curls...what exercise is best?

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

pdellorto
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by pdellorto » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:40 pm

hoosegow wrote:I still say you'd be better of squatting.
Squats and curls will beat just curls, for sure. Will squats alone beat squats and curls? Not sure it matters...people always find a way to fit in curls. :)

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:49 pm

Haha I'm the opposite, I try to fit in squats into my other routines. Like today, I did 3 sets of 135x20 as a polisher to my bench routine.

hari
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:40 am
Location: Osaka

Post by hari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:57 pm

I'd squat.
I know that the Squat will trigger the release of testosterone & growth hormone in your body.But it cant hit to the biceps.

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:07 pm

Squats trigger your body to grow overall. Isn't the number something like 10lbs muscle = 1 inch on the arms?

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:23 pm

You got it brook. I almost never curl. They are almost a waste of time. See, I said almost. If curling was such a great exercise, how come you don't see all these guys running around with massive arms? I think we can all agree that curls are probably the most frequently performed exercise in the gym. So where are all the big "gunned" guys out there?

Biceps are a minor muscle and it is hard to stimulate growth by "isolating" it. I swear I'm going to start a "I read it file" one of these days. Your biceps are going to grow by stimulating your other "big" muscles. What better way to do that than by squatting? You are going to generate more HGH and T from squatting which will cause your biceps to grow from stimuli from other lifts.

I'm being a little simplistic by saying just squat. Others have said rows, chins, etc. are better exercises than curls and I agree. My point is, if you want big biceps, don't curl. Hit your big compound lift or O lifts and your biceps will grow.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:00 pm

OK, Hoose--time to post a picture of your gunz.

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:12 pm

I like the way deadlifts work the arms honestly, like big meaty ropes haha. I honestly think my arm sizes biggest limiting factor right now is my forearms. And theres nothing wrong with curls, just realize that if youre a beginner, you shouldn't be doing em. You're going to reach a limit pretty quickly where you can't support what your arms need to stimulate em. I hate seeing people airhump as they try to swing the curl up.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Fri May 01, 2009 3:48 am

Hoose may have oversimplified it a bit, but just due to the fact that squats and dead suse the most amount of muscle, brutally hard, has the effect of the mega release of hormones, etc that cause the body to get larger in general to compensate. If you're doing supplemental work, such as presses, rows, chins etc, the addition of squats and deads will only make for larger upperbody growth as well.
Tim

KPj
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am

Post by KPj » Fri May 01, 2009 4:16 am

I think it was Charles Poliquin, or someone, that said, "to gain an inch in your arms you need to add 10lbs of mass to your body" - that's not an exact quote, but the point is the same. It may have been over 10lbs, too. However, the point is, your arms won't grow significantly if you're not gaining mass 'overall', and the best way to gain mass overall is to prioritise the big lifts, and eat lots. Another way of understanding that is, if you could make one particluar muscle really big without training the rest of your muscles, then you would see all sorts of freaks going around. You would see guys with one huge forarm,for example, and the rest of him would look untrained. There would be loads of documentaries with people with all sorts of bizarre muscle development.

KPj

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Fri May 01, 2009 5:34 am

You want the 40 cals, 223, 7 mag, 243, 06, 7.62, 7.08, 32, 380, 22, 357 or one of the many guages?

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Fri May 01, 2009 8:20 am

hoosegow wrote:You want the 40 cals, 223, 7 mag, 243, 06, 7.62, 7.08, 32, 380, 22, 357 or one of the many guages?
The bigger the better!

pdellorto
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by pdellorto » Fri May 01, 2009 8:26 am

hoosegow wrote:You want the 40 cals, 223, 7 mag, 243, 06, 7.62, 7.08, 32, 380, 22, 357 or one of the many guages?
If you have to measure your gunz in millimeters, I don't think the OP is going to abandon curls for squats, Hoose. Not even with "magnum" after the number. :grin:

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Fri May 01, 2009 8:48 am

Oh, you want the big guns. My misunderstanding. I do have a 120 MM tank round but that is only 14.84" in circumference - not quiet an accurate portrayal. :wink:

Actually, I like mm better. I have 514 mm guns.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Fri May 01, 2009 9:26 am

A 514 m bore would have a circumference of 63". You're my hero.

Image

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Fri May 01, 2009 10:05 am

No no stuward, circumference is 514. Hell, I wish my chest was 63".

Damn I'm all math confused now.

Post Reply