I think we can basically agree on the same thing and are argueing semantics. It is what makes this forum fun.
FWIW, I'm not looking my nose down on those who do curls. Where we disagree is the point that I think it is completely unnecessary. I'm estimating these numbers and using my bro-science perogative here, but here is what I'm basically saying. If you do nothing but compound lifts in a year you will get X% growth on your arms. If you do nothing but isolation work, you will get Y% growth with Y being significantly less than X. If you do both, the result will be X plus a small amount. For example and these are just made up numbers.
X + isolation work + 21% growth
For most people - EXPECIALLY for beginners, that little extra is just not necessary.
lol, wat? If you are after MAXIMUM growth, then do your compounds first, then the isolation stuff after to finish off the bits that don't get trained maximally from the compounds. So do your rows, chins whatever, then curls after. That'll ensure everything is getting worked to the same degree and you won't end up with lagging bodyparts. That applies to beginners, advanced trainees and everything in between.
On a side note, as I've stated several times - chemical engineering throws everything out the window. If I do nothing but steroids and curls, my arms will be huge.
this is getting very silly now. There is no difference between how natural and enhanced bodybuilders train. None. They ALL do curls.
Lastly, I will throw this opinion out there - body builders arms look bigger because they are more defined.
off season anyone? Such nonsense.
Powerlifters arms just look big because they're fat.