If you're doing benchpress, military press, barbell rows, and deadlifts, are bicep curls and tricep extensions really necessary? Benchpress works your triceps, barbell rows work your biceps, and military press/deadlifts may work either/or, I'm not sure.

No....unless you're trying to get pretty.

But I'd try and throw some Chins into the mix....or pulldowns of various types if you can't Chin.

They can be effective if your biceps or triceps are the limiting factor in your lifts, but changes are if you're a beginner they are not.

Yes, isolation exercises isolate the muscle you are trying to work. Leaving out isolation exercises is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. :cool:

Yes, isolation exercises isolate the muscle you are trying to work. Leaving out isolation exercises is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. :cool:

Right, but will that actually help my compound movements? Will doing bicep curls help my barbell row?

Right, but will that actually help my compound movements? Will doing bicep curls help my barbell row?

they might when you strengthen your biceps by using a direct exercise for them like the curl. Rows aren't for building biceps they are for your lats. That is why you should use an underhand grip in a bent-over row so your biceps are in their strongest postion and do curls so the biceps don't hold back your rows by being weak.:tucool:

You can be pretty and strong.

If you're doing benchpress, military press, barbell rows, and deadlifts, are bicep curls and tricep extensions really necessary?

Not unless you have cosmetic goals.

Leaving out isolation exercises is like...

...doing big compound exercises instead.

Right, but will that actually help my compound movements? Will doing bicep curls help my barbell row?

Hardly at all. Your row should be well over twice what you can curl on a bar. (For example Dorian Yates' site gives his heavy curl set as 8x140# and his heavy row set as 8-10x375#).

The biceps help with some rowing movements, but it's usually just assistance. The upper back dominates most rowing movements by a large margin.

Hardly at all. Your row should be well over twice what you can curl on a bar. (For example Dorian Yates' site gives his heavy curl set as 8x140# and his heavy row set as 8-10x375#).

The biceps help with some rowing movements, but it's usually just assistance. The upper back dominates most rowing movements by a large margin.

Yes, my row is over twice my curl. I'm just going to stop doing arms and tricep extensions for now, try to focus on compound movements.

Yes, my row is over twice my curl. I'm just going to stop doing arms and tricep extensions for now, try to focus on compound movements.

...and you'll add chins too, right? :D

Hevy ain't kiddin' on that score. Chins will build up some powerful biceps. They'll also help your rows and deads.

Not unless you have cosmetic goals.
A well-rounded program ought to consider functional strength and aesthetics. The majority of people find this forum with the goal of aesthetic enhancement at the outset, and isolation exercises can play a part in that.

It's hardly worth the time it takes to post to this thread to debate. I find that one hard drop-set a week (or 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps) is all that's required. Why debate over a few sets of bicep curls that would require no more than six or eight minutes to complete per week?

Do them. Or don't. Depends on your goal.

-R

Big compounds first. Blow them out. Then, if you want, shift to isolation exercises.

I have added only one set of isolations in my entire lifting program (curls). This is because my triceps are getting plenty of work from my chest workout, but I seem to still have some juice left in my biceps after my back workout. Maybe I need to push a bit harder on my back ...

A well-rounded program ought to consider functional strength and aesthetics.

I don't think that's necessary. If it's your thing, go ahead. But in reality, programs only need to take health into account. Everything after that is elective. Different people are going to want to do different things.

I don't think that's necessary. If it's your thing, go ahead. But in reality, programs only need to take health into account. Everything after that is elective. Different people are going to want to do different things.
You seem to have missed my point somehow...

The majority of people find this forum with the goal of aesthetic enhancement at the outset, and isolation exercises can play a part in that.

...

Do them. Or don't. Depends on your goal.

-R

I don't think that's necessary. If it's your thing, go ahead. But in reality, programs only need to take health into account. Everything after that is elective. Different people are going to want to do different things.

Health? Define that. Do you expect to live longer because of something you are doing? Will it prevent cancer or sudden heart attacks? Infections or viruses?

Don't get me wrong, I think you might feel better while you are alive and if you do the right exercises look better, also. Do you really think what you are doing in a gym will increase your life span by more then a few years at most. I am afraid most of us have a clock ticking in us that determines life span.

