Is the leg curl underrated?

[Paul1]

"A genetic pool" itself has a "limited" set of possible directions to go - some with high probability. Environment does only "terminate" bad branches ( = extinction) and occasionally split the pool to separate pools ( = possible new species).

Yeah yeah I understand evolutionary biology. The point is that MAJOR, fundamental differences in body structure basically differentiate organisms at the phylum level. Our axial skeletal structure, our CNS structures, and aspects of our embryology are shared with organisms as distant as sea squirts, not to mention all of the orders of vertebrates. A vertebrate body pattern with four jointed limbs and five digits -- though ultimately 'lost' through evolution by some species -- is the ancestral body pattern of the four taxonomic orders of terrestrial vertebrates: mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The fact that retain a certain anatomy and a certain functionality, namely a knee that can flex, does not define it as advantageous or disadvantageous. It just defines it as ancestral.

The evolutionary question is why do we have that function to begin with.

The functional question is whether we need to train it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapoda

[Sean Herbison]

Wait, wait, is no one gonna call this out? The logic is completely backwards.

He is concluding that because he tore a hamstring during squatting, squatting is working his hamstrings enough to make them adequately strong. Huh? If your hamstrings were strong enough from your squats and deadlifts you wouldn't have tore your hamstring!

No, he's just concluding that the hamstrings are worked during squatting. The fact that he tore it, in and of itself, does not mean his hamstrings are not strong enough. Strength helps to prevent, but does not eliminate, injuries.

[morbidlyfat]

Purely for the sake of completeness, I would suggest that spurring a horse (or other mount, I would suppose) is pretty similar to a functional leg curl.

Yet the leg curl is not underrated.

The vacuum exercise, on the other hand, I think is perhaps underrated (or unrated, as the case may be.) Even with its almost-complete unloadability. I still like it.

[AussieMikeInLondon]

This really is car crash Q&A. I just couldn't look away for 6 pages worth of crap.

I have once again confirmed not to fuck around and just stick to squats and deadlifts.

Please make it stop now.

[Paul1]

Purely for the sake of completeness, I would suggest that spurring a horse (or other mount, I would suppose) is pretty similar to a functional leg curl.

Well, if we're trying to be complete...

[AussieMikeInLondon]

This attitude is the one thing that bothers me about some of the newer posters on this board. You set up in your mind some sort of crazy false dichotomy in your head, that just because you do hamstring curls it somehow MUST detract from your ability to squat.

I missed the part where I said or implied "just because you do hamstring curls it somehow MUST detract from your ability to squat".

Anyway...My personal opinion after reading the thread is that time can be better spent. You like to curl... curl away. Knock yourself out. Less people using the squat racks.

I don't know what world you live in, but in mine, I'm able to both squat and deadlift every week, along with doing Good Mornings, GHRs, Curls, Rows, and god-forbid! cable pushdowns!

THE HORROR!

Pretty much every single well respected program in both the strength and bodybuilding world has lifts like the squat and bench at its base, with everything else being added on top of that, as the trainee can handle it. SS, TM, 5/3/1, PHAT, DC, Cube, Juggernaut, etc etc.

If doing a couple of sets of hamstring curls for hypertrophy is inhibiting your ability to squat or deadlift with progressively heavier weights, it's your stupid programming that is the problem, not the exercise. Exercises like leg extensions and hamstring curls, while "non-functional" have been proven time and time again to be very good for making a muscle larger. And just like how, in general, a stronger muscle is a bigger muscle, also a bigger muscle has more potential to be stronger. Hypertrophy is important.

Cable pushdowns! Now you're talking. It might need a new thread though.

[Hank]

If it's easier and it works, isn't that a good thing? I'll happily make my assistance/volume work as easy as I can (while maintaining reasonable effectiveness), so I have more time and energy to focus on higher intensity barbell lifting.

Also, I'm not sure why being interested in hypertrophy is something bad. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of lifters, including plenty of competitive strength athletes, do at least some training for hypertrophy purposes.

I've never been a fan of doing anything for the sole purpose that it is easier. Because easier isn't necessarily better and/or optimal.

Personally, with regard to hypertrophy, I have no use for it. I wasted a lot of time when I was younger with crap that revolved around hypertrophy. I just hate seeing other people get led off down that road. There was a quote in Weider's Bodybuilding System (yes, I can admit now that I bought that) back in '90 that said "Train for strength and the size will come". That was about the only sensible thing in that book. Nuff said.

As for competitive strength athletes "training" for hypertrophy reasons? I have my doubts about any serious competitive strength athlete "training" for hypertrophy. I'm not a coach and don't pretend to be. But if I were coaching a weightlifter or powerlifter and found out he was wasting his time with a hypertrophy program, he wouldn't be lifting for me much longer. And before anyone else replies, yes I know about Doug Young.

[Sean Herbison]

Personally, with regard to hypertrophy, I have no use for it.

False, or at least poorly worded. More muscle mass is not a bad thing. Training for size at the expense of strength may be, but size itself is not.

Yes, there are obvious exceptions with weight class sports and whatnot, but that's a different case altogether.

[mrflibble]

Exercises like leg extensions and hamstring curls, while "non-functional" have been proven time and time again to be very good for making a muscle larger. And just like how, in general, a stronger muscle is a bigger muscle, also a bigger muscle has more potential to be stronger. Hypertrophy is important.

I suppose this helps explain all those people we see squatting and pulling massive weights with tiny tooth pick legs.

[hamburgerfan]

As for competitive strength athletes "training" for hypertrophy reasons? I have my doubts about any serious competitive strength athlete "training" for hypertrophy. I'm not a coach and don't pretend to be. But if I were coaching a weightlifter or powerlifter and found out he was wasting his time with a hypertrophy program, he wouldn't be lifting for me much longer. And before anyone else replies, yes I know about Doug Young.

It's a good thing you're not a coach, because you're full of shit. There are countless successful powerlifters who use hypertrophy work as a part of their "training." So many that it becomes kind of stupid to even try to list them all. Many of them have dedicated entire phases of their training to focusing on hypertrophy. Including Benedikt Magnusson, who deadlifted 1015. Guess he's not serious enough for you though.