Leg curling vs. squatting
Proctologically Violated┊
What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
*killed*--doms for days.
I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
Any idears?
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, for *Anyone BUT* a Democrat or a Republican
Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
to Materially Improve Your Life
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
Edna Pearl
message news:ZC92h.46$FD2...@newsfe11.lga...
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
Read the thread that starts "On Topic: Problem with Squats."
news:4qe1egF...@individual.net Since I read this (and wrote my response
to that thread), I have been working more with front squats, and I can feel
how involved my hams and glutes are *supposed* to be in my squats.
In general, squats are just plain more complex than leg presses. In a
machine (any machine) you're working in a straight line, targeting a
specific muscle or few muscles, without any need for other muscles to work
with the targeted muscles. The result is what some lifters call "stupid"
muscles -- a big, strong muscle that can do impressive stuff in a machine,
but that is not much help with heavy weight outside a machine if the muscles
that oppose and stabilize the big, "stupid" muscle haven't been developed
commensurately.
Squats: The king of exercise.
(Her Highness) ep
Edna Pearl
ignore me.
ep
"Edna Pearl" <edna_...@BiteMeSpammeryahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Kb2h.4907$Fi1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Curt
[...]
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>
> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
> *killed*--doms for days.
[...]
> Any idears?
Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
I mean which would cause DOMS more noticeably - bent rows with several
plates or dumbbell curls with the pink vinyl-covered one-pounders?
--
Curt
Stu
> Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
> response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
In the hamstrings? Not for me. Squats and leg presses don't
sufficiently tax my hamstrings, which is why I train hams on a
different day to quads. But then, I'm not normal.
Stu
Proctologically Violated┊
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
news:1162439103.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated┊
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
news:8euik2pci02sij3vv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:56:59 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>All--
>>
>>What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
>>I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
>>machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never
>>happened.
>>
>>But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings
>>are
>>*killed*--doms for days.
>>
>>I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
>>would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
>>Any idears?
>
> don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
> work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
> Other exercises for hamstrings are Stiff Legged Deadlift, Good
> Morning, Standard Deadlifts, and Romanian Deadlifts. I don't really
> know which of these is best for the hams. They are much harder lifts
> to learn the leg curl and I haven't mastered any of them yet.
JMW
>On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:56:59 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
><entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>All--
>>
>>What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
>>I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
>>machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>>
>>But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
>>*killed*--doms for days.
>>
>>I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
>>would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
>>Any idears?
>
>From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
>don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
>work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
Both work the hamstrings. Hamstrings are two-joint "bi-articulate"
muscles, with attachments above the hip joint and below the knee.
They both flex the knee and extend the hip. Leg curls and any hip
extension exercise will both work the hams. Squats work a lot more
muscle groups, though.
Proctologically Violated┊
I was simply doing more weight than I was leg curling.
But here's the thing:
I generally don't squat much cuz, well, I cain't squat fer shit, not being
all that comfortable with it.
And the clean and jerk, with moderate albeit vigorous weights, gets the hams
real good as well.
As does goddamm *weed pulling*.
BUT,
Leg curling on the old Nautilus machines, *with all my might*, multiple
sets, yielded no doms whatsoever.
Seems odd, as "perceived exertion" is a somewhat reliable predictor of
muscle stress.
Is it that "attacking" the muscle from two different ends/attachment points
(if that makes sense), from the knee-end vs. the hip-end, makes that much of
a diff?
I'm thinking in analogy to "upper ab" exercise vs "lower ab" exercises,
which I never quite believed anyway.
--
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the Single Best Way
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:3j2jk2lvqel92hekv...@4ax.com...
Bully
> Proctologically Violated┊ wrote:
> [...]
>
>> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
>> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus
>> type machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has
>> never happened.
>>
>> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my
>> hamstrings are *killed*--doms for days.
> [...]
>
>> Any idears?
>
> Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
> response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
No, because there is only a 25% load transfer (or whatever) to the hams when
squatting.
>
> I mean which would cause DOMS more noticeably - bent rows with several
> plates or dumbbell curls with the pink vinyl-covered one-pounders?
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Pete
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never
> happened.
Its the stretch at the hip joint...
----
Pete
P.S. just because you got more DOMS doesnt mean squats are more effective
for hamstrings then curls...
Andrzej Rosa
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:56:59 -0500, "Proctologically ViolatedŠŽ"
><entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>All--
>>
>>What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
>>I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
>>machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>>
>>But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
>>*killed*--doms for days.
>>
>>I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
>>would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
>>Any idears?
>
> don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
> work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
> Morning, Standard Deadlifts, and Romanian Deadlifts. I don't really
> know which of these is best for the hams.
Standard Deadlifts are less ham focused. Rest is more or less similar,
with maybe Romanians having slight advantage. Take care with good
mornings. They are tricky, because if you go too deep or lose good
form, the bar is on your back, so there is no easy way to terminate a
lift immediately.
> They are much harder lifts
> to learn the leg curl and I haven't mastered any of them yet.
Pick any of those and do it every time you are in the gym. Do it light,
concentrate on form. In no time you'll be an expert.
BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> All--
>
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>
> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
> *killed*--doms for days.
Leg curls start when hamstrings are a bit shortened and the peak
contraction happens in a very shortened position. If you could do
curls in bent-over position they would be very good exercise, just like
glute-ham raise is.
As they are, they can be called biceps femoris concentration curls, and
their effectiveness is probably similar to normal concentration curls,
which means that it is mediocre at best (IMHO, of course).
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Hobbes
"Proctologically Violated┊" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
wrote:
> All--
>
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>
> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings are
> *killed*--doms for days.
>
> I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
> would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
The hamstrings travel over two sets of joints - the knees and the hips.
They are somewhat unusual in that respect. They are prime movers in hip
extension, which is often not realized. So during the dynamic hip
extension of cleans and jerks they are really used quite heavily. Leg
curls, OTOH, only work them during the knee flexion movement. Unless you
are a bodybuilder you could probably throw out the leg curls machine and
just do cleans.
--
Keith
Hobbes
"Stu" <ssw...@iname.com> wrote:
You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
partial squats.
--
Keith
Pete
>> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings
>> are
>> *killed*--doms for days.
> Leg curls start when hamstrings are a bit shortened and the peak
> contraction happens in a very shortened position. If you could do
> curls in bent-over position they would be very good exercise, just like
> glute-ham raise is.
You mean putting the hams in a pre-stretched position?
What difference would a a stretch of the hams, at the hip, make at the
flexion of the knee?
I mean, the hams contract to move the lower leg towards the hip, no matter
if the muscle is shortened or stretched at the other side.
Do you think that stretching a muscle at one joint will make that same
muscle contract harder at the other joint?
Or did you mean that you bend forwards with the torso when the legs are
straight, and that, as you bend the legs, the torso is raised?
So you get knee joint flexion and hip joint extension simultanuous? As
opposed to squat/deadlifts/SLDL where there is only hip joint extension (wrt
hams) or leg curls where there is only knee joint flexion?
So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
----
Pete
Hobbes
"Proctologically Violated┊" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
wrote:
> So what does a leg curl do, then?
Nautilus machine isolates knee flexion - very little hip extension. In
terms of the muscle 3 of the 4 segments could be thought of being worked
in a partial movement.
Another consideration is that eccentric contractions appear to cause
more soreness than concentric contractions. Which would explain why
weeding (okay - it is a static contraction, but same idea) makes the
hamstrings sore.
For me - sprinting really makes 'em sore.
--
Keith
Hobbes
"Proctologically Violated┊" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
wrote:
> Curt said the likely reason I got doms in the hams doing squats was because
> I was simply doing more weight than I was leg curling.
> But here's the thing:
> I generally don't squat much cuz, well, I cain't squat fer shit, not being
> all that comfortable with it.
> And the clean and jerk, with moderate albeit vigorous weights, gets the hams
> real good as well.
> As does goddamm *weed pulling*.
> BUT,
> Leg curling on the old Nautilus machines, *with all my might*, multiple
> sets, yielded no doms whatsoever.
> Seems odd, as "perceived exertion" is a somewhat reliable predictor of
> muscle stress.
>
> Is it that "attacking" the muscle from two different ends/attachment points
> (if that makes sense), from the knee-end vs. the hip-end, makes that much of
> a diff?
> I'm thinking in analogy to "upper ab" exercise vs "lower ab" exercises,
> which I never quite believed anyway.
Good point there - I was thinking the same thing in terms of upper chest
/ Lower chest.