You seem to have missed my point somehow...

Let me clarify. When you say:

The majority of people find this forum with the goal of aesthetic enhancement at the outset, and isolation exercises can play a part in that.

Most people find this forum with a goal of losing weight or fat. The Fat Loss/Cutting forum has more posts than any other forum other than the Fitness Journals forum. I also think most of the people who find this forum are essentially beginners with goals that are not clearly formed. For these people curls are not really that useful and can be safely ignored until they have advanced in the basic lifts past the beginner stage. It's not uncommon to see people show up here who want to lose twenty pounds or more. It is uncommon for someone in that situation to need curls for aesthetics. In fact, until you are advanced enough that curls can be metabolically significant, curls could be a waste of time if you need to cut a lot.

On the other hand, basic pulling exercises such as rows, pullups, and pulldowns, should be a staple for every healthy lifter. No matter what shape you are in, you can benefit from these.

My rough rule of thumb is until you can row your bodyweight for say, 6 reps (with or without grip assist), curls are mostly decorations in a workout program.

By the way curls aren't magically effective either. I actually do curls to make my trainers happy. I have slighlty under 16" arms. My brother the powerlifter does no direct biceps work, weighs 50 pounds less than me (he likes to be lean), and still has bigger arms. Now because he's my brother he is already genetically similar to me, but there are four of us brothers. And two of them are taller and leaner without the tremendous leg strength or ability to gain muscle easily, and my brother the powerlifter and I are shorter, thicker, and gain muscle very easily. So my brother the powerlifter and I are probably genetically a lot closer than the simple 50% trait sharing of brothers. I am working out a little harder than he is these past few years (he retired from competition a while ago), and I DO direct biceps work and he avoided it, so why is it that he is the only guy in the family ever to have really big arms? And he wasn't born with the big arms. Before he was a power lifter he was a High School wrestler with thin arms. I just chalk it up to his twenty years of big compounds compared to my four years even though I have done direct biceps work. We probably both have slowly growing arms, and so the many years of working out counts for more than changes in exercise choice or program.

Health? Define that. Do you expect to live longer because of something you are doing? Will it prevent cancer or sudden heart attacks? Infections or viruses?

Actually yes, the evidence is that longevity is increased a bit for people who exercise as opposed to people who don't. I have provided you evidence of this before, and even just recently. You still don't seem to be convinced, which is fine with me. But other people reading this should know that the evidence is that longevity is increased by exercise.

Also worth keeping in mind is that the increase in longevity is not that big for most people. For some people (those who are otherwise scheduled to get coronary artery disease, etc.) the increase in longevity is huge. But that is not most of the population. Overall, healthy exercise does extend life, but on average it's a few years, not decades.

The main reason to exercise for health is the improved quality of life. Although the risk of death has a certain dread fascination, it is actually more important in my mind to maintain the quality of life as much as it is to prolong it. And for this there is a lot more evidence of the health benefits of exercise. All sorts of things improve with exercise. There are lots of conditions people suffer from that aren't going to kill them. Back pain is a big one there - and many of the people who suffer from back pain can benefit from exercise. Osteoporosis, sarcopenia, metabolic syndrome, mental health, sleep problems - all can be positively effected by exercise. About the only thing that can rival exercise for health benefit is nutrition. Exercise is better than grandma's lyesoap.

When you mean bicep curls are just for cosmetics you mean it doesnt help you overall but it is just to show off how big your biceps can be? which is one of the things that girls/beginners look at... either the abs/flexed biceps.

Yes, isolation exercises isolate the muscle you are trying to work. Leaving out isolation exercises is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. :cool:

I couldn't agree more.

Actually yes, the evidence is that longevity is increased a bit for people who exercise as opposed to people who don't. I have provided you evidence of this before, and even just recently. You still don't seem to be convinced, which is fine with me. But other people reading this should know that the evidence is that longevity is increased by exercise.

Also worth keeping in mind is that the increase in longevity is not that big for most people. For some people (those who are otherwise scheduled to get coronary artery disease, etc.) the increase in longevity is huge. But that is not most of the population. Overall, healthy exercise does extend life, but on average it's a few years, not decades.

