (on tv) training the hell out of his legs wiff leg curls and extensions…and we know how he’s been faring of late. haha.