I dunno about that end of it. To me it seems like the weight being used
in a leg curl just isn't going to do it. Even though the perception is
that you are exerting hard, the peak force being generated is very small
compared to a clean.
It's like deadlifting as opposed to cleaning. Elite athletes can
generate 3-4 times the force in a clean as they do in a deadlift.
Lifting a 400 lb clean generates way more force than a 600 lb deadlift.
The force is briefer in duration, but much greater. In terms of the
hamstring muscle the rate coding would be much higher in the clean.
Now go figure out the weeding. My analysis falls to ground in explaining
that one!
:^)
Although I think it would be due to the extended static contraction.
Completely different process.
BTW - for the ultimate hanmstrong exercise:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Hamstrings/WTGluteHamRaise.html
--
Keith
Hobbes
Andrzej Rosa <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I posted the link before I read this. It isn't a great example of
someone doing them (I saw a picture of Alexeiev doing them with a 275 lb
barbell - sheesh!), but I agree about it being the best.
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Hamstrings/WTGluteHamRaise.html
--
Keith
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> But in squatting, even cleans/jerks, even *weed-pulling*, my hamstrings
>>> are
>>> *killed*--doms for days.
>
>> Leg curls start when hamstrings are a bit shortened and the peak
>> contraction happens in a very shortened position. If you could do
>> curls in bent-over position they would be very good exercise, just like
>> glute-ham raise is.
>
> You mean putting the hams in a pre-stretched position?
>
> What difference would a a stretch of the hams, at the hip, make at the
> flexion of the knee?
Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)
That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
already vastly shortened position. Compare it with SLDL, when top
force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.
> I mean, the hams contract to move the lower leg towards the hip, no matter
> if the muscle is shortened or stretched at the other side.
>
> Do you think that stretching a muscle at one joint will make that same
> muscle contract harder at the other joint?
No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
ends.
> Or did you mean that you bend forwards with the torso when the legs are
> straight, and that, as you bend the legs, the torso is raised?
> So you get knee joint flexion and hip joint extension simultanuous? As
> opposed to squat/deadlifts/SLDL where there is only hip joint extension (wrt
> hams) or leg curls where there is only knee joint flexion?
>
> So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
would work all right. To make them work fine one would need to be able
to do curls in bent-over position and additionally make a levers of a
machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
significantly lower than at the beginning.
Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Pete
> The hamstrings travel over two sets of joints - the knees and the hips.
> They are somewhat unusual in that respect. They are prime movers in hip
> extension, which is often not realized. So during the dynamic hip
> extension of cleans and jerks they are really used quite heavily. Leg
> curls, OTOH, only work them during the knee flexion movement. Unless you
> are a bodybuilder you could probably throw out the leg curls machine and
> just do cleans.
Keith, i am willing to bet that if you work the hams heavy with curls, there
will be a lot of carry over to squat and DL kinda movements.
Strong hams = strong hams. I cant imagene that if someone uses a full stack
at curls, he would suck doing SLDLs.
Sure, different exercise, different actions at joints, but you the same
muscle. Cant imagine that any given muscle all of a sudden gets weak just
because the movement is different.
Keep in mind that i use a certain logic;
If you work the lower arms and biceps hard, you probably perform a bit
better when doing rows.
Heavy rows might help you using more in the dead.
Which can result in a better sqaut.
For me thats logic, anyway...
----
Pete
Pete
>>> Leg curls start when hamstrings are a bit shortened and the peak
>>> contraction happens in a very shortened position. If you could do
>>> curls in bent-over position they would be very good exercise, just like
>>> glute-ham raise is.
>> What difference would a a stretch of the hams, at the hip, make at the
>> flexion of the knee?
> Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
> force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
> already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)
When you do leg curls, the muscles shorten, no matter what the position of
the torso is.
If your theory about this turns out to be correct, everybody should do all
tricep work overhead and biceps with the humerus behind the torso, as in
incline Dbcurls.
> That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
> needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
> already vastly shortened position.
I am mot sure what you mean. Okay, the hams crosses 2 joints, so what?
You can apply force at one side, like in SLDLs or leg curls. If you do leg
curls the hams have to shorten to move the weight, no matter *what* happens
at the other joint.
> Compare it with SLDL, when top
> force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
> a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.
I miss the point here.
When you a SLDL, the hams shorten. And the hip is pulled backwards. There is
ZERO action at the knee.
When you a leg curl, the hams shorten. And the lower leg is pulled towards
the hip. There is ZERO action at the hip.
So what?
Sure, when you squat or deadlift, there is action at both hip and knee, but
please note that the hams have ZERO action at the knee in those exercises,
and that, while they shorten at the hip...
*they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
Ever wondered about that? i did.
What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount at
the other?
Besides, there are two major muscles that can cause hip joint extension.
How many muscles do we have for knee joint flexion? The gastrocs dont count
;-O
>> I mean, the hams contract to move the lower leg towards the hip, no
>> matter
>> if the muscle is shortened or stretched at the other side.
>> Do you think that stretching a muscle at one joint will make that same
>> muscle contract harder at the other joint?
> No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
> attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
> ends.
Which was/is my arguement all along!
It doesnt matter at which side you pull!
>> So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
> would work all right.
You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen those,
with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)
> To make them work fine one would need to be able
> to do curls in bent-over position...
Why?
The hams contract *no matter what position the torso is in.*
Your theory would make all my effert for triceps at the pulley worthless! I
can assure its not ;-O
the tris, in this particular exercise,. are *shortened* at the shoulder
joint, in the same way hams are sjortened at "normal" leg curls.
Same for preacher/Scott curls. Shortened at the *other* joint, not
stretched!
> and additionally make a levers of a
> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
> significantly lower than at the beginning.
I dont get this.
> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
We dont use those over here. I am not kidding.
Is there a site where i can watch that movement?
----
Pete
Hobbes
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
Specificity roolz! Never forget it.
Heavy rows would probably create a motor pattern where you pull with a
flexed bicep - so you'd end up tearing off a bicep in the deadlift.
Been there - done that.
For strength motor patterns are crucial. Strength is a skill as well as
a function of muscle size. Isolation movements don't teach that skill
and in fact may inhibit skill learning.
--
Keith
Pete
Does it make you feel better if i assured you that nobody around here is
normal?
----
Pete
Pete
> If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and down
> to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
> Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
> partial squats.
What if the action at the knee is limited but the torso inlcines 45 degree
forward?
I am willing to bet your hams are sore the next day...
----
Pete
Pete
>> Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
>> response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
> No, because there is only a 25% load transfer (or whatever) to the hams
> when squatting.
Which is why more people should do leg curls.
You recruit 100% of the hams. And thats a fact!
----
Pete
Andrzej Rosa
I agree, that this is not the best illustration of the lift. I
remember seeing some good videos but I couldn't find them right now.
Anyway, even if one could have a better bench or adjust this one
better, still GHR will work better then leg curls.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Pete
>>I woulda thought that leg curling would kill the hams, while squats etc.
>>would get mebbe the ass/lower back.
>>Any idears?
> From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
> don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift.
Bullshit.
Which muscle is responsible for pulling the lower legs towards the hips?
HINT;
Its NOT the deltoids...
> They do work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
No.
> Other exercises for hamstrings are Stiff Legged Deadlift, Good
> Morning, Standard Deadlifts, and Romanian Deadlifts.
Yes.
At the hip side of that muscle. Same musclke, different joint. Thank you.
> I don't really know which of these is best for the hams.
How many pairs of muscles do we have to pull the lower legs towards the
hips?
HINT;
Its less the 2.
How many muscles do we have for hip joint extension?
HINT;
Its less than 3 but more than 1.
> They are much harder lifts
> to learn the leg curl and I haven't mastered any of them yet.
Yes, they are more difficult.
Let me share a secret with you;
<whisper>
com plexi ty of a cer tain move ment doesnt mean that muscl es in volved in
that move ment are gro wing bett ter just be cause there is more com plexi
ty
Dont tell anyone.
----
Pete
Pete
> So what does a leg curl do, then?
The hams shorten to pull the lower leg towards the hips.
And when a muscle shortens it excerts force.
Thats the bottom line.
----
Pete
Pete
>>From what I read hamstrings are worked with hip movement. The hips
>>don't move during a leg curl so they are not an ideal lift. They do
>>work the hamstrings but probably not as heavy as the squat does.
> Both work the hamstrings. Hamstrings are two-joint "bi-articulate"
> muscles, with attachments above the hip joint and below the knee.
> They both flex the knee and extend the hip. Leg curls and any hip
> extension exercise will both work the hams. Squats work a lot more
> muscle groups, though.
Agreed!
