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