The main reason to exercise for health is the improved quality of life. Although the risk of death has a certain dread fascination, it is actually more important in my mind to maintain the quality of life as much as it is to prolong it. And for this there is a lot more evidence of the health benefits of exercise. All sorts of things improve with exercise. There are lots of conditions people suffer from that aren't going to kill them. Back pain is a big one there - and many of the people who suffer from back pain can benefit from exercise. Osteoporosis, sarcopenia, metabolic syndrome, mental health, sleep problems - all can be positively effected by exercise. About the only thing that can rival exercise for health benefit is nutrition. Exercise is better than grandma's lyesoap.


Zen, I missed your response to me in the cardio forum, it was sent two days later, I thought you missed my question or ignored it. I suppose I am going to have look up those epidemiological studies, he referred to. He seems to not do any original research but only suggest what others might say. I will try to find out what that 35% and 27% and 31% really mean and how it was measured.

Yes, exercise is good, and I keep in the back of my mind that it would make sense that it was good for our health. I just don't have any proof to my satisfaction. I will continue to exercise as I have done for over 50 years. I will smile and say I do it for the looks, if it increases my longevity that is icing on the cake.

I will mix up my single-joint and my multiple-joint exercises because I know they both build muscles. Even if you do chins, the effect on the bicep is diluted compared to the effect on the lats. You will get more directed work on the bicep muscle with curls. I would suggest others checked with exrx.net (http://exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html) to see what muscles are affected by the exercise and in what manner.

which is one of the things that girls/beginners look at... either the abs/flexed biceps.I don't know about anyone else, but the first things I notice about the way a person looks is a good tall posture that comes with a strong back.

Bodybuilders do bicep curls, so I doubt they're completely useless.

Zen, I missed your response to me in the cardio forum, it was sent two days later, I thought you missed my question or ignored it. I suppose I am going to have look up those epidemiological studies, he referred to. He seems to not do any original research but only suggest what others might say. I will try to find out what that 35% and 27% and 31% really mean and how it was measured.

Yes, exercise is good, and I keep in the back of my mind that it would make sense that it was good for our health. I just don't have any proof to my satisfaction. I will continue to exercise as I have done for over 50 years. I will smile and say I do it for the looks, if it increases my longevity that is icing on the cake.

I will mix up my single-joint and my multiple-joint exercises because I know they both build muscles. Even if you do chins, the effect on the bicep is diluted compared to the effect on the lats. You will get more directed work on the bicep muscle with curls. I would suggest others checked with exrx.net (http://exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html) to see what muscles are affected by the exercise and in what manner.

As far as that study goes, that is what is called a "meta-analysis". That's when someone decides to propose a rigorous methodological examination of the existing literature to see if when you pool the data of many experiments, you can accumulate the evidence to get a clearer answer than you might get from any single study.

Now there are a lot of rules about how to do a meta-analysis, otherwise you could just pick the studies by their results, to pretend to support whatever bias you have. So in order for a meta-analysis to be useful, they have criteria for what study methodology will be included. Then they have to be able to combine the data of the studies that are included in a way that accurately reflects the evidence in the studies. When people originally started the idea of a meta-analysis it was with the idea that you might get enough statistical significance by using all the evidence in cases where nobody was able to do a big enough study for any one of them to be significant.

You can get an idea by considering the following example. You watch people play at a craps table, and you want to know if the dice are loaded. If you wait until it's your turn to shoot, and only consider your rolls, you might not get enough data to tell. But if you go over to the bar and ask the previous twenty shooters what rolls they got, you can have a better chance of telling. You might choose to only take into account the rolls of the shooters who have had less than three drinks at the bar, or to exclude the guy who didn't keep track of his rolls. But it turns out to avoid bias, you probably want to decide what you are going to include and exclude BEFORE you interview them. Otherwise you are at risk of including people who got one sort of result and biasing your ultimate estimate. But the main point is that even though no single one of those shooters might have had enough rolls to tell on their own if the dice were loaded, by combining their results, you might have a much better chance of getting a useful result.

The other really popular thing about meta-analyses is that they cost a whole lot less to do than the original experiments, and there is pretty much no need to get them reviewed for ethics, etc. I'm not being crass about that either - if you can honestly answer a research question in the library then that is where you should do it.