John, do you really think it matters at what end the hams are shortened?
----
Pete
Andrzej Rosa
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:47:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The leg curl machines at my gym start out in a fairly bent over
> position. I also tend to move my hips a bit as I bring the weight
> up. I don't know if maybe that works them a little better than the
> original poster.
>
> I think my gym has something like this too:
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/kneelinglegcurl_1
>
> The one I am thinking of is plate loaded though.
Yes. This one looks a bit better to what I've seen. If the load
lightens as you go though a movement, it can be reasonably effective.
If it doesn't lighten much, it still is open chain exercise which
strengthens most a position which you do not use during squatting or
deadlifting.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Hobbes
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
Good point. I agree.
--
Keith
Pete
>> So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
> would work all right. To make them work fine one would need to be able
> to do curls in bent-over position and additionally make a levers of a
> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
> significantly lower than at the beginning.
> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
I checked out the site and noticed a few things;
The joints are NOT worked at the same time. Its a hyperextension followed by
knee flexion where the upper legs, hips and torso are raised. The lower leg
remains in the same position. This means that the hip is pulled in the
direction of the feet.
In the leg curl, the feet is pulled in the direction of the hip.
And you know what? Thats exactly the same... ;-)
----
Pete
Pete
>> If you work the lower arms and biceps hard, you probably perform a bit
>> better when doing rows.
>> Heavy rows might help you using more in the dead.
>> Which can result in a better sqaut.
>> For me thats logic, anyway...
> Specificity roolz! Never forget it.
> Heavy rows would probably create a motor pattern where you pull with a
> flexed bicep - so you'd end up tearing off a bicep in the deadlift.
Perhaps that was a bad example because you guys use a lot more in the dead
as "we" do in rows.
Heaviest row i EVER did was 130 kilos in the cable and 70 kilo with DBs
> Been there - done that.
> For strength motor patterns are crucial. Strength is a skill as well as
> a function of muscle size. Isolation movements don't teach that skill
> and in fact may inhibit skill learning.
I agree with most of this, but if i had to put money on 2 different guys who
never squat a day in their live, i would put my money on the one who uses
twice as much wqeight as the other in leg extensions ;-O
----
Pete
Omelet
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net> schreef:
>
> > What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> > I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> > machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never
> > happened.
>
> Its the stretch at the hip joint...
>
> ----
> Pete
>
> P.S. just because you got more DOMS doesnt mean squats are more effective
> for hamstrings then curls...
I get more DOMS in the hams from deadlifts depending on how I do them.
--
Peace, Om
Remove _ to validate e-mails.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
Hobbes
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
It was a poor example.
trust me - if you ever get a chance to try one, try it. Amazing machine.
--
Keith
Hobbes
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
Yup.
Deepsquatter had a plate loaded t-bar rowing machine in his gym. So he
was doing them at the end of a Westside workout when I went down to the
Bay area for a football game and took in a workout with him. He was some
pissed because I never did the exercise (didn't have access to it) and
could do 8 or 10 (can't remember what was the maximum amount they could
fit on it) 45 lb plates for 5 or 6 reps pretty easy.
Rowing and chins are two movements I've always been strong in. Which
might explain tearing the bicep tendon off while doing a deadlift from
just below the knee with 765 lbs.
--
Keith
Andrzej Rosa
>>> flexion of the knee?
>
>> Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
>> force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
>> already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)
>
> When you do leg curls, the muscles shorten, no matter what the position of
> the torso is.
But the force they can generate depends if they have enough "shortening
potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
which they simply can't do.
> If your theory about this turns out to be correct, everybody should do all
> tricep work overhead and biceps with the humerus behind the torso, as in
> incline Dbcurls.
If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
as far as mass building goes. They do.
However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).
>> That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
>> needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
>> already vastly shortened position.
>
> I am mot sure what you mean. Okay, the hams crosses 2 joints, so what?
> You can apply force at one side, like in SLDLs or leg curls. If you do leg
> curls the hams have to shorten to move the weight, no matter *what* happens
> at the other joint.
Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion. I advocated for
glute-ham raises, after all.
>> Compare it with SLDL, when top
>> force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
>> a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.
>
> I miss the point here.
>
> When you a SLDL, the hams shorten. And the hip is pulled backwards. There is
> ZERO action at the knee.
>
> When you a leg curl, the hams shorten. And the lower leg is pulled towards
> the hip. There is ZERO action at the hip.
>
> So what?
Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
deliver anything substancial.
> Sure, when you squat or deadlift, there is action at both hip and knee, but
> please note that the hams have ZERO action at the knee in those exercises,
> and that, while they shorten at the hip...
>
> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
>
> Ever wondered about that? i did.
I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.
They can't do it. They *just* shorten. Action of other muscles
prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
shortens. That's it.
> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount at
> the other?
A miracle?
> Besides, there are two major muscles that can cause hip joint extension.
>
> How many muscles do we have for knee joint flexion? The gastrocs dont count
> ;-O
Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
point.
>> No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
>> attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
>> ends.
>
> Which was/is my arguement all along!
> It doesnt matter at which side you pull!
Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion, once again.
>>> So the muscle contract at the same time at both joints?
>
>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>> would work all right.
>
> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen those,
> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)
Better then 180 degrees.
>> To make them work fine one would need to be able
>> to do curls in bent-over position...
>
> Why?
>
> The hams contract *no matter what position the torso is in.*
>
> Your theory would make all my effert for triceps at the pulley worthless! I
> can assure its not ;-O
> the tris, in this particular exercise,. are *shortened* at the shoulder
> joint, in the same way hams are sjortened at "normal" leg curls.
>
> Same for preacher/Scott curls. Shortened at the *other* joint, not
> stretched!
I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.
>> and additionally make a levers of a
>> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
>> significantly lower than at the beginning.
>
> I dont get this.
>
>> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
>
> We dont use those over here. I am not kidding.
> Is there a site where i can watch that movement?
Hobbes posted a link with animated gif. It's not the best illustration
of what guys from Westside do, but it should be enough to give you an
idea.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>
> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
> them.
Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105
Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.
Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm
> Out of the exercises I listed the Good Morning seemed the most
> beneficial. I have tried them but I get odd looks from people who
> think I am doing a fucked up squat. The key seems to be in moving
> the hips. I have been going light until I can get the hang of them.
Just use good form, look up and stick your ass out. You should be
fine, especially in a power rack.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Proctologically ViolatedCR
Isometrics at various points in the ROM is one possibility, but I'm thinking
more dynamic.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eid8pt$pj9$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
Pete
>>> Muscles can't develop much force if they are shortened. To produce
>>> force they must shorten further, but they cant, because they are
>>> already shortened. They can cramp, though. ;-)
>> When you do leg curls, the muscles shorten, no matter what the position
>> of
>> the torso is.
> But the force they can generate depends if they have enough "shortening
> potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
> shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
> happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
> which they simply can't do.
Again, this doesnt make any sense. When the legs and torso are at 180 degree
angle, the hams shorten to move the loweer legs, and the amount of
shortening is identical as when the angle torso/upper leg is 90 degrees.
>> If your theory about this turns out to be correct, everybody should do
>> all
>> tricep work overhead and biceps with the humerus behind the torso, as in
>> incline Dbcurls.
> If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
> would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
> movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
> as far as mass building goes. They do.
You know better than that.
The reason kickbacks are crappy is because there is a crappy resistance
curve.
Both torso and humerus are parallel to the floor.
When you do pushdowns, both humerus and torso are perpendicular to the
floor, IOW, the angle at which the triceps are worked in kickbacks an
pushdowns are the same.
But pushdowns have a better resistance curve.
And Scot curls place the humerus at about the same angle wrt the torso as
concentrations, but you can build mass nicely with Scottts.
With plain old fashioned barbell curls, the biceps arent stretched nowhere
near as in 45 degree incline curls, but this doesnt mean the inclines are
the superior mass builder.
BTW, when you do pull-ups, or rows, the bis shorten at one end, yet they
lengthen at the other.
When you do dips, the triceps shorten at the elbow, but lengthen at the
shoulder. As in all pushing motions.
I hope you get my point...
> However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
> optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
> account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
> wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).
But it doesnt matter where the stretch is. At one side or the other.
>>> That's what happens in leg curls and concentration curls. Top force is
>>> needed where muscles can't deliver it, at the top of movement in
>>> already vastly shortened position.
>> I am mot sure what you mean. Okay, the hams crosses 2 joints, so what?
>> You can apply force at one side, like in SLDLs or leg curls. If you do
>> leg
>> curls the hams have to shorten to move the weight, no matter *what*
>> happens
>> at the other joint.
> Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion. I advocated for
> glute-ham raises, after all.
Okay.
>>> Compare it with SLDL, when top
>>> force is needed in pre-stretched position, where muscles *can* deliver
>>> a lot of force. So they deliver, so they get stimulated, so they grow.
>> I miss the point here.
>> When you a SLDL, the hams shorten. And the hip is pulled backwards. There
>> is
>> ZERO action at the knee.
>> When you a leg curl, the hams shorten. And the lower leg is pulled
>> towards
>> the hip. There is ZERO action at the hip.
>> So what?
> Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
> happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
> deliver anything substancial.
What exatly is "top forcë" ?!?!?!
>> Sure, when you squat or deadlift, there is action at both hip and knee,
>> but
>> please note that the hams have ZERO action at the knee in those
>> exercises,
>> and that, while they shorten at the hip...
>> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
>> Ever wondered about that? i did.
> I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.
Excuse me?
Of course they do!
What else do you think happens during the squat and deadlift ?!?!?!
> They can't do it. They *just* shorten.
That doesnt make any sense!
When you get out of the hole, there is hip joint extension and knee joint
extension *at the same time.*, right? right!
So, what exactly do YOU think the hams are doing *while that happens*?
> Action of other muscles
> prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
> insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
> shortens. That's it.
So ?!?!?!
We both agree that the hams acts as hip joint extonsors, right?
We both agree that the hams are knee joint flexors, right?
When the hams shorten you get either hip joint extension or knee joint
flexion. Right?
So what do the hams do when you get hip joint extensin and *knee* joint
extension?
With extension, in the *knee* as *opposed to *flexion* ?!?!?!
If one muscle at a side of the jont shortens, as quads as in squats, dont
you agree that the antagist, the hams, lengthen. *AT the knee*?
>> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount
>> at
>> the other?
> A miracle?
The end of all life, as we know it?
>> Besides, there are two major muscles that can cause hip joint extension.
>> How many muscles do we have for knee joint flexion? The gastrocs dont
>> count
>> ;-O
> Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
> hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
> exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
> shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
> point.
I still dont get it, Andre.
You have something against peak contraction.
All back muscles do very well bu just that...
>>> No. Muscle works like an elastic band. Elastic band cant pull at one
>>> attachment and not pull at the other. It pulls equally hard at both
>>> ends.
>> Which was/is my arguement all along!
>> It doesnt matter at which side you pull!
> Agreed. I have nothing against knee flexion, once again.
Okay.
>>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>>> would work all right.
>> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen
>> those,
>> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)
> Better then 180 degrees.
Why?
>>> To make them work fine one would need to be able
>>> to do curls in bent-over position...
>> Why?
>> The hams contract *no matter what position the torso is in.*
>> Your theory would make all my effert for triceps at the pulley worthless!
>> I
>> can assure its not ;-O
>> the tris, in this particular exercise,. are *shortened* at the shoulder
>> joint, in the same way hams are sjortened at "normal" leg curls.
>> Same for preacher/Scott curls. Shortened at the *other* joint, not
>> stretched!
> I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
> but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.
I dont get it.
>>> and additionally make a levers of a
>>> machine work in such a way, that a load at the top of movement would be
>>> significantly lower than at the beginning.
>> I dont get this.
>>> Wait, there exist such a machine! It's called Glute-Ham Raise!
>> We dont use those over here. I am not kidding.
>> Is there a site where i can watch that movement?
> Hobbes posted a link with animated gif. It's not the best illustration
> of what guys from Westside do, but it should be enough to give you an
> idea.
I saw it.
----
Pete
JMW
I don't think it's so much "which end" as the complexity of the
movement. I suspect that a lot more motor units are recruited, and
firing frequency and patterns are higher and more complex, when
attempting to stabilize a heavy, complex movement like the back squat,
as opposed to an isolated single-joint movement like leg curls. By the
same token, you would probably find the same thing to be true when
comparing back squats to reverse hypers.
This, of course, is theory. I can't find any EMG studies that directly
support that theory.
Andrzej Rosa
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-11-02 Shute napisa?(a):
>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:58:04 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>><bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW - IMHO best lift for hams is Glute-Ham Raise.
>>>
>>> I hadn't heard of Glute-Ham before. Those look interesting. I wish
>>> they had pictures on the equipment at my gym because it all looks a
>>> like. I might have to ask the guy if they have the machine to do
>>> them.
>>
>>Try this link to see how a good GHR machine looks like.
>>http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=4100&tid=105
>>
>>Also, in my post about no equipment training I described how to perform
>>natural (no equipment) GHRs to get similar effect. If you haven't read
>>it, google it. ;-) It can be done in power rack.
>>
>>Haven't read the article, but here you can see how they work in a rack.
>>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/renegade10.htm
>
> They use terms like "nastiest", "brutal", and "no walk in the park" to
> describe it.
Coach Davies obviously tried them at least once. ;-)
> Sounds like the special equipment would be a much nicer
> route to go.
In case your gym has no machine for GHR, you could still do natural
GHRs with a bit of clever approach. You lean forward to some point
(lets say that you put a bar on top of safeties in a rack) and then
just bend at the hips. Once you get stronger, lower the bar, which
works just as a point of reference (you do not put any pressure on it).
Or, you could hold onto elastic bands for assistance. Attach them to
the top of rack. Or, if rack has a pulley built in, grab a pulley bar
for assistance.
> The first link looks quite a bit different than some of the others I
> saw in my search. My gym has mostly Life Fitness equipment and this
> is their Hammer Strength version:
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/gluteham_1
Should work better then leg curls.
> You can click enlarge to get a better view. I don't know if we have
> one or not. Also check out this odd kneeling leg curl:
> http://us.commercial.lifefitness.com/content.cfm/kneelinglegcurl
>
> I think we have something like that. I need to look around the gym to
> see what we have.
How about trying to get good at good mornings? If you like leg curls,
by all means, do them, but they are not necessary for anything. They
are not especially good at building mass, and they give strength
increase at "wrong" position. I see no point to waste your limited
energy on this machine if you could be doing something productive with
a barbell.
Until you simply like this exercise, of course.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> Other than a GHR, how else might you do a no-equipment leg curl?
I wouldn't. Why do leg curls, if barbell exercises hit your hams so
well?
> Isometrics at various points in the ROM is one possibility, but I'm thinking
> more dynamic.
If I really wanted to leg curl with limited equipment, I'd try do one
legged leg curls against bands. I'd need some straps around working
leg and some carabiner (or how do you call it) for fast attachment.
I'd lie on a table and attach bands somewhere in front and work one leg
at a time.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
JMW
> "Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with most of this, but if i had to put money on 2 different guys who
>> never squat a day in their live, i would put my money on the one who uses
>> twice as much wqeight as the other in leg extensions ;-O
>
>Yup.
>
>Deepsquatter had a plate loaded t-bar rowing machine in his gym. So he
>was doing them at the end of a Westside workout when I went down to the
>Bay area for a football game and took in a workout with him. He was some
>pissed because I never did the exercise (didn't have access to it) and
>could do 8 or 10 (can't remember what was the maximum amount they could
>fit on it) 45 lb plates for 5 or 6 reps pretty easy.
Are you talking about a more classic T-bar rowing machine, like
Trygve's ...
http://www.trygve.com/tbar02.jpg
Or are you talking about one with cross-membered plate loading, such
as this one?
http://www.rochesterfitnessequipment.com/Freeweights/Powertec/Powertec_Leverage_T-Bar_Row.jpg
Proctologically Violated┊
Also nice fitness/lifting dictionary/glossary, seems well-done.
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
news:d2fkk2hvljmc9j9jr...@4ax.com...
Hobbes
JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> http://www.trygve.com/tbar02.jpg
Looked more like that guy, as I recall.
Rows and chins have always been pretty easy for me. I've done true
single handed chins when I was a firefighter and much lighter. I wish
they had a chin-up competition!
So between the deadlifting and just having decent insertions for that
type of thing I do okay without doing them regulalry.
--
Keith
Andrzej Rosa
>> potential". At the finishing point of lying leg curls, hams are
>> shortened as far as they can, even without any extra load. As it
>> happens, this is the point when they are asked to deliver top force,
>> which they simply can't do.
>
> Again, this doesnt make any sense. When the legs and torso are at 180 degree
> angle, the hams shorten to move the loweer legs, and the amount of
> shortening is identical as when the angle torso/upper leg is 90 degrees.
