What's the rap against curls?

[greyowl]

Noticed there's a considerable body of members here who think bicep curls aren't worthwhile. What's the theory behind this view? Why don't you think they're efficient?

[MANWHORE]

Originally Posted by greyowl

Noticed there's a considerable body of members here who think bicep curls aren't worthwhile. What's the theory behind this view? Why don't you think they're efficient?

Everyone knows the most size is built with the big basic lifts like the bicep curl .. IN THE SQUAT RACK of course and Tricep extensions. If they don't then the joke is on them

[Girth]

I'm not sure if the preceding is a joke or not. Regardless, it's not called a curl rack. It's a beast of welded iron meant to hold up to and beyond 1000 lbs. And there are too few of them in gyms as is. Please don't take them away from the squatters, with an exercise that can be done with only a barbell and some space.

A bicep curl is as far from a basic lift as possible.

As for the negativity towards the curls, I feel it's warranted. If I've put the proper effort into my chins, rows, cleans, AND deads.......adding curls to the mix would in no way come close to loading the biceps as much as I already have done. At best I am simply adding volume which may contribute to capillary growth. But that still takes time.

And that's the rub. MOST won't spend the time they should on the basic exercises. In order to do their precious (pointless) curls, they will most often subtract from the effort put into the major lifts.

Oh, and most everyone who stops curling will tell you that their arms haven't lost any size.

[Madcow2]

Horrendous overuse in as exercise that pays little dividends. Your real mid to long term arm progress is going to come from the compound lifts and full body growth anyway. Direct work just kind of maximizes and flushes out what is there over the short term. Maybe if your arm strength is the limiting factor in a compound row or press then there is really a long term contribution in rectifying that through direct work. If people's arms shrink some when they drop the direct work (assuming there is a major concentration of compound lifts and a good program - which is a huge leap of faith for most BBers) generally this is either temporary just from less work and not pumping them up all the time, or their arm development was out of proportion to their strength in the compound lifts (i.e. you can only row 185 but you have the biceps to row 225 so they will atrophy until your back and other muscles catch up). That's a crap state to be in anyway.

So really, there is nothing wrong with curls per se, just how they are religiously and inefficiently applied by the general public.

[MANWHORE]

Originally Posted by Girth

I'm not sure if the preceding is a joke or not. Regardless, it's not called a curl rack. It's a beast of welded iron meant to hold up to and beyond 1000 lbs. And there are too few of them in gyms as is. Please don't take them away from the squatters, with an exercise that can be done with only a barbell and some space

OK i'm sorry but i do use 800lbs for curls so can i now call it a curlrack . ... No one uses the squat rack in my gym,so you are welcome to if you'd like. You do deadlifts? I thought those were old news

[Grizzly]

Personally, I don't have anything against curls, though I do advise almost everyone to stop doing them. As far as I can tell, people put far, far, far too much emphasis on elaborate arm days and put next to no thought into their back and legs days. Because of this, their arms are smaller than they otherwise would be....along with the rest of their body. By steering them away from arm work and towards heavy, compound leg and back work, I actually increase the size of their arms...and the rest of their body, too.

That's my thinking on it anyhow. Honestly, I've never met anyone who squats too much, but I've met a million who curl too much.

[MANWHORE]

I can honestly say that i do exactly ... well i'm going to say AROUND because sometimes i just have a little more time to mess around so i do more sets but i usually do no more than 5 sets on Tris and 5 sets for my Bis ... PER WEEK. I only do squats 1X/week right now only because i'm working 6-7 days week but since i started those Oly Squats,i love squating.

[wee man]

when i started i used to curl ,like many way to often,once i got into strength training i stopped,but after a while i started getting the occassional forearm problem.
ive started doing 2 bicep excercises a week,i change the excercises every time and shoot for higher reps and ive never had any forearm problems since
but other than that i would agree,if you dont squat and bench heavy your arms wont grow anyways.

[BRICK]

It is probably true that you get more bicep size from heavy rows and back exercises than from curling. The difference is that you can work to isolate your biceps on certain exercises ie. preacher curls. So IMO I don't think curls are useless...they do have their place. The problem I have seen is the skinny newbie guys who are trying to build size and are busy doing dozens of sets of concentration curls. They need to spend their time with compound movements like the Big 3.

[CyniQ]

Originally Posted by Madcow2

Horrendous overuse in as exercise that pays little dividends. Your real mid to long term arm progress is going to come from the compound lifts and full body growth anyway. Direct work just kind of maximizes and flushes out what is there over the short term. Maybe if your arm strength is the limiting factor in a compound row or press then there is really a long term contribution in rectifying that through direct work. If people's arms shrink some when they drop the direct work (assuming there is a major concentration of compound lifts and a good program - which is a huge leap of faith for most BBers) generally this is either temporary just from less work and not pumping them up all the time, or their arm development was out of proportion to their strength in the compound lifts (i.e. you can only row 185 but you have the biceps to row 225 so they will atrophy until your back and other muscles catch up). That's a crap state to be in anyway.

So really, there is nothing wrong with curls per se, just how they are religiously and inefficiently applied by the general public.

Perfect. As usual. You too Girth. Love having you guys around.

There is something about curls that encourages some sort of ridiculous infatuation. Remember when you were a kid and someone said, "Show me your muscles." What "muscles" were they referring to? If you then showed them your impressive quads, would they be appropriately impressed? Doubtful. Somehow people have been programmed to consider your biceps an accurate measure of your musclularity.

When interested in determining your strength it becomes your bench. "How much you bench?" being the query of the ignorant.

I train my wife. When we're in the gym together I have to keep an eye on her cause if I turn around for one second, she's curling. Drives me nuts. I don't know how many times I've told her. I can't think of one good reason for a woman to curl. Period.

It's not the curl. It's just that after a while... you get fed up.