As far as that study goes, that is what is called a "meta-analysis". . Yeh, I have been to school before and reseve the right to decide if I think a study is good or bad. I would like to see what the studies say. But, thank you for responding. on that.

Isolation exercises are not necessary by any stretch, but they can be helpful.


A well-rounded program ought to consider functional strength and aesthetics.

Totally disagree. If a person's goal is functional strength, then that person doesn't, by default, have a program that is not "well-rounded" if he/she neglects aesthetic considerations.

Since you describe yourself as "not sure", here's a novel idea:

If you have been doing the bicep curls and tricep extensions, lay off them for 6-8 weeks and see if you like the results.

If you haven't been doing the bicep curls and tricep extensions, give them a try for 6-8 weeks and see if you like the results.

This way you'll really know if they are worth it for you, and not just doing what someone else finds beneficial for them.

In between deads, rows, bench press, dips, chinups, pullups and pulldowns....I don't have time to do curls.

My biceps are growing just fine as is.

But that still doesn't mean it wouldn't help.

I still agree with Zen though.....compound exercises ARE better, and should be the focal point for ANY beginner.

Let me clarify. When you say:



Most people find this forum with a goal of losing weight or fat. The Fat Loss/Cutting forum has more posts than any other forum other than the Fitness Journals forum. I also think most of the people who find this forum are essentially beginners with goals that are not clearly formed. For these people curls are not really that useful and can be safely ignored until they have advanced in the basic lifts past the beginner stage. It's not uncommon to see people show up here who want to lose twenty pounds or more. It is uncommon for someone in that situation to need curls for aesthetics. In fact, until you are advanced enough that curls can be metabolically significant, curls could be a waste of time if you need to cut a lot.


That's the amazing thing that struck me about this forum. It seems that about 80 percent plus of the newbies that come on here looking for direction are people who are pretty significantly overweight/fat, people who are seeking to use weight training in support of a net decrease in body weight. Traditionally of course we probably think of guys who are new to weight training as guys who are probably skinny and looking to use weight training to support a net increase in body weight.

I dare say that back in say R Testes' youth that the majority of newbie guys who went to gyms were so but what has happened is that in Western countries like the U.S. and U.K. is that in the last 30 years or so the diet has got so bad in terms of huge swathes of the population regularly gorging on junk food and the lifestyles have become so sedentary and lazy with increased car ownership, people spending hours watching T.V. etc. and possibly also decline in manual labour jobs and more people in service industry sedentary office/clerical jobs that there has been an amazing increase in the proportion of the population who are clinically overweight and obese.

Plus I dare say there was a time that overweight people weren't advised to do weights but were more likely to be told to run, cycle etc. till they dropped the weight. Nowadays it's catching on that to lose weight people should incorporate weight training in their plan.

R Testes'


I think its R. T. Estes, but, R. Testes is funnier. :lol:

I dare say that back in say R Testes' youth that the majority of newbie guys who went to gyms were so but what has happened is that in Western countries like the U.S. and U.K. is that in the last 30 years or so the diet has got so bad in terms of huge swathes of the population regularly gorging on junk food and the lifestyles have become so sedentary and lazy with increased car ownership, people spending hours watching T.V. etc. and possibly also decline in manual labour jobs and more people in service industry sedentary office/clerical jobs that there has been an amazing increase in the proportion of the population who are clinically overweight and obese.

In RT Estes' day, It is true that overweight kids made up an extremely small percentage of the population due to activity of the youth. Our diets made McDonald's look good. I ate a couple of dozen cookies and 1/2 a gallon of milk before supper. I never did situps hardly because I didn't want muscles to increase my 28" waist size and ruin the V shape. But you did need the arms for the tight T-shirts. We got all our shirts tapered.

I think its R. T. Estes, but, R. Testes is funnier. :lol:


Oh shit is that his name ? Damn I thought it was some kind of reference to testosterone or something:D.


Sorry R:tu:. Actually I just gave your name a mention in another thread in the fat loss forum:lol:

That's the amazing thing that struck me about this forum. It seems that about 80 percent plus of the newbies that come on here looking for direction are people who are pretty significantly overweight/fat, people who are seeking to use weight training in support of a net decrease in body weight. Traditionally of course we probably think of guys who are new to weight training as guys who are probably skinny and looking to use weight training to support a net increase in body weight.