I bet you could move more weight on a machine like Shute showed, then on
a lying leg curl machine. What I wrote does make sense.
>> If my "theory" is right, then triceps kickbacks and concentration curls
>> would suck. They do. If my "theory" is right, then close chain
>> movements would rule and open chain movements would generally suck too,
>> as far as mass building goes. They do.
>
> You know better than that.
> The reason kickbacks are crappy is because there is a crappy resistance
> curve.
Same goes for leg curls and leg extensions. Resistance curve *is*
crappy there.
> Both torso and humerus are parallel to the floor.
> When you do pushdowns, both humerus and torso are perpendicular to the
> floor, IOW, the angle at which the triceps are worked in kickbacks an
> pushdowns are the same.
>
> But pushdowns have a better resistance curve.
As GHRs have. I simply described *why* this crappy resistance curve of
kickbacks and leg curls is crappy, from a point of view of building mass
and strength.
> And Scot curls place the humerus at about the same angle wrt the torso as
> concentrations, but you can build mass nicely with Scottts.
Highest load with preachers or scotts happens to be when a biceps is
slightly stretched (like, it has long way to go before it is maximally
shortened). At the top of the movement there is *rest* position, just
like in GHRs, squats or GMs. In leg curls there is no rest in top
position, just like in kickbacks and concentration curls.
> With plain old fashioned barbell curls, the biceps arent stretched nowhere
> near as in 45 degree incline curls, but this doesnt mean the inclines are
> the superior mass builder.
Neither I really think they are, but they are still better then
concentration curls.
> BTW, when you do pull-ups, or rows, the bis shorten at one end, yet they
> lengthen at the other.
>
> When you do dips, the triceps shorten at the elbow, but lengthen at the
> shoulder. As in all pushing motions.
>
> I hope you get my point...
I actually do. Your description isn't perfect, but I understand what
you mean. Sure, situations like that happen, but the exercises still
work fine.
>> However, I don't rule out the possibility that too much stretch is not
>> optimal. It could be, that it is. I simply do not know (but taking in
>> account that many mass builders require some elasticity of joints, I
>> wouldn't suspect that more stretch at the beginning is such a bad thing).
>
> But it doesnt matter where the stretch is. At one side or the other.
Sure. What matters is that the muscle must have enough "shortening
possibility" to work hard.
[...]
>> Nothing wrong. I like knee flexion, as long as top force doesn't
>> happen at the end of the movement, when hams are in no position to
>> deliver anything substancial.
>
> What exatly is "top forcë" ?!?!?!
A force opposing worked muscles at the end of a movement. Like in
standing curls, at the end of positive part of movement biceps do not
work hard. During concentration curls they work hardest at this point,
which is not very good.
>>> *they actually LENGTHEN at the knee!*
>
>>> Ever wondered about that? i did.
>
>> I did, too. They don't lengthen at one point and shorten at the other.
>
> Excuse me?
> Of course they do!
>
> What else do you think happens during the squat and deadlift ?!?!?!
They just shorten.
>> They can't do it. They *just* shorten.
>
> That doesnt make any sense!
Neither Aussies walking upside down!
> When you get out of the hole, there is hip joint extension and knee joint
> extension *at the same time.*, right? right!
Exactly.
> So, what exactly do YOU think the hams are doing *while that happens*?
They just shorten. Your foreleg extends because of quads, which must work
against hams and load together. That's what makes squats such a good
movement. Hams and quads working together lessen the stress on the
knee, because they balance each other.
>> Action of other muscles
>> prevents them from flexing a knee during squating (for example), but if
>> insertion points of muscle are brought closer together, muscle just
>> shortens. That's it.
>
> So ?!?!?!
>
> We both agree that the hams acts as hip joint extonsors, right?
> We both agree that the hams are knee joint flexors, right?
Right! ;-)
> When the hams shorten you get either hip joint extension or knee joint
> flexion. Right?
Or both, right.
> So what do the hams do when you get hip joint extensin and *knee* joint
> extension?
> With extension, in the *knee* as *opposed to *flexion* ?!?!?!
>
> If one muscle at a side of the jont shortens, as quads as in squats, dont
> you agree that the antagist, the hams, lengthen. *AT the knee*?
You could say that insertion point at the knee is moved further out
from the middle of femur (as a reference point), but muscle shortens as
a whole, because insertion point at the hip is brought toward the
middle point of femur even further, so in effect both insertion points
come closer together.
I'm not sure if I did good job at explaining this...
>>> What happens if a muscle shortens at one end and lengthen the same amount
>>> at the other?
>
>> A miracle?
>
> The end of all life, as we know it?
Take a look at it this way. Muscle has a muscle belly, which can
shorten. At both ends it has unshortenable tendons. It can't shorten
at one end or other because tendons do not shorten. It can shorten
only in the middle, bringing insertion points together in effect.
>> Beside the point. As long as some muscle is a prime mover, it must work
>> hard. The point is how much force a muscle can generate during an
>> exercise. If exercise requires a muscle to contract hard in strongly
>> shortened position, a muscle is not able to do much work. This is my
>> point.
>
> I still dont get it, Andre.
>
> You have something against peak contraction.
>
> All back muscles do very well bu just that...
You mean like chins and rows? To make both slightly more effective I
use pausing at the top. Without it I do not think they work all that
great. Similar goes for shrugs. And, funny enough, similar tactics
are widely used on leg extensions or concentration curls.
I use chins and rows because I do not know any better movements for
back, but I try to overcome their shortcomings by smart execution.
[...]
>>>> I meant, that if leg curl machines were constructed differently, they
>>>> would work all right.
>
>>> You mean with a certain angle between the torso and legs? I have seen
>>> those,
>>> with a 60 degree angle (120 to be precise)
>
>> Better then 180 degrees.
>
> Why?
Push yourself out with hands to see if you can pull more this way.
>> I wrote above what I mean. If it's still unclear, I'll do it again,
>> but my "theory" is fine with pushdowns and preacher curls.
>
> I dont get it.
Have a look at pec-dec machine. If you used it how it's supposed to be
used, by putting your forearms against pads, and if you wanted to make
the pads meet in the middle, you would have to use some microscopic
loads. Some really big guys wouldn't probably be able to make the pads
meet even with no load at all! Is it good exercise for chest?
I do not think so, and I remember that you use it differently, and you
are actually able to get something out of this machine.
[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
John Hanson
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>In article <1162439103.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Stu" <ssw...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> Curt wrote:
>> > Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
>> > response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>>
>> In the hamstrings? Not for me. Squats and leg presses don't
>> sufficiently tax my hamstrings, which is why I train hams on a
>> different day to quads. But then, I'm not normal.
>>
>You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
Or not squatting very wide.
Curt
> Curt wrote:
> > Just one: That leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the
> > DOMS response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>
> In the hamstrings?
No.
In "the general."
> Not for me. Squats and leg presses don't sufficiently tax my
> hamstrings, which is why I train hams on a different day to
> quads. But then, I'm not normal.
Cool.
Obviously, I wasn't clear in my statement. I meant that I'd guess that
a compound movement with heavy weight would create a more significant
DOMS response as compared to an isolation movement with lighter weight.
> Stu
--
Curt
Curt
> Curt wrote:
[...]
> ><snip> leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
> > response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>
> No,
Well, I was speaking in general terms. Guessing, if you will.
> because there is only a 25% load transfer (or whatever)
Or whatever? Oh. Okay, you were guessing, too.
[...]
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
Curt
Oyster bars: http://www.docksoysterbar.com/
--
Stu
> Perhaps that was a bad example because you guys use a lot more in the dead
> as "we" do in rows.
> Heaviest row i EVER did was 130 kilos in the cable and 70 kilo with DBs
You're kidding me...
I did 130kg cable rows last night. You're talking normal seated rows,
right? I'd have thought you were using more than that.
Stu
Curt
> Curt said the likely reason I got doms in the
> hams doing squats was because
A guess was all, PV. It just seems obvious that DOMS would occur after
a substantial effort with greater poundage versus the much lighter
(typically, but not in your case as you es'plained) leg curls.
> I was simply doing more weight than I was leg curling.
> But here's the thing:
> I generally don't squat much cuz, well, I cain't squat fer
> shit, not being all that comfortable with it.
> And the clean and jerk, with moderate albeit vigorous
> weights, gets the hams real good as well.
> As does goddamm *weed pulling*.
That first week of cross country would always (and absolutely) KILL
seemingly every fiber of muscle in my legs from toes to hips.
AAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!
> BUT, Leg curling on the old Nautilus machines,
> *with all my might*, multiple sets, yielded no doms whatsoever.
