Correct technique for dumbbell curls?

Zerex71 said:

Group,

I did arms last night and was wondering about a question I've had for
a while, which is, what is the proper technique for doing dumbbell
curls? The reason I ask is, perhaps me lowering my arms back to a
totally vertical position at my sides (dumbbells parallel to each
other) and then raising them up so that the 'bells curls inward)
might be making it more difficult to do. (Kind of like the principle
of not letting the weight stack go all the way back down.) Am I
doing these right? It takes a lot more effort to "bump" them up a bit
to get the curl going if I let my arms go completely down to my
sides. Please advise.

Also, on a related topic, I have never had much success getting beyond
the 35- or 40-lb dumbbells doing curls, and I'm hoping to bust through
that wall at some point. Can anyone provide some pointers or advice
as to my expectations? My lower body has always been stronger than my
upper body but I'm not an upper-body weakling.

Mike

I used to only do dumbbell curls. But I moved to the Hammer Strength
machine for my primary bicep exercise. I do one arm preacher curls rather
than both arms at the same time on it. The reason I prefer the HS to
dumbbells is that the weight is consistent throughout the ROM. With
dumbbell, once you near the top of the rep, the weight gets lighter because
of the proximity to your elbow. Also, doing one are at a time allows me to
line up my arm and insure that it's coming straight up, not turning in or
out. If it is, I just shift one way or the other. You can also use the
free arm to assist on the last rep if needed.
--
-Larry

Zerex71 said:

Group,

I did arms last night and was wondering about a question I've had for

a

Quoted message said:

while, which is, what is the proper technique for doing dumbbell

curls?

Quoted message said:

The reason I ask is, perhaps me lowering my arms back to a totally
vertical position at my sides (dumbbells parallel to each other) and
then raising them up so that the 'bells curls inward) might be making
it more difficult to do. (Kind of like the principle of not letting
the weight stack go all the way back down.) Am I doing these right?
It takes a lot more effort to "bump" them up a bit to get the curl
going if I let my arms go completely down to my sides. Please

advise.

You can twist the weight as you bring it up or not...it makes a bit of
difference as they are not the exact same exercise. One would be a
bicep curl (moving hands to an underhand grip), the other would be a
hammer curl (keeping the grip straight). You could also try some
preacher curls or concentration curls...throw some barbell curls in
there too...mix it up.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:44:32 -0800, Larry Hodges wrote:

I have a question related to curls as well. Since curls tend to be a
rather isolated exercise I decided to try to incorporate more muscles into
it to make more use of my time by doing curls with a pronated grip. I
figure I hit my forearms a bit more this way (and I do feel it). I
mentioned this to a personal trainer and he said there wasn't any point
but I didn't really understand his reasoning (actually I don't think he
really gave any reason). So what do people here think about my idea? I
found mention of reverse curls on the web which looks like the same thing
so it's obviously not a unique thing.

While I'm on the topic of bringing more muscles into play for biceps, does
anyone here think there'd be any advantage in bringing the elbow up and
back at the same time. Kind of like a verticle, standing row I guess. I'm
wondering if it'll ensure the resistance doesn't reduce during the top of
the curl and will also work out the rear deltoids.

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zerex71 said:

Group,

I did arms last night and was wondering about a question I've had for
a while, which is, what is the proper technique for doing dumbbell
curls? The reason I ask is, perhaps me lowering my arms back to a
totally vertical position at my sides (dumbbells parallel to each
other) and then raising them up so that the 'bells curls inward)
might be making it more difficult to do. (Kind of like the principle
of not letting the weight stack go all the way back down.) Am I
doing these right? It takes a lot more effort to "bump" them up a bit
to get the curl going if I let my arms go completely down to my
sides. Please advise.

Also, on a related topic, I have never had much success getting beyond
the 35- or 40-lb dumbbells doing curls, and I'm hoping to bust through
that wall at some point. Can anyone provide some pointers or advice
as to my expectations? My lower body has always been stronger than my
upper body but I'm not an upper-body weakling.

Mike

I used to only do dumbbell curls. But I moved to the Hammer Strength
machine for my primary bicep exercise. I do one arm preacher curls rather
than both arms at the same time on it. The reason I prefer the HS to
dumbbells is that the weight is consistent throughout the ROM. With
dumbbell, once you near the top of the rep, the weight gets lighter

because

Quoted message said:

of the proximity to your elbow. Also, doing one are at a time allows me

to

Quoted message said:

line up my arm and insure that it's coming straight up, not turning in or
out. If it is, I just shift one way or the other. You can also use the
free arm to assist on the last rep if needed.

