Curls

Maybe he means with a barbell vs dumbells
60 lb barbell in my working sets and 20 pound dumbell here. High volume obviously

5

I don't do meme exercises.

I'd make fun of you for asking such a retarded question, but I constantly encounter normies who ask "what's your max curl". Curls are a vanity excersie and I already don't track my other lifts, so fuck off

Attached: 1518967394097.gif (450x254, 1.79M)

You've mistaken weighted chin ups for weighted dips.

>I already don't track my other lifts

but... why? do you hate optimizing your progress?

why are weighted dips a meme

Your arms would be bigger and more impressive you did curls twice per week. I fell for the "compounds only" meme for arm training also. I got to a 120 lb weighted chin. I still had small biceps. I added curls. My arms are bigger and stronger now.

Do curls if you want to look good and be stronger.

How did you make your chin that heavy?

>I constantly encounter normies who ask "what's your max curl"

I don't believe you

This Normies who don't lift. How much you curl is always a few seconds after how much do you bench
It's the only 2 exercises they know

Not op, but it sounds like BBB, or Big but boring. Hypertrophy to increase size gains.

130-140.
I don't know how much the bar I have weighs.

Misinformation with no basis in science.
nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0176

The addition of a single joint exercise like the bicep curl to a program that has multi-joint exercises (like pull ups or rows) will likely have no impact on bicep growth. Your bicep will get worked by the compounds if volume is adequate.

Wow, you're litterally fucking retarded.

Every single bit of everything we know about fitness and how the body works says that you are the dumbest motherfucker on the earth.

You are now henceforth forbidden from speaking on such matters ever again.

May the gods of iron have mercy upon your gains.

i do a pyramid of dumbell curls as a warmup before doing heavy barbell rows and pulldowns

50x6
65x6
70x6
75x6
55x6
45x6

seems like a lot but i dont rest much between the sets so it takes about 10-15 minutes. then i go do my yates rows with 325 on the bar and watch as the dyel whose max deadlift is 135 all mire (actually nobody gives a shit how much i row but i like to pretend they do)

i use 12kg DBs for my first sets then usually drop to anywhere as low as 6kg DBs as fatigue increases. form is always super strict and ROM is 100%.

>tfw accidently grabbed a 20 and a 25 instead of 2 20s

Im trying to even out my arms FUCK

your form is probably atrocious with tons of swinging. maybe you impress the DYELS, but it will only be DYELS you are impressing.

5x10 @ 35lbs.

That's all you need.

not the whole picture

your arms will grow with only pulls, but not optimally. programs with high pulling volume normally still need additional arm work for maximum growth. the biceps are poorly anatomically positioned to exert much force on anything and have high maximum recoverable volumes as a result as opposed to something better positioned and bigger such as the triceps.

your study needs an account or some shit to read fully but i'm guessing it's bullshit and hasn't accounted for something somewhere.

i usually just walk in and start curling the max dumbbell which is 125.
crank about about 15 of those on each arm and go home. only fucking idiots do anything besides curling.

There is literally zero reason for a healthy individual to do a single joint exercise in favor of a multi joint exercise from a scientific standpoint.

Unless you are willing to provide some sort of study or an actual explanation suggesting otherwise, you ought to accept you are wrong. The biceps are an accessory muscle intended to do less work, but this does not imply they are inefficient during maximal muti-joint training.

"high maximum recoverable volumes", what do you mean by this? They biceps recover more rapidly than, say, lats? Or are you saying they do not become significantly fatigued? A bit confused.

Regardless, multi-joint training elicits a greater hormonal response which the biceps will benefit from.

Look, I know that pull ups and rows don't make your bicep feel exhausted like curls do, but this feeling of exhaustion in a particular muscle isn't something correlated with hypertrophy. If this were the case, everyone should just always do 300 reps of an exercise to exhaust it as much as possible.

>There is literally zero reason for a healthy individual to do a single joint exercise in favor of a multi joint exercise from a scientific standpoint.

To focus on making that single muscle stronger.
To build up weak spots that doing only compound exercises in a way where you are trying to lift more in terms of weight WILL create.

The only people who could think like you are noobs or people who hopped on the juice hardcore as fuck when they inevitably hit the wall like a stupid cunt and never got anywhere after that.

3x6-7 35 lb dropsetting to 30 lb for another 3 or so reps.

4x5 @ 42.5lbs. It is what it is.

Attached: 20180120.jpg (666x1052, 129K)

hammer curls 25kgx10 each arm
bb curl 40kg x8
both not really strict

i'll do 5x20lb then 5x25, 30, 35, 40, 45, (i haven't gotten to 50lbs yet) then climb back down. I've done the 50s but cheating. pretty legit pump. 65lbs is crazy

you should start working out more. back & bis. chest and tris. bitch ass motherfucker.