> Seems odd, as "perceived exertion" is a somewhat reliable
> predictor of muscle stress.
>
> Is it that "attacking" the muscle from two different ends/
> attachment points (if that makes sense), from the knee-end
> vs. the hip-end, makes that much of a diff?
> I'm thinking in analogy to "upper ab" exercise vs "lower ab"
> exercises, which I never quite believed anyway.
If one believes what's written in Zinczenko's The Abs Diet then the
lower versus upper abs is indeed a hoax. It's one muscle, according to
Z.
--
Curt
Stu
> You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
>
> to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
>
> Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
> partial squats.
Define partial...
I call a partial squat anything less than parallel, but it sounds to me
like you'd call partial anything less than attg?
I squat below parallel, but yes I could go deeper, ie until my
hamstrings and calves are squashed together... which is probably going
about 2-3" further. Maybe next week I'll try full attg squats and see
how I go, but I'm still willing to bet my hamstrings are worked nowhere
near as hard as when I train them separately.
Stance width is probably 1.5 times shoulder width, maybe slightly more
- am working on going wider to maybe 2x shoulder width.
Stu
Stu
> What do you do for hams?
Heavy leg curls, good mornings, sometimes standing 1-legged curls.
This week it was 2 super sets, each consisting of heavy curls, then
good mornings, then negatives on leg curls. After that I did a drop set
on 1-legged curls to finish off.
Stu
John Hanson
misc.fitness.weights:
Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.
Sag
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
>
> *killed*--doms for days.
You want this article:
http://ajsm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/518
Basically, squats activate a whole lot more of a muscle than leg
presses or leg curls.
DOMS is much more an indicator of bad conditioning, than of work done.
Best luck.
Sag
> What's the difference, specifically regarding the hamstrings??
> I thought that by leg curling really heavy (face down, on Nautilus type
> machine), I'd be killed by DOMS the next day. Yet this has never happened.
And I quote from this other article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9565938&dopt=Abstract
"Overall, the squat generated approximately twice as much hamstring
activity as the leg press and knee extensions."
If you can, squat.
Best luck.
Stu
> Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.
And how much would you suggest John, given that you have no idea what
I'm squatting?
Just because I'm not squatting as much as you doesn't mean I'm wussing
out. So, respectfully, fuck off.
FWIW, my best squat was a few years ago, 2 sets of 3 @ 220kg, all below
parallel. For various reasons I've had a lot of time off since then,
and am working on bringing my squat weight back up. At the moment I'm
at 2 reps @ 180kg. I know I have more strength there; I've just got to
work on the technique - including confidence since I'm used to having a
spotter behind me and now I'm training alone at home. (I never used to
go to 4 plates without a spotter).
One problem I'm working on is that I drop too fast, ie not enough
control on the descent, and recently I've found that doing some
partials is helping. Two weeks ago I deliberately did 5 half reps on 4
plates (180kg), then 2 sets of 2 "full" reps at that weight. (The week
before that I only managed 2 singles). Working to a lesser controlled
depth is helping me reach "full" depth with more control instead of
dropping like a sack of spuds. ("Full" depth meaning my normal depth
btw). I'm confident that with a bit of time working on technique I'll
be back up to 5-6 reps @ 180kg.
Btw I finished off squats that workout with 2 sets of 8 pause reps @
140kg (ie pause at the bottom of each rep).
Interestingly I felt pain in my quads a lot more in the half reps than
the full reps. Strange.
I don't know if that classifies as some fucking weight on the bar or
not. But no hamstring DOMS, ever. Only quads.
Stu
JMW
OK. Now I have found an EMG study. And my theory fails ... big time.
Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
activation of the motor units.
[Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
Bully
> Bully wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> <snip> leg curling by X pounds wouldn't create the DOMS
>>> response that squatting by 3X pounds would. Yes?
>>
>> No,
>
> Well, I was speaking in general terms. Guessing, if you will.
>
>> because there is only a 25% load transfer (or whatever)
>
> Or whatever? Oh. Okay, you were guessing, too.
No, not at all -- just unsure of the correct term.
>
> [...]
>
>> Bully
>> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> Curt
> Oyster bars: http://www.docksoysterbar.com/
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Bully
Does the machine have 10kg painted on each of the blocks?
Bully
Stu
> Does the machine have 10kg painted on each of the blocks?
?
It's a 100kg stack (20 x 5kg plates) with a top plate you can add extra
weight to (I had 15kg on each side, plus the full stack).
If you were implying that I had the pin on 13 and they were 5kg plates,
then no, no the case.
Stu
Bully
> Bully wrote:
>> Does the machine have 10kg painted on each of the blocks?
>
> ?
>
> It's a 100kg stack (20 x 5kg plates)
My point is, are the plates really 5kg each? I think Charlie-boy might be
addressing a similar point in another thread somewhere on MFW.
> with a top plate you can add
> extra weight to (I had 15kg on each side, plus the full stack).
>
> If you were implying that I had the pin on 13 and they were 5kg
> plates, then no, no the case.
No, see above.
>
>
> Stu
Stu
> My point is, are the plates really 5kg each? I think Charlie-boy might be
> addressing a similar point in another thread somewhere on MFW.
Yes, they are. I've balanced 4 of them with a 20kg olympic plate... I
actually wanted to be certain the pulleys weren't providing any
assistance. Assuming the 20kg plate was accurately labelled, the weight
stack plates are 5kg each.
Stu
Pete
> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units.
> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
HA !!!
I have been saying this for almost a decade!
----
Pete
Pete
>> Perhaps that was a bad example because you guys use a lot more in the
>> dead
>> as "we" do in rows.
>> Heaviest row i EVER did was 130 kilos in the cable and 70 kilo with DBs
> You're kidding me...
No.
> I did 130kg cable rows last night. You're talking normal seated rows,
> right? I'd have thought you were using more than that.
Sorry man!
----
Pete
Bully
Gotcha, nice one :) !
You're in the UK, right?
Stu
Bully wrote:
>
> You're in the UK, right?
>
No... Perth... another downunder boy here. :-)
Stu
Pete
> You're kidding me...
Forgot to say;
I use a pretty long ROM, about 3 feet, and use the lower back as a prime
mover. ONE of the prime movers.
Going forward also helps to transfer more stress to the lattisimus.
With the cable, 130 is a bigass pull, Stu. There are Pros who use a lot
less.
There is a Nabba Mr. Universe in my gym who doesnt go over 85-90.
How much do you use for DB rows, pulldowns, wide and narrow, and barbell
rows?
Whats your bodyweight?
BTW, i used 130 when i was 130. I use less now.
Depending on how i feel, i use 110-115 for most back exercises (with cables)
and my weight is aprox. 115.
DB rows about 60. Sometimes 120 for cable rows. On a good day. The stack
goes up 105 and i attach a 10-25 plate.
The cable row is at a dead point of the camera, so the owner doesnt
notice...
About 5-10 sets of 8.
I could use a LOT more doing barbell or T-bar rows, using momentum. But i
wont.
----
Pete
Andrzej Rosa
> "JMW" <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think it's so much "which end" as the complexity of the
>>movement. I suspect that a lot more motor units are recruited, and
>>firing frequency and patterns are higher and more complex, when
>>attempting to stabilize a heavy, complex movement like the back squat,
>>as opposed to an isolated single-joint movement like leg curls. By the
>>same token, you would probably find the same thing to be true when
>>comparing back squats to reverse hypers.
>>
>>This, of course, is theory. I can't find any EMG studies that directly
>>support that theory.
>
> OK. Now I have found an EMG study. And my theory fails ... big time.
>
> Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
> semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
> respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
> 35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
> ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
>
> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>
> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units.
>
> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
I don't think that it defies any dogma. First, squats are quad
dominant exercise, so there is nothing strange that quad dominant
exercise would activate hams to lower extent than ham isolation
exercise.
However, even for quads isolation exercises were better. And I'm not
surprised, because with the protocol used open chain exercises would
always appear to be better. They used 5 repetitions at 10RM. With
closed chain exercises you must keep some balance and can't put "all
you got" into 5 reps. With open chain exercises you can. If they
performed jump squats or leg pres throws it might look a bit different.
Take a look how they interpreted data. They didn't claim that
isolation open chain exercises were better than closed chain compounds.
They claimed that heavy resistance exercises were better than
traditional manual resistance "functional" crap where was an order of
magnitude difference.
Anyway, what I spotted was that at hight knee joint angles squats
activated vastus medialis best, so if you want this teardrop above the
knee, squat.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Pete
>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
> I don't think that it defies any dogma. First, squats are quad
> dominant exercise, so there is nothing strange that quad dominant
> exercise would activate hams to lower extent than ham isolation
> exercise.
