4 ms·

> The team, which also included researchers from Niigata University and Nishi Kyushu University in Japan and Brazil’s Londrina State University, had groups of p

> The team, which also included researchers from Niigata University and Nishi Kyushu University in Japan and Brazil’s Londrina State University, had groups of people perform three different types of dumbbell curl exercise and measured the results. First of all, I've been lifting for many years and I haven't done dumbbell curls in a decade. And to be honest, you probably shouldn't be doing isolation exercises unless you don't mind risking injury and joint inflammation in the long-term. For those who don't do bodybuilding but real training (that's going to be squat, press and deadlift, pullups and variations of these), this is sort of junk science. No one serious uses a "leg press" - another injury-prone nightmare (do you value your lower back and are you something other than a football player?). He mentions (overhead / strict) press and perhaps there's something to try there with negatives, if one is extremely conservative and not an olympic weightlifter. Negative pullups are a thing, that's been known by the calisthenics community for ages, but only as a variation. >It found those who only lowered a weight saw the same improvements as those who raised and lowered weights — despite only performing half the number of repetitions. No shit. That's because eccentric exercises are far more fatiguing for the muscles. It's not something you can do all the time without burning yourself out and damaging your training progress long-term ("long-term" not being a key feature of this junk science study).

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I don't think your arguments are a fair critique of this study: > First of all, I've been lifting for many years and I haven't done dumbbell curls in a decade. The study authors aren't arguing that dumbbell curls should be the center of your workout. And they are are presumably using an isolation exercise because it is more straightforward to test improvements to strength when you are just examining the effect on a single muscle group. > >It found those who only lowered a weight saw the same improvements as those who raised and lowered weights — despite only performing half the number of repetitions. > No shit. That's because eccentric exercises are far more fatiguing for the muscles. It is a giant pet peeve of mine when scientists run a diligent study and then the response is "No shit, that's common sense" with the audacity to call it "junk science." Putting actual data and numbers behind a "common sense" belief is what science is all about - it is not "junk science". I think there are other fair critiques about the applicability of this study (for example, another commenter mentioned that they were dealing solely with untrained individuals), but the fact that they used dumbbell curls isn't one of them.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  To me it has as much value as some study saying people who eat a servings of strawberries a week live longer after studying a handful of participants or something. It's one data point, one among many. It won't significantly change my beliefs about anything, unless other studies start confirming its findings.
- hahaxdxd123 4y ago
  I would also add that some of his arguments are just wrong? > you probably shouldn't be doing isolation exercises unless you don't mind risking injury and joint inflammation in the long-term I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. > No one serious uses a "leg press" - another injury-prone nightmare I know both serious powerlifters and "serious" (non competitive) bodybuilders that use leg press as an accessory on leg days. Stability provided by machines just let you lift more weight.
  - mancerayder 4y ago
    > I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. That's because by "getting injured" you're thinking of "a momentary lapse of form." As an old guy, I can tell you the injuries to look out for happen slowly, then suddenly, when muscle imbalances accumulate and inflammation starts to happen more than the body can recover from it, repeatedly and over a period of time. Tweaking a muscle is nothing, muscle imbalances and joint pain are the fun stuff. Since bicep curls are not functional movements, they're prone to these muscle imbalances. A pullup or chinup (even weighted) is a counter-example, and a more natural human movement. Having huge, very strong biceps and not ensuring the triceps keep up (and not to mention the muscles in the forearm) is more likely to result in pain at some point. Probably pain in the elbows. You also hear of muscle / tendon tears (you can see some of them on YouTube if you can stomach it) while the exercise is performed. > Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. Maybe some of your arguments are just wrong ? 400 lbs isn't a meaningful number in isolation. And moving what, as in squatting? It depends on your weight class and training levels but 400 lbs of squatting isn't a recipe for damage and death if you've built up to it with good form. Why would it be? Which part of the anatomy do you think will suffer first?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I don't think your arguments are a fair critique of this study: > First of all, I've been lifting for many years and I haven't done dumbbell curls in a decade. The study authors aren't arguing that dumbbell curls should be the center of your workout. And they are are presumably using an isolation exercise because it is more straightforward to test improvements to strength when you are just examining the effect on a single muscle group. > >It found those who only lowered a weight saw the same improvements as those who raised and lowered weights — despite only performing half the number of repetitions. > No shit. That's because eccentric exercises are far more fatiguing for the muscles. It is a giant pet peeve of mine when scientists run a diligent study and then the response is "No shit, that's common sense" with the audacity to call it "junk science." Putting actual data and numbers behind a "common sense" belief is what science is all about - it is not "junk science". I think there are other fair critiques about the applicability of this study (for example, another commenter mentioned that they were dealing solely with untrained individuals), but the fact that they used dumbbell curls isn't one of them.

im3w1l 4y ago
To me it has as much value as some study saying people who eat a servings of strawberries a week live longer after studying a handful of participants or something. It's one data point, one among many. It won't significantly change my beliefs about anything, unless other studies start confirming its findings.
hahaxdxd123 4y ago
I would also add that some of his arguments are just wrong? > you probably shouldn't be doing isolation exercises unless you don't mind risking injury and joint inflammation in the long-term I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. > No one serious uses a "leg press" - another injury-prone nightmare I know both serious powerlifters and "serious" (non competitive) bodybuilders that use leg press as an accessory on leg days. Stability provided by machines just let you lift more weight.
- mancerayder 4y ago
  > I have never heard of anyone getting injured from dumbbell curls or lateral raises, but everyone I know has tweaked something from a momentary lapse of form in compound movements. Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. That's because by "getting injured" you're thinking of "a momentary lapse of form." As an old guy, I can tell you the injuries to look out for happen slowly, then suddenly, when muscle imbalances accumulate and inflammation starts to happen more than the body can recover from it, repeatedly and over a period of time. Tweaking a muscle is nothing, muscle imbalances and joint pain are the fun stuff. Since bicep curls are not functional movements, they're prone to these muscle imbalances. A pullup or chinup (even weighted) is a counter-example, and a more natural human movement. Having huge, very strong biceps and not ensuring the triceps keep up (and not to mention the muscles in the forearm) is more likely to result in pain at some point. Probably pain in the elbows. You also hear of muscle / tendon tears (you can see some of them on YouTube if you can stomach it) while the exercise is performed. > Turns out moving 400lb+ pounds close to your limit regularly isn't that safe. Maybe some of your arguments are just wrong ? 400 lbs isn't a meaningful number in isolation. And moving what, as in squatting? It depends on your weight class and training levels but 400 lbs of squatting isn't a recipe for damage and death if you've built up to it with good form. Why would it be? Which part of the anatomy do you think will suffer first?