35X5

omg are you the bullshit bodybuilding guy?

Still waiting for any sort of reason/explanation.

I linked an article suggesting that single joint exercises do not cause increased strength or size in a muscle when added to a routine that trained multiple muscles with a multi joint exercise.

The only exception to this is therapeutic isolation to bring a crippled muscle back into a safe range that would allow it to properly carry out multi-joint exercises without risk of reinjury (which is why I noted healthy individuals).

If you aren't going to provide an actual argument for your side I am done trying to reason with you. Look at the literature, do some research beyond bodybuilding com and youtube fitness gurus and you will find single joint exercises are useless.

not the same guy - but are you saying that there is zero hypertrophy from performing curls? because i don't believe that for a second.

A proper routine that hits the muscles of the back (I am sure by 'back' you mean lats, rhomboids, rear delts and middle fibers of the traps) will incorporate bicep training through multijoint exercise. Same goes for chest engaging triceps.

Instead of doing bicep training, you would benefit more from doing an additional back exercise.

No? I don't compete in bodybuilding.

No, I am saying that the hypertrophy of the biceps muscle is better stimulated by a multi joint exercise than by isolating the muscle with a single joint exercise (such as curls). The reason for this is a number of factors, but predominantly has to do with the hormonal response that is proportional to the size of the muscle exercised and the relative metabolic stress which is associated with utilizing larger muscles.

Did you actually read that study and think about why it might be incorrect and look for the entire study, or did the very idea that it stated that single joint exercise is inferior too and not needed in conjunction with multijoint exercise just make you so damned happy that you had to shit post this stupidity everywhere?

Your biceps won't get bigger from doing squats.

I have read that study and have taken courses on muscle cell biology, growth and development, strength training and conditioning and many others. I have a bachelors degree in Kinesiology and am currently in the second year of a physical therapy graduate program.

The fact that you are unwilling to listen to reason and would rather attack the person presenting the argument than the argument itself is pretty telling.

It stands to reason they will get larger if you squat AND curl though. Better yet Squat and do pull ups.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15831061

You aren't explaining anything.
You're just posting a link to a half assed study that doesn't fully go into their training methodology and stating that this is how things are.

At no point in human fucking history has your insane bullshit ever made any fucking sense.
If that were the case then people would not have obvious and noticable muscle imbalances because large muscle groups would have to be worked to create them in the first place.

You will literally have to explain your reasoning and logic behind what you think.
This is one of those times where you HAVE to actually defend your assertion with facts.
Because this goes counter to every single thing we know about how biology works period.

That literally does not help your case.
The fact that you think it does tells me, tells all of us, that you're either a fucking moron or you have a belief to push.

You haven't made any argument for your case using actual reason. I have been.. hormonal responses to exercise are very real. Metabolic stress is very real. Both of these are better elicited by large muscle groups than small ones. This is will documented.

I don't think you understand the basics of how muscles work, so here is a literature review that can act as a crash course for your broscience.
journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2010/10000/The_Mechanisms_of_Muscle_Hypertrophy_and_Their.40.aspx

>people would not have obvious and noticable muscle imbalances because large muscle groups would have to be worked

People with large muscle imbalances can result from a job that requires repetitive action. It could result from people improperly doing exercise. More importantly 'imbalances' manifest themselves because the number of muscle fibers a person has and their type (I, IIa/IIb) varies person to person and within an individual themselves. Insertions vary. You cannot be as dumb as you seem, but I fear you just may be.

You use the term 'biology' but then offer no scientific basis against my argument other than 'hurr durr it is wrong because I think it is wrong'.

3x5 45lb dumbells if there is a frat fake chad next to me doing 30s with meme swing form ill push it to a set with 50s. Also im a manlet so they always get triggered when i mog them

Attached: IMG_3521.jpg (750x727, 136K)

Tip for you brainlet, using the word 'literally' incorrectly makes you look like a dumbass. Unless you mean to say that the study I linked exactly provides NOTHING towards my case you are literally retarded.