Depends how you perform them.
In my case, both quads and glutes are equally dominant. For a lot of PLers,
glutes are dominant.
With the right build, quads can be dominant. Front squats are probly best if
you want the knee joint to be dominant.
> However, even for quads isolation exercises were better.
Leg presses with the feet in the middle of the sledge are also very good for
quads.
I am willing to bet that in the study John posted, the glutes were dominant
because the feet were placed relatively high on the sledge.
> And I'm not surprised, because with the protocol used open chain exercises
> would
> always appear to be better. They used 5 repetitions at 10RM. With
> closed chain exercises you must keep some balance and can't put "all
> you got" into 5 reps.
Strange...
Somebody around here has been saying that all along.
> With open chain exercises you can. If they
> performed jump squats or leg pres throws it might look a bit different.
If doesnt count. Sorry.
> Take a look how they interpreted data. They didn't claim that
> isolation open chain exercises were better than closed chain compounds.
> They claimed that heavy resistance exercises were better than
> traditional manual resistance "functional" crap where was an order of
> magnitude difference.
Okay.
> Anyway, what I spotted was that at hight knee joint angles squats
> activated vastus medialis best, so if you want this teardrop above the
> knee, squat.
No matter what study they show, i will still do squats, hacks, leg presses,
extensions and curls. And calf raises.
But not in one session. And i do each exercise for a reason.
I will be the first to admit that if i was forced to pick one exercise, i
would squat. They hit the adductors harder than the other exercises. Its so
fucking cool when the feet are a feet apart and half of the upper legs touch
each other.
Hacks are like front squats, dominant at the knee. Leg presses can be
dominant at the hip or knee.
The other exercises speak for themselves.
----
Pete
Bully
Ah, a rugby fan?
John Hanson
misc.fitness.weights:
>John Hanson wrote:
>> Then you need to put some fucking weight on the bar.
>
>And how much would you suggest John, given that you have no idea what
>I'm squatting?
>
>Just because I'm not squatting as much as you doesn't mean I'm wussing
>out. So, respectfully, fuck off.
>
>FWIW, my best squat was a few years ago, 2 sets of 3 @ 220kg, all below
>parallel. For various reasons I've had a lot of time off since then,
>and am working on bringing my squat weight back up. At the moment I'm
>at 2 reps @ 180kg. I know I have more strength there; I've just got to
>work on the technique - including confidence since I'm used to having a
>spotter behind me and now I'm training alone at home. (I never used to
>go to 4 plates without a spotter).
So I'm guessing Keith is right and you aren't even hitting parallel.
>
>One problem I'm working on is that I drop too fast, ie not enough
>control on the descent, and recently I've found that doing some
>partials is helping. Two weeks ago I deliberately did 5 half reps on 4
>plates (180kg), then 2 sets of 2 "full" reps at that weight. (The week
>before that I only managed 2 singles). Working to a lesser controlled
>depth is helping me reach "full" depth with more control instead of
>dropping like a sack of spuds. ("Full" depth meaning my normal depth
>btw). I'm confident that with a bit of time working on technique I'll
>be back up to 5-6 reps @ 180kg.
That doesn't make any sense either. If you aren't going ATG, there
are muscle groups that have to stop the weight, namely, your
hamstrings (among others). If you are dropping that fast, your
hammies are really going to bear the brunt of that force.
>
>Btw I finished off squats that workout with 2 sets of 8 pause reps @
>140kg (ie pause at the bottom of each rep).
>
>Interestingly I felt pain in my quads a lot more in the half reps than
>the full reps. Strange.
Strange that you are even feeling pain. You shouldn't feel any pain
in any muscles while lifting unless it's your first couple of warm up
sets and even then, that is a bad thing.
>
>I don't know if that classifies as some fucking weight on the bar or
>not. But no hamstring DOMS, ever. Only quads.
>
Perhaps you work them often enough where you don't get doms.
Hobbes
"Stu" <ssw...@iname.com> wrote:
As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to parallel
and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about a half squat.
A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
Basically it is going as low as you can.
--
Keith
Hobbes
JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
Easy to argue with those numbers.
They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
requiring motor skills like the squat.
Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
weightlifters.
--
Keith
Hobbes
"Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
As I posted in another thread
Easy to argue with those numbers.
They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
requiring motor skills like the squat.
Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
weightlifters.
And I quote from the study:
"None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
training of the lower extremities."
In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
squat, are they?
Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?
--
Keith
Hobbes
<khobman800-A488E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Hobbes <khobm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Damn John - did you look at the study?
Not only are they completely novice lifters they have them doing a half
squat. 100 degrees at the knee and 90 at the hip? Give me a break!
That study simply can't be used for experienced weightlifters. All it
really tells you is that newbies would be better off doing isolation
movements during their first workout if their goal for that workout is
motor unit activation. And if they have a choice of one silly-ass squat
technique. What kind of newbie would have that goal for the first
workout?
I'd love to see EMG analysis of someone like Coan or Dimas - you can bet
activation levels would be different.
--
Keith
Andrzej Rosa
> In article <454b0052$0$36891$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Pete" <phou...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>>
>> > That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
>> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
>> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
>> > activation of the motor units.
>>
>> > [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> > small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>>
>> HA !!!
>>
>> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
>
>
> Easy to argue with those numbers.
>
> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
> requiring motor skills like the squat.
>
> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
> weightlifters.
>
> And I quote from the study:
>
> "None of the subjects had previously participated in regular resistance
> training of the lower extremities."
>
> In other words - no freakin' motor skills and they are not going to be
> able to recruit motor units in a difficult compound exercise like the
> squat, are they?
>
> Now try and do an EMG on someone like Dimas and see what happens?
I thought about it too, but I suspect that 5 reps done with 10RM would
show similar tendencies also for experienced lifters. Also, besides
motor skills, in a compound exercise there exist possibility of weak
links. How come those guys got fatigued enough to not be able to
perform 11 reps if they don't activate prime movers? I can imagine
that some other muscles (maybe lower back, maybe glutes) got fatigued
to a point of failure.
I'm sure that my glutes are sore after yesterday's stepups.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
>> I don't think that it defies any dogma. First, squats are quad
>> dominant exercise, so there is nothing strange that quad dominant
>> exercise would activate hams to lower extent than ham isolation
>> exercise.
>
> Depends how you perform them.
>
> In my case, both quads and glutes are equally dominant. For a lot of PLers,
> glutes are dominant.
>
> With the right build, quads can be dominant. Front squats are probly best if
> you want the knee joint to be dominant.
Right. But I'm pretty sure that they used high bar squats. Not a
single newbie I taught squatting was able to perform low bar, wideish
stance powerlifting style squats.
>> However, even for quads isolation exercises were better.
>
> Leg presses with the feet in the middle of the sledge are also very good for
> quads.
> I am willing to bet that in the study John posted, the glutes were dominant
> because the feet were placed relatively high on the sledge.
Possible.
>> And I'm not surprised, because with the protocol used open chain exercises
>> would
>> always appear to be better. They used 5 repetitions at 10RM. With
>> closed chain exercises you must keep some balance and can't put "all
>> you got" into 5 reps.
>
> Strange...
> Somebody around here has been saying that all along.
Do you have any problems with making your squats intense enough? If
not, it's moot point. But newbies have problems with intense squatting.
Before they learn how to do it, they fail for strangest reasons, like
lack of flexibility, balance, skill and bad form due to huge weaknesses
in important places.
It's even more pronounced with one-legged movements. Every movement
with high skill requirements takes time to become effective.
>> With open chain exercises you can. If they
>> performed jump squats or leg pres throws it might look a bit different.
>
> If doesnt count. Sorry.
Depends what you want to see. I see, that jump or throw is
open-endish, so if you do not put conscious effort into "pacing" yourself
through a set, your early reps will be "stronger" than your last ones.
With close-chain movement you have to make very similar effort in every
rep, as long as your form does not brake and tempo is more or less
constant.
[...]
>> Anyway, what I spotted was that at hight knee joint angles squats
>> activated vastus medialis best, so if you want this teardrop above the
>> knee, squat.
>
> No matter what study they show, i will still do squats, hacks, leg presses,
> extensions and curls. And calf raises.
> But not in one session. And i do each exercise for a reason.
>
> I will be the first to admit that if i was forced to pick one exercise, i
> would squat.
So you are equally dogmatic as most of mfw-ers.
> They hit the adductors harder than the other exercises. Its so
> fucking cool when the feet are a feet apart and half of the upper legs touch
> each other.
