PDA

View Full Version : The importance of hammer curls



Mission
08-27-2005, 09:24 AM
Everyone always talks about how important the big 3 are for functional strength, but a couple months ago I added hammer curls to my routine and have had tremendous functional strength gains. Why? Because it makes moving stuff around so much easier. Lately when I need to do work that includes carrying a big load from one place to the other, it's done with more ease than it would have previously been for me. Hammer's are much more functional than any pure bicep curl IMO.

fixationdarknes
08-27-2005, 09:27 AM
I like hammer curls too.

IdaMAN
08-27-2005, 09:30 AM
Ya, I do bar curls and DB hammers. They are great. It takes longer to get stronger with them but overall strength goes up faster I find.

MixmasterNash
08-27-2005, 09:30 AM
They're not what I'd call functional at all. They do improve your brachioradialis, which is used in a lot of carrying/lifting when your hands are at a neutral to pronated rotation. That is all.

Little_G
08-27-2005, 09:46 AM
Hammer curls suck.

fixationdarknes
08-27-2005, 10:08 AM
Not suck. I never even do curls anyway because they're not needed, but if I did only one curl, I'd probably do Hammer Curls.

jack_of_all
08-27-2005, 10:38 AM
imo hammer curl is the only curl worth doing.

Little_G
08-27-2005, 10:50 AM
what about barbell curls i thought they were the best for working biceps?

fixationdarknes
08-27-2005, 10:52 AM
Hammer Curls is mainly for brachioradialis.

TOBART
08-27-2005, 11:28 AM
I think the best way to work biceps is with variety. There are so many different curls you can do: db, straight or ez bb, cable, preacher, incline, hammer and many variations of all of those. I just do 2 sets of whatever I feel like once a week.

Little_G
08-27-2005, 01:19 PM
I do alot of curls but guys have said thats to much (pointless). Maybe its because i do them all in the same day....

RussianRocket
08-27-2005, 02:37 PM
it's only pointless when you do A LOT OF THEM. I usually do 3 sets per week of direct trainning on my bicepts, and thats only 2 sets for ez bar, and 1 for hammer curls.

Haaji Dont Surf
08-27-2005, 03:06 PM
I do 40 Hammer Curls followed by two sets of 10 concentration curls and then two sets of 21's.

RussianRocket
08-27-2005, 03:50 PM
on a side note, about curls. I love manuel resistance preachercurls with ezbar.

MM
08-27-2005, 04:06 PM
I can never find a big enough hammer to make it worth my while.

Isaac Wilkins
08-27-2005, 04:09 PM
Machine brought it up a while ago, but hammer curls can help keep some imbalance issues from popping up when you start benching big. A lot of benchers that develop elbow pain find that doing hammer curls clears it up.

MM
08-27-2005, 04:11 PM
Machine brought it up a while ago, but hammer curls can help keep some imbalance issues from popping up when you start benching big. A lot of benchers that develop elbow pain find that doing hammer curls clears it up.

Really? I can't see how hammers would be more effective than any other dual db exercises for balance issues.

Mebe google has answers.

Isaac Wilkins
08-27-2005, 04:23 PM
Hammer curls target the brachioradialis primarily, which helps stabilize the elbow. This is probably not an issue for a 200 pound bencher. It is as the weight starts climbing.

WILL006
08-27-2005, 04:33 PM
yo fix , what do you mean curls are not needed. What do you do then ? nothing!

Gutz981
08-27-2005, 04:35 PM
Curls really are not needed for strength...Biceps really don't do much other than look good...

As for hammer curls when I did them I felt them in my forearms a ****load...It was good stuff

WILL006
08-27-2005, 04:44 PM
yeah, whenever i do hammers my forearms get a good workout too

ROMANMAN
08-27-2005, 04:54 PM
Yea I do about 4 sets of heavy hammers a week and it actually helped me control the bar alote easier when I bench.I would do some wrist curls to, after 2 months of them my watch no longer fits on my wrist and it used to be too big before.

mercury
08-27-2005, 05:39 PM
Not suck. I never even do curls anyway because they're not needed, but if I did only one curl, I'd probably do Hammer Curls.
Same here. My biceps get more out of my back routine than anything.

jack_of_all
08-27-2005, 06:04 PM
yo fix , what do you mean curls are not needed. What do you do then ? nothing!

for strength and size, MOST people can get like 90% of the bicep size that they could get by doing everything just from rowing motions and without any curls at all. if i did curls, they would be hammer curls, the reason for it is that they target the brachioradialis better than other types of curl while still giving the brachialis and biceps a good workout. essentially, they give a stronger link from upper arm to lower arm and give you bigger stronger forearms. all curls and rows do this, but not quite like HC's.

fixationdarknes
08-27-2005, 06:04 PM
yo fix , what do you mean curls are not needed. What do you do then ? nothing!

I never do curls mainly because I don't have the time to do them. This doesn't bother me much though because I know my biceps will grow from doing chinups and rows...and eating. ;)

But yeah, having incredibly strong biceps isn't really that necessary. I'd say the forearms are much more important than biceps.

Shao-LiN
08-27-2005, 07:50 PM
I do 40 Hammer Curls

In one set?

IdaMAN
08-27-2005, 08:23 PM
My arms would pull out of my sockets if I tried that.

getfit
08-27-2005, 08:42 PM
In one set?
:withstupi and what are you going to accomplish with this?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
08-27-2005, 09:11 PM
^^^^^^

Yeah, that was a little vague...

Meat_Head
08-29-2005, 01:18 PM
Curls really are not needed for strength...Biceps really don't do much other than look good...