I dare say that back in say R Testes' youth that the majority of newbie guys who went to gyms were so but what has happened is that in Western countries like the U.S. and U.K. is that in the last 30 years or so the diet has got so bad in terms of huge swathes of the population regularly gorging on junk food and the lifestyles have become so sedentary and lazy with increased car ownership, people spending hours watching T.V. etc. and possibly also decline in manual labour jobs and more people in service industry sedentary office/clerical jobs that there has been an amazing increase in the proportion of the population who are clinically overweight and obese.

Plus I dare say there was a time that overweight people weren't advised to do weights but were more likely to be told to run, cycle etc. till they dropped the weight. Nowadays it's catching on that to lose weight people should incorporate weight training in their plan.

i eat more than my american friends, yet because of my DNA and my crazy metabolism I gain 1/2 the weight my friends would eating the same meal. High metabolism pisses me off :(

IMO it would depend on what your goals are.

I don't think Curls will help overall functionality any more than doing Leg extensions will help your Squat.

It might if you throw in a minor set at the end of a workout.

A while back I was trying to get bigger Bi's and was doing Curls religiously. Didn't help my Chin ability at all...in fact it hindered it.

Haven't done Curls for months now....other than a really light pump of 15 to 20 reps per workout. My Chins are way up.

Muscle size has not diminished.

BUT.....I am going for more of an MMA/Functionality result these days.

If my name was Mastover I would indeed do Curls.

But I'm not going totally cosmetic right now. I, at the moment, would rather be superfit "functionally" than just go for looks.

Rows and Chins can absolutely "hammer" your biceps. It's all in the way you do 'em.

For instance...if you do Seated Rows on a cable machine using D-handles (love dem D-handles on a "Y" chain), you can alternate the grip from over hand to under hand during the same ex. ( Pull----over-hand, Release-----underhand...or vice versa).

A Seated Pulldown with your butt on the floor can be done the same way with the same equipment.

Try Chins with a Hamilton-grip rig and then do a set overhand on the bar and then do a set palms facing on the bar.

Same thing for Bent-over Row....alternate grip.

One-arm Pulldowns with a D-handle, alternating grip, can toast your bi's too.

But as I said, these days I'm going for Compos, Functionality, etc .etc.
basically.

^^ Good post Hevy. You summed it up very well. :nod:

Without doing bicep curls, they might not get any smaller, but doing bicep curls do they get a lot bigger?

Old time strong men never used them. They were strng and many were well balanced. I remmember once a trainer told me to cut them out, when I complained that my arms are not getting big. He said I was over taxing the arm muscles.

Maybe this is getting off-topic but there is one "iso" I would do (and do)regardless....

That's rear delt work.

And I have found that the Cable Rear Delt Raise (one arm) hits 'em beautifully.

Why cable?

Because doing them this way you can keep constant resistance on the delt throughout the movement.

As opposed to where you have 2 dumbells hanging down in front of you and try to "flye" them up while you're bent-over. In this method the full weight doesn't kick-in until your arms are outstretched.

If using machine cable:- Stand sideways to the machine...Grasp handle with your outer-facing hand. Bend over to 90 degrees, so body is parallel with floor. Bend knees a little. Put inner-side hand on inner-side knee for support.
At start of pull, your pulling arm should not be "straight down". It should now angled over inward to about 20 degrees or so.

Pull handle in a crescent sweep outward and upward until it is slightly higher than your body. Now bring it back "controlled".

On just about any machine you can get as much if not more weight up eventually than you can using a d.b. So the weight itself is not an issue.

If using a Total Gym Or Total Trainer -type rig:-

Put your knees on the glide -board at 90 degrees to the upward travel of the board. Bend over until your upper body is parallel to the board and support your upper body by putting your inner-facing hand on the outer edge of the glide-board for support. Grasp handle with outer-side hand and perform movement the same way as machine. Make sure to get the "crescent" motion in. Don't just pull the handle straight out.


Although Deads,Mil Press and Bench use Delts assistively, the Rear Delt doesn't get hit too much.

Throw in some Rear Delt Work to balance out the mix...:)