The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use dumbbells
or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant. Less force is
necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the circle you do with
dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred downward through the
forearms. The HS keeps the required force constant.

John said:

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zerex71 said:

Group,

I did arms last night and was wondering about a question I've had
for a while, which is, what is the proper technique for doing
dumbbell curls? The reason I ask is, perhaps me lowering my arms
back to a totally vertical position at my sides (dumbbells parallel
to each other) and then raising them up so that the 'bells curls
inward) might be making it more difficult to do. (Kind of like the
principle of not letting the weight stack go all the way back
down.) Am I doing these right? It takes a lot more effort to
"bump" them up a bit to get the curl going if I let my arms go
completely down to my sides. Please advise.

Also, on a related topic, I have never had much success getting
beyond the 35- or 40-lb dumbbells doing curls, and I'm hoping to
bust through that wall at some point. Can anyone provide some
pointers or advice as to my expectations? My lower body has always
been stronger than my upper body but I'm not an upper-body weakling.

Mike

I used to only do dumbbell curls. But I moved to the Hammer Strength
machine for my primary bicep exercise. I do one arm preacher curls
rather than both arms at the same time on it. The reason I prefer
the HS to dumbbells is that the weight is consistent throughout the
ROM. With dumbbell, once you near the top of the rep, the weight
gets lighter because of the proximity to your elbow. Also, doing
one are at a time allows me to line up my arm and insure that it's
coming straight up, not turning in or out. If it is, I just shift
one way or the other. You can also use the free arm to assist on
the last rep if needed.

The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
constant.

Isn't that what I just said? But I have to admit, your "apex of the circle"
explanation was better than mine.
--
-Larry

Robert Marlow said:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:44:32 -0800, Larry Hodges wrote:

I have a question related to curls as well. Since curls tend to be a
rather isolated exercise I decided to try to incorporate more muscles
into it to make more use of my time by doing curls with a pronated
grip. I figure I hit my forearms a bit more this way (and I do feel
it). I mentioned this to a personal trainer and he said there wasn't
any point but I didn't really understand his reasoning (actually I
don't think he really gave any reason). So what do people here think
about my idea? I found mention of reverse curls on the web which
looks like the same thing so it's obviously not a unique thing.

I also do hammer curls with dumbbells, which hits forearm. Also
concentration curls with dumbbells. What I meant by saying that the HS
preacher curls are my main exercise is that if I'm cramped for time...or
just don't feel like a full pull day, I will just do the HS preacher curls.

Quoted message said:

While I'm on the topic of bringing more muscles into play for biceps,
does anyone here think there'd be any advantage in bringing the elbow
up and back at the same time. Kind of like a verticle, standing row I
guess. I'm wondering if it'll ensure the resistance doesn't reduce
during the top of the curl and will also work out the rear deltoids.

Have no idea.
--
-Larry

Larry Hodges said:

John said:

The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
constant.

Isn't that what I just said?

Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.

First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.

Second, it's "intents and purposes." But I don't expect
(other) poets to know a [censored] from a groin, so I won't
get too down on the diction of (other) gym-rats.

Quoted message said:

But I have to admit, your "apex of the circle"
explanation was better than mine.

The resistance from the weight is lower near the top
because the motion stops becomes more lateral and less
vertical. It actually starts decreasing as soon as your
forearm passes horizontal.

It's lower at the bottom for the same reason, but,
because your arm is extended your biceps (and brachialis
and brachioradialis) have to apply a larger force to
start it moving (they're at an obtuse angle relative to
your forearm). At the top, same deal, with an acute angle,
but not nearly as acute as the bottom is obtuse (where it
can sometimes even exceed 180 degrees).

One thing you should do at the top is move your elbows a
little forward, squeezing the weight a bit towards the
ceiling. This shortens your biceps more because it's
not actually attached to your arm at the top. Its two
tendons go over your shoulder at the knob of your armbone
and attach to your scapula.

Some newer curl machines set the elbows well above the
shoulder and have you pull downward rather than up, to
get to this maximal shortening of the biceps, while of
course omitting maximal lengthening.

