Is it normal to see a huge difference in the amount of weight I can do in bicep curls with dumbells versus the machine?

I can do 30lbs with dumbells, I could most likely go up to 35's, but am without any larger dumbells.

Anyways, I can do 120lbs on the machine, and do those reasonably easy, and will be increasing next visit.

I know its going to be easier on the machine versus dumbells, but twice the amount of weight?!

It just seems weird to me.

I know its going to be easier on the machine versus dumbells, but twice the amount of weight?!

It just seems weird to me.

Seems werid to me also, what brand machine do you use? What type of curl? Preacher?

First, the body is always stronger in sympathetic lift situations. What you can curl with both arms together inevitably exceeds what you can do with one arm in isolation.

Second, a lot of machine systems use inaccurate weight measurements. The plates may say 120lbs on the plates, but there's no way to really measure what you're lifting. Many cable machines are built with a pulley system which can effectively halve the effort needed to lift a given weight. On pretty much any equipment that mkes use of pulleys, I dismiss what the numbers themselves say and just concentrate on making gains relative to the previous week's results.

As long as your progressing by increasing weight reps or both each week then thats all that matters.
A good machine will work the bicep through a better range of motion than free weights as the resistance on free weights is unilateral, so at the peak contraction which is where most fibres are recruited there is very little resistance.
You may have noticed doing a DB or BB curl its harder through the mid point of the rep and then it gets easier.
You can improve on this though by using a preacher bar but standing with your elbows resting on the edge of the bench and your upper arms vertical or past vertical if possible and then curl you will get maximum resistance in the peak contraction.
A good machine will have an offset cam setup so the resistance is almost the same throughout the range of motion.

Just to clarify, a cam does NOT keep the resistance the same throughout the ROM and that is not its purpose. A cam is just a varying radius pulley. The design is such that the resistance will be varied throughout the ROM in a pre-set fashion as the radius of the cam changes.

Glenn, you may FEEL that the resistance is the same because your body has acclimated to the particular machine and its resistance curve.

Just to clarify, a cam does NOT keep the resistance the same throughout the ROM and that is not its purpose. A cam is just a varying radius pulley. The design is such that the resistance will be varied throughout the ROM in a pre-set fashion as the radius of the cam changes.

Glenn, you may FEEL that the resistance is the same because your body has acclimated to the particular machine and its resistance curve.

I knew this post would get a bite :lol:

By definition, a pulley is circular, while a cam is more like an ellipse. The purpose of the cam is to change how heavy the weight feels (the actual weight never changes) as the lifter moves through the range of motion. Ideally, the cam varies resistance as a person naturally varies in strength.
Machines are designed to allow you to exert maximum resistance throughout the full range of movement by controlling the speed of movement.
I get a much better workout on a bicep machine than a BB or DB but that doesn't mean i dont use them.

Why did you just repeat what I said?

I think my first post wasn't understood correctly (my fault) so i thought i'd clarify further.
My point was that with a barbell curl the resistance is greater through the midpoint of the rep and very little resistance at the top.
On the machine the resistance is there from start to finish, and it has nothing to do with acclimation to a certain machine.

Actually, this all brings up an interesting point. It has never been conclusively proven that the resistance provided by a cam produces superior results to those of a barbell.

The "science" that Art Jones (which is where all of the modern HIT style proponents to include the Max-OT guy got their information from---it all started with Jones) used to validate his use of the cam was really only logical thinking and the body does not always work in the manner which seems to be the most logical.

For example, I see so many threads about how excessive momentum will optimally stimulate the involved musculature in terms of size and strength increases and so on. To this I look to Olympic lifters who have some of the most incredible erector spinae development around and nearly all they practice are explosive movements. Does this mean all muscles respond best to explosive movements? The answer is not necessarily but the muscles of the lower back certainly respond well to such movements.

Too much of what Jones and his proteges thought/think is presented as scientific fact when it is really no more than personal opinion.

Actually, this all brings up an interesting point. It has never been conclusively proven that the resistance provided by a cam produces superior results to those of a barbell.

The "science" that Art Jones (which is where all of the modern HIT style proponents to include the Max-OT guy got their information from---it all started with Jones) used to validate his use of the cam was really only logical thinking and the body does not always work in the manner which seems to be the most logical.

For example, I see so many threads about how excessive momentum will optimally stimulate the involved musculature in terms of size and strength increases and so on. To this I look to Olympic lifters who have some of the most incredible erector spinae development around and nearly all they practice are explosive movements. Does this mean all muscles respond best to explosive movements? The answer is not necessarily but the muscles of the lower back certainly respond well to such movements.

Too much of what Jones and his proteges thought/think is presented as scientific fact when it is really no more than personal opinion.

Im sure what you say is true about the olympic lifters and doing that type of lifting would certainly make an excellent base for bodybuilding however could you imagine an olympic lifter standing next to jay cutler or Ronnie coleman? or even better (IMO) Dexter Jackson who's physique looks like its been carved out.
I think they would look a bit out of place.
An opinion is a belief or judgment not founded on proof.
Scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly.
As far as Jones goes thats not only his opinion, its been put into practice by thousands of clients to make it scientific fact.
Thats not to say you can't build huge muscles with free weights, because that would be wrong.

Machine weights can be deceiving, especially for curls. On the Life Fitness curl at my gym, I work out with 165lbs, but if I picked up a preacher bar, I'd be down around 90-95 or so, I think.

Just use the numbers to gague progress, not much else.

Im sure what you say is true about the olympic lifters and doing that type of lifting would certainly make an excellent base for bodybuilding however could you imagine an olympic lifter standing next to jay cutler or Ronnie coleman? or even better (IMO) Dexter Jackson who's physique looks like its been carved out.
I think they would look a bit out of place.
An opinion is a belief or judgment not founded on proof.
Scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly.
As far as Jones goes thats not only his opinion, its been put into practice by thousands of clients to make it scientific fact.
Thats not to say you can't build huge muscles with free weights, because that would be wrong.

Any form of progressive resistance training will build size and strength.

Jones' claim that his machines work(ed) better than free weights or more efficiently than free weights has not been proven.

Tell me this, which statements of Jones' or of the Max-OT author's do you consider to be scientific fact?