>"high maximum recoverable volumes", what do you mean by this? They biceps recover more rapidly than, say, lats? Or are you saying they do not become significantly fatigued? A bit confused.
the fact you don't know this only reveals that your knowledge of the issue is incomplete, and without a study with more information your point has yet to be proven - all you've posted is a vague abstract. if you want to link the entire text, go ahead.

maximum recoverable volume is the volume you can do for a given muscle which is just almost beyond the point of being recovered for the next microcycle.

the biceps absolutely do recover much more quickly than the lats. have a guy do 5 challenging sets of weighted pull ups and ask him which is sore in 4 days, his biceps or his lats. there are issues with rep range (certain muscles preferring certain rep ranges) which cloud things somewhat but the point remains. or to use another example, if you do 8 challenging sets of high bar squats vs 8 challenging sets of upright rows, your quads and glutes will be sore for up to like 7 days while you will be lucky if your delts feel it at the end of day 2. delts, biceps, traps and other poorly positioned muscles (as far as lifting weights is concerned) don't need as much recovery time and need higher volumes to grow optimally than do muscles like the pecs, quads etc which can produce enormous forces and take a beating in the process.

your point about exhaustion is wrong as well. in terms of hypertrophy, "volume" is very well quantified in set numbers, so for example 5x5 curls is the same volume wise as 5x20, after adjusting for how the biceps respond to different rep ranges (generally the smaller the muscle the more reps it responds best to). so training effect can be well predicted by the frequency with which you bring your muscles to failure in that regard. 1x300 reps is as low volume wise as 1x1.

You realize that you just said that muscles will get larger from single joint movements in your post correct?

The hormone has nothing to do with it.
Direct single joint work upon a single muscle will make the muscle grow.

This is a fact of reality.
This is how things are.
You keep posting these links to studies that tell us all how muscle hypertrophy works but your asssertation that single joint movements don't actually make your muscle bigger has never once been proven by anything except one fucking study.
A study that we don't know the full goddamned specifics of.

You're out of your tiny goddamned mind and you have to, in your own words, tell me tell everyone reading this exchange why you think what you think is correct.

I'll wait.
No seriously.
I have all fucking night.

I can finally do 5x5 chins and just bought a dipping belt

Attached: 1521075823754.jpg (250x242, 8K)

>courses on muscle cell biology, growth and development, strength training and conditioning and many others
even i this were to be believed, these courses are always 100% bollocks, just like art etc. i know because before switching careers i was a victim of those as well.

It fucking does not.
It does not prove your stupid as fuck assertion in any way.

It does not say on any level that single joint exercises don't build muscle at all and are useless. That is what you are stating.

35lbs 5x10 but I'm improving!

Attached: 20180308_190443.jpg (1936x3594, 893K)

Some people are beyond saving. This is you. Not a single scientific argument in favor of single joint exercises. I am sure you will shitpost about how this is my defeat.

It is, in a way, just not in your way.

They told me the curlbros were beyond saving, I guess I was a fool to think otherwise. Curl in peace bros.

>bicep curls, tricep extensions, leg curls, laterals and raises of all kinds, hanging leg raises and flyes are all 100% useless
Thank you and good riddance. Enjoy your micley mouse degree, but don't post advice on Veeky Forums anymore lest you get laughed out of the thread again. Next time post a full study and not just a glorified headline

after a good back day i only do 3x10 of curls because my bis are already thrashed by back exercises

i mean i could argue that eating human shit is good for you and post 1 or 2 studies that show positive effects. you came here with a ridiculous notion that, if true, would revolutionize all strength sports instantly, and you were rightly blown the fuck out.

5x5 with 115 on a curl bar. Followed by 5x5 with 45s.

i'm the last guy you linked. if you're not wiling to be educated then the problem is entirely yours and you are quite welcome to go on developing your arms at a suboptimal rate.

what you've essentially done is challenge the methods of every single reputable coach (including even the isolation hating Tsatouline who admits they have benefits for bodybuilding) by linking one relevant study which i am beginning to suspect you haven't read beyond the abstract. if you're correct, as the other user put it, then the chinese weightlifting team with their isos, near enough all internationally competitive powerlifters, and literally every successful bodybuilder should drop their current training protocols and do something different. something tells you a few courses at college doesn't qualify you for that. be reasonable.

I curl in the squat rack 1plate +5kg. It always pisses off the DYELsoyboys doing weird shit in the rack next to me.

20lbs for around 10 reps. Not even joking. I have 14.5 inch arms too

>4x5
>5x5
>4 reps
no wonder u shit stains look like taco bell splatter

Attached: 1521668409900.gif (227x221, 980K)

>not doing a 7-7-7 routine

3x5 at 25
1×5 at 30

Am I just curling more than average I'm a little confused reading these numbers?

I do

2x10 65lb db's
2x10 50lb db's concentration

My form is pretty tight, I just think your wasting time if it's not.

50 3x10.

How big are your biceps and how long have you been lifting

Just under 17.5, 2 years

Imagine unironically believing this to be true. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re IQ was sub 90.

Strict curl bro?
Do you do heavy partials?

what is your bw?