--Blair
"The cheese-curl machine does you no good."

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges said:

John said:

The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
constant.

Isn't that what I just said?

Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.

How was it a mess?

Quoted message said:

First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.

= The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS.

Ok ok. You went into more detail.

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges said:

John wrote:
> The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
> dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
> Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
> circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
> downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
> constant.

Isn't that what I just said?

Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.

How was it a mess?

Quoted message said:

First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.

= The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS.

Well, yes the "weight" is the same. But the "resistance" is less at the top
and bottom of the rep, with maximum resistance being when the forearm is
horizontal. With the HS, the resistance is constant throughout the ROM.
That was what I was attempting to point out anyway.

Quoted message said:

Ok ok. You went into more detail.

--
-Larry

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:
> John wrote:
>> The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
>> dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
>> Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
>> circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
>> downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
>> constant.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?

Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.

How was it a mess?

Quoted message said:

First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.

= The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS.

Well, yes the "weight" is the same. But the "resistance" is less at the

top

Quoted message said:

and bottom of the rep, with maximum resistance being when the forearm is
horizontal. With the HS, the resistance is constant throughout the ROM.
That was what I was attempting to point out anyway.

I think you and I are on the same page. I was just wondering if Blair was.
lol

Zerex71 wrote:[snip]

Quoted message said:

what is the proper technique for doing dumbbell
curls? [snip]
It takes a lot more effort to "bump" them up a
bit to get the curl going if I let my arms go
completely down to my sides. Please advise.

Also, on a related topic, I have never had much
success getting beyond the 35- or 40-lb dumbbells
doing curls, and I'm hoping to bust through that
wall at some point. Can anyone provide some
pointers or advice as to my expectations?

I do let the arms go completely down to my sides during my db curls.
Ah-nuld himself recommended relaxing your arms between repetitions to
allow free blood flow through your upper arms.

And I'm also fond of twisting my forearms or rotating my wrists as I
curl my dumbbells. Also ending each rep in the top position with a
solid flex and then returning to arms extended fully and relaxing
between reps as mentioned.

Regarding breaking the 35- or 40-lb wall, Use that Hardgainer sneak
attack - *small plates*. Not 2 1/2 lb deals, but tiny stuff you get at
the hardware store. Washers that fit a 1-inch diameter bar easily. I
have four .19 lb (0.087 kg) plates, six .26 lb (0.12 kg) plates and
four .39 lb (0.18 kg) plates. Increasing your weights used is sometimes
a very slow process, but the tiny plates can indeed help a trainer
smash through a plateau.

http://www.unisorb.com/images/washers.gif

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

John said:

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
>>> dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
>>> Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
>>> circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
>>> downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
>>> constant.
>>
>> Isn't that what I just said?
>
> Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.

How was it a mess?

> First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.

= The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
dumbbells or HS.

Well, yes the "weight" is the same. But the "resistance" is less at the

top

Quoted message said:

and bottom of the rep, with maximum resistance being when the forearm is
horizontal. With the HS, the resistance is constant throughout the ROM.
That was what I was attempting to point out anyway.

I think you and I are on the same page. I was just wondering if Blair was.

I got it because I understood the error of imputing the lesser
resistance to the angle of the forearm rather than the angle
of motion of the weight. I was making sure everyone else got
it as well.

You guys are on the same, wrong page.

--Blair
"There'll be a quiz tommorow,
and extra negative-reps."

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John wrote:
> "Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>> The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
>>>> dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
>>>> Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
>>>> circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
>>>> downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
>>>> constant.

hahah "intensive purposes" try Intents and Purposes.

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

It's not wrong. You just think it's wrong because you want to use your

own

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

words.

I just want to think it's wrong because it's not the right
cause for the effect. The words could be exactly the same
and it'd *mean* the right thing the way I said it.

Quoted message said:

I said, "The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dumbbells or HS." Then you said, "First, the weight does remain the same,
but the force does not." Same thing, right?

No, because you've removed those two statements from
their context. The latter does not refer only to the
former.

Quoted message said:

I said, "Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred

downward

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

through the forearms." Then you said, "The resistance from the weight is
lower near the top because the motion stops becomes more lateral and less
vertical. It actually starts decreasing as soon as your forearm passes
horizontal." Resistance is a force. Apex = uppermost point = near the

top.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It should be less lateral and more vertical, not the way you stated it.

