I know I'm going to get some heat for posting this but I just wanted to hear the insight on this topic. It seems like everyone bashes the kickbacks and I am curious as to why. From the movement aspect of the exercise, it seems like they are almost the same as the extensions except you are in different positions? Hopefully, I'll get at least one honest response to every 10 wise remarks. Thanks.
If you can use more weight on an exercise, it’s a better choice. That’s also why dips and close grip bench presses are better than extensions.
I dunno could be that the kickback is a completely unfunctional and light weight exercise.
There is nothing wrong with kickbacks.
Do them all.
It’s gonna give you long, lean, unbulky muscle…but only if you do them on a swiss ball for functional core activation.
i don’t do them because the only people i see do them are girls and guys smaller then me
If you can use more weight on an exercise, it’s a better choice.[/quote]
The arms are in the same anatomical position in comparison to the torso on both exercises. Go with the one that allows you to push more weight.
When I was younger a friend of mine had big triceps. I asked him what he did to get them so big. He told me he did kick backs.
So, I did kick backs and my triceps got bigger, go figure???
Kickbacks would be fine, as long as you do some heavy triceps work before-hand.
^ what he said, I guess they are good to really trash your triceps on an “arms” day. But their are so many movement that use the triceps I rarely find a spot for a real isolation movement like kickbacks. The most isolation I do right now is a tate press from a complete stop. fucking brutal.