>
> Hacks are like front squats, dominant at the knee. Leg presses can be
> dominant at the hip or knee.
>
> The other exercises speak for themselves.
I wouldn't do knee extensions and curls even if I had full access to
various equipments, but not because I believe them to be worthless.
Depending on the design of a machine and technique of execution, I
believe that they may give some reasonable mass gains.
I would avoid them because they produce strength gains "wrong" way.
Who needs strong extensors with nearly straight leg? Who need strong
flextors with leg almost totally curled? I have limited energy and
recovery ability so I'd choose something which gives both mass and
strength gains which I can use.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> In article
><khobman800-A488E...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Hobbes <khobm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Easy to argue with those numbers.
>>
>> They are measuring muscular activation levels on people who have never
>> done resistance training for lower extremities. They have no motor
>> skills. As such it makes good sense that they can activate more in an
>> isolation exercise or simpler compound exercise than in an exercise
>> requiring motor skills like the squat.
>>
>> Yet another study on newbies that has no bearing to experienced
>> weightlifters.
>
> Damn John - did you look at the study?
>
> Not only are they completely novice lifters they have them doing a half
> squat. 100 degrees at the knee and 90 at the hip? Give me a break!
It's not so bad for newbies. If you have a group of them and want
consistency, that's what you'll have to do. Some of them could go
lower, but if some couldn't then your data would be really hard to
interpret.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Hobbes
Andrzej Rosa <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Point is - yet another useless study for people that actually train with
weights. You can't extrapolate data from novices to experienced lifters.
--
Keith
Stu
> I use a pretty long ROM, about 3 feet, and use the lower back as a prime
> mover. ONE of the prime movers.
> Going forward also helps to transfer more stress to the lattisimus.
Yes, you get a nice stretch. I do them the same way most of the time.
> With the cable, 130 is a bigass pull, Stu. There are Pros who use a lot less.
> There is a Nabba Mr. Universe in my gym who doesnt go over 85-90.
*shrug* I dunno what to say Pete. I've seen guys at my (former) gym
using 85-100 all the time.
> How much do you use for DB rows, pulldowns, wide and narrow, and barbell
> rows?
DB rows - at the moment 40kg cos that's the heaviest DB I have. I used
to use 60kg in the gym (heaviest they had).
Pulldowns - wide - best is 120kg. Narrow (close grip) last night was
95kg. But that's leaning back (fixed angle, not cheating, pulling to
the chest).
Barbell rows - it's been a long time since I did them regularly.
Usually did them after deadlifts. I expect I'd use 120kg without much
problem. Have done 8 reps on 140kg before but that was a few years ago
and I know my form went out badly on the last 2 reps.
> Whats your bodyweight?
Dunno. Somewhere between 105-110 at the moment.
> DB rows about 60. Sometimes 120 for cable rows. On a good day. The stack
> goes up 105 and i attach a 10-25 plate.
>
> The cable row is at a dead point of the camera, so the owner doesnt
> notice...
>
> About 5-10 sets of 8.
Yeah well I don't think I could do 120 for 5-10 sets of 8.
Last night, after chins... cable row "warmup" 8 @ 100kg, then 8 @ 120,
and 2 x 8 @ 130.
Thing is, I never considered that to be strong.
Unless we're talking about completely different exercises....
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/BackGeneral/CBSeatedRow.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/BackGeneral/CBWideGripSeatedRow.html
Last night was the wide grip variety. Well, I actually used a tricep
bar which is about 18" long and has the EZ bend in it (closest I have
to a suitable straight bar). But I know I can do the same weight with
the close grip one. (At least, I used the close grip one at 120kg last
time... last night was the first time with 130kg).
> I could use a LOT more doing barbell or T-bar rows, using momentum. But i
> wont.
Like I said, I never considered that I was that strong on cable row...
hence my original comment. I bet you can out row me with T-bar or
barbell rows no problem.
Stu
Stu
> As a powerlifter I've seen many people claim they are going to parallel
> and define parallel to the top of the leg - which is about a half squat.
>
> A full squat is ATTG. A full wide stance squat is different though.
> Basically it is going as low as you can.
Ok... so you define a full squat the same as exrx, as this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFullSquat.html
And you're calling this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBSquat.html
a half squat?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above "half" squat a pass
in powerlifting?
Stu
Bully
I believe you're correct on all accounts !!
Hobbes
"Stu" <ssw...@iname.com> wrote:
Depends on the federation. In the WPC and some others that would pass.
In the IPF and it's affilliates - not quite - he'd have to drop a little
more.
To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at the
hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined as below
parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.
John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and to
correct depth.
http://www.usapowerliftingforum.com/videos/lance905_2.rm
In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter that is
a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.
If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
Now. That is a full squat.
:^)
--
Keith
Tom Anderson
> "JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:
>
>> That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's hard
>> to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are* better
>> than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of activation
>> of the motor units.
Hang on - do we think squats are a ham exercise? I thought it was
primarily the quads and glutes working there; the hams come in, but in a
sort of stabilising role - Lombard's paradox and all that.
I thought official mfw advice was straight-leg or Romanian deadlifts for
hams. And for some reason, we dislike good mornings, BICBW.
>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
> HA !!!
>
> I have been saying this for almost a decade!
You have said a lot of things; statistically speaking, some were bound to
be right.
tom
--
The sun just came out, I can't believe it
Andrzej Rosa
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
>
> Now. That is a full squat.
>
>:^)
Really impressive.
I hate those Olympians. They make it look so easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVB_rQFSsEg
Pyrros Dimas workout.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Stu
>
> Ah, a rugby fan?
>
Nope... sorry, not really a fan of any sports... :-)
Stu
Stu
> So I'm guessing Keith is right and you aren't even hitting parallel.
Wrong.
> That doesn't make any sense either. If you aren't going ATG, there
> are muscle groups that have to stop the weight, namely, your
> hamstrings (among others). If you are dropping that fast, your
> hammies are really going to bear the brunt of that force.
I can see where you're coming from, but I don't find that. Maybe I'm
actually stopping from my hyooj hamstrings hitting my even hyoojer
calves. ;-)
I find squats hit my quads and not my hamstrings. I don't feel it in
the glutes either (only feel glutes on 45' leg press). The muscles
stopping the weight are my quads.
Maybe I've got a huge hamstring / quad imbalance. Or maybe I'm a freak.
Or maybe it's you. Either way who the fuck cares. You do your squats
for hamstring development and I'll do my hamstrings separately.
> Strange that you are even feeling pain. You shouldn't feel any pain
> in any muscles while lifting unless it's your first couple of warm up
> sets and even then, that is a bad thing.
Ok pain as in muscle under tension type pain. Not bad pain. Maybe I
should have just said I felt my quads work more on the half reps. (Btw
I'm calling a half rep halfway to my usual depth of the, apparently
highly contentious, just below parallel)
> Perhaps you work them often enough where you don't get doms.
Or rmaybe they're too strong for me to feel in squats. Or I'm a freak.
I can live with either.
FWIW - next week I'll try attg squats. I might also see if I can record
a clip on my crappy digital camera of my normal depth, so I can see for
myself.
Stu
Stu
> To be passed in IPF (including the CPU where I lift) the joint at the
> hip has to be lower than the joint at the knee. This is defined as below
I see...
> parallel, but would be considered very low by most gym squatters.
I'll have to record and check my depth, but I was always told (by lots
of people in the gym) that I squat very low. I'm convinced I squatted
lower than some of the shorter guys (in terms of height of bar from the
ground) and they were going to parallel...
> John Hanson recently published a video of a USAPL squat - heavy and to
> correct depth.
[snip]
> In this squat he hits the necessary depth pretty much right on the
> money. As you can see your point is valid. To an olympic lifter that is
> a 'half' squat. To a powerlifter that is a full squat.
Nice weight... So what do YOU call this. So far I'm under the
impression you'd be calling it a half squat cos it's not ATTG. Not like
the first exrx.net link I posted. No offence intended to John of course
- that's a great squat. I'm just trying to clarify how exactly you (and
John) propose I should be squatting... because when I squat to that
depth I do not get any DOMS in my hamstrings. Or even feel them during
the workout. (AFAIK anyway. Maybe the feeling is just overshadowed by
my quads)
I consider that video a "full" squat, and going to half that depth is a
half squat.
Then you've got ATTG squats which are a different beast... no such
thing as a half ATTG.
> If you go to the end of Chakarov's workout he does a back squat.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr1FuaoDco
Sorry can't access youtube on this computer.
Stu