But,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I won't penalize you for it. Load is transferred downward through the
forearms = more vertical.

The load is ALWAYS transferred DOWN through the forearms,
because that's the only way to get it to the elbow, upper
arm, shoulder, back, hips, legs, and floor. But I didn't
fix that for you. Apparently my mistake.

Damn, you're hardheaded.

Quoted message said:

A report on intensive purposes?

A report on the labor-intensive nature of manufacturing orthotropic box
girders. One of the many fine tasks an engineer must do. Care to explain
what an orthotropic box girder is, Smarty? Look it up. It's a fine example
of loads, and the transferring of them.

Blair P. Houghton said:

John said:

"Larry Hodges" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John wrote:

>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>>Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>>The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
>>>>dumbbells or HS. For all intensive purposes, gravity is constant.
>>>>Less force is necessary from the bicep as you near the apex of the
>>>>circle you do with dumbbell curls, because the load is transferred
>>>>downward through the forearms. The HS keeps the required force
>>>>constant.
>>>
>>>Isn't that what I just said?
>>
>>Ghod I hope not, because it's a mess.
>
>How was it a mess?
>
>
>>First, the weight does remain the same, but the force does not.
>
>= The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you use
>dumbbells or HS.

Well, yes the "weight" is the same. But the "resistance" is less at the

top

Quoted message said:

and bottom of the rep, with maximum resistance being when the forearm is
horizontal. With the HS, the resistance is constant throughout the ROM.
That was what I was attempting to point out anyway.

I think you and I are on the same page. I was just wondering if Blair was.

I got it because I understood the error of imputing the lesser
resistance to the angle of the forearm rather than the angle
of motion of the weight. I was making sure everyone else got
it as well.

You guys are on the same, wrong page.

--Blair
"There'll be a quiz tommorow,
and extra negative-reps."

This is not an uninteresting discussion, but when someone mangles the
phrase "for all intents and purposes" as badly as "John" did, I tend to
stop reading and start laughing.

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The load is ALWAYS transferred DOWN through the forearms,
because that's the only way to get it to the elbow, upper
arm, shoulder, back, hips, legs, and floor. But I didn't
fix that for you. Apparently my mistake.

Damn, you're hardheaded.

I'm not the one denying reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A report on intensive purposes?

A report on the labor-intensive nature of manufacturing orthotropic box
girders. One of the many fine tasks an engineer must do. Care to explain
what an orthotropic box girder is, Smarty? Look it up. It's a fine example
of loads, and the transferring of them.

So you know for a professional fact that it was wrong to
attribute the lowered force to the load in the forearm not
least because we're not talking rigid structures. Right?

--Blair
"You don't want to argue statics with me."

rutabaga22 said:

This is not an uninteresting discussion, but when someone mangles the
phrase "for all intents and purposes" as badly as "John" did, I tend to
stop reading and start laughing.

[censored] happens. Cliche's sometimes get post-officed.

--Blair
"Just what is 'pompatus', anyway?*"

* - don't bother; it's a joke

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The load is ALWAYS transferred DOWN through the forearms,
because that's the only way to get it to the elbow, upper
arm, shoulder, back, hips, legs, and floor. But I didn't
fix that for you. Apparently my mistake.

Damn, you're hardheaded.

I'm not the one denying reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A report on intensive purposes?

A report on the labor-intensive nature of manufacturing orthotropic box
girders. One of the many fine tasks an engineer must do. Care to explain
what an orthotropic box girder is, Smarty? Look it up. It's a fine

example

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of loads, and the transferring of them.

So you know for a professional fact that it was wrong to
attribute the lowered force to the load in the forearm not
least because we're not talking rigid structures. Right?

Nobody said you were wrong. As I stated earlier, you went into more detail.
Does that make my statement wrong? No, but you said it was, and that's what
this whole argument is about. Ugh.

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So you know for a professional fact that it was wrong to
attribute the lowered force to the load in the forearm not
least because we're not talking rigid structures. Right?

Nobody said you were wrong. As I stated earlier, you went into more detail.
Does that make my statement wrong? No, but you said it was, and that's what
this whole argument is about. Ugh.

No, it was.

--Blair
"How many forearms am I holding up?"