No offense intended, but this is a crock of ****. If you told that to a strongman competitor they would laugh in your face. I had an argument w/ Budiak about this a couple years ago, he was saying if you got a skeleton and gave it only extremely strong posterior chain muscles it would own all strongman competitions. I said its obvious that he wouldn't be able to perform at all in many of the events - elbow flexors are essential to rowing events, stone/loading events, hussafel stone, etc. You need strong elbow flexors to do any heavy pullups, pulldowns, rows, zercher lifts, upright rows, etc., therefore your elbow flexors(biceps, brachioradialis, and brachialis) are very important for functional strength.

As for hammer curls, I think they're hands down the best elbow flexor movement. They hit all 3 muscles hard, and emphasize the brachioradialis much more which is essential because you almost never fully suppinate your wrists doing things that require functional strength - it pays off more because unless you do only suppinated rows/pullups/etc. the brachioradialis is extremely important for strength, moreso than the biceps in my opinion.

slapshot111
08-29-2005, 01:35 PM
I do 40 Hammer Curls followed by two sets of 10 concentration curls and then two sets of 21's.

Thats way to much.

Titanium_Jim
08-29-2005, 01:36 PM
xMeat_Headx: That's exactly what he was saying. He found hammer curls very useful for strength and elbow balance. He meant bicep curls are not needed if you have a routine with compound movements that incorporate biceps like chinups, pulldowns, rows, etc. I have to say that biceps are one of the most useless muscles. More like your body's bling. I wish my triceps grew like my biceps do. I just look at my biceps the right way and they grow an inch.

Meat_Head
08-29-2005, 01:58 PM
xMeat_Headx: That's exactly what he was saying. He found hammer curls very useful for strength and elbow balance. He meant bicep curls are not needed if you have a routine with compound movements that incorporate biceps like chinups, pulldowns, rows, etc.


That's definately not what I was saying. While chins, pulldowns, rows, etc. help to train the biceps/brachioradialis/brachialis, they would all be significantly improved with direct training and strengthening of the elbow flexors via curls(preferably hammer curls). It works similar to how strengthening your triceps directly through skullcrushers, pushdowns, etc. usually significantly improves your pressing strength, otherwise powerlifters(especially westside) wouldn't stress tricep training so much. Of course bench shirts play a role in the last comparison, but the idea is the same.



I have to say that biceps are one of the most useless muscles. More like your body's bling. I wish my triceps grew like my biceps do. I just look at my biceps the right way and they grow an inch.

Big biceps are naturally intimidating. If someone knows nothing about lifting weights and looks at a guy who has huge biceps, he'll get intimidated more than likely. That doesn't happen for no reason.

I'm not saying you should become a curl jockey, but don't neglect muscle groups like biceps and triceps just because they're the only thing so many muscle pumpers and frat boys train.

Titanium_Jim
08-30-2005, 07:59 PM
That's definately not what I was saying.
I was talking to you about gutz, not about what you said.

Big biceps are naturally intimidating. If someone knows nothing about lifting weights and looks at a guy who has huge biceps, he'll get intimidated more than likely. That doesn't happen for no reason.
Alright, I never said they aren't intimidating, but not everyone has the goal of scaring people with their biceps. I said they're not very often useful in functional strength. Gutz was saying (since they are an isolating movement) they are not needed for strength. I agree with him, while I don't disagree with you.

I'm not saying you should become a curl jockey, but don't neglect muscle groups like biceps and triceps just because they're the only thing so many muscle pumpers and frat boys train.
I don't neglect any muscle groups because I have a routine with lots of compound exercises and my biceps are my genetic gift; they're about the same size as my triceps, even though they get worked less.

Meat_Head
08-30-2005, 09:23 PM
Alright, I never said they aren't intimidating, but not everyone has the goal of scaring people with their biceps.


It may not be someone's goal, but it happens. Your body is naturally scared/intimidated by things that are potentially harmful - heights, spiders, snakes, and big biceps. My point is that you wouldn't be intimidated by them if they weren't important to strength/fighting/whatever.



I said they're not very often useful in functional strength. Gutz was saying (since they are an isolating movement) they are not needed for strength. I agree with him, while I don't disagree with you.


I agree that they aren't necissarily 'needed'. You can make great gains in strength sticking to heavy compound movements, that's the basis of any good strength routine. However I think that direct training of the biceps through curls(preferably hammer) and direct training of the triceps can significantly improve gains in strength and size. If you train hammer curls and skullcrushers and you put 20lbs on each exercise, you have a much stronger upperbody than you did before. If you could hit a button right now and immediately have those gains, you would have a better row, bench press, overhead press, pullup, whatever. That's why it makes sense to train elbow flexors and extensors directly, even if you only give em 2-4 sets.

Mission
08-30-2005, 09:28 PM
How are hammer curls not functional? If you're like me, and do work like moving tires, crates, and boxes around, you'll understand that doing hammers will make the load a lot easier.

Meat_Head
08-30-2005, 09:46 PM
How are hammer curls not functional? If you're like me, and do work like moving tires, crates, and boxes around, you'll understand that doing hammers will make the load a lot easier.

:withstupi

RMW USMC
08-31-2005, 07:43 AM
How many times per week should one do hammer curls? They are one of my favorite excercises but I want to make sure I don't overdo it. Right now I've been doing it 3x a week.

Also if I do hammer curls 3x a week is it beneficial whatsoever to do preacher curls even if its only once a week? Or is it overkill?

MixmasterNash
08-31-2005, 08:07 AM
How many times per week should one do hammer curls? They are one of my favorite excercises but I want to make sure I don't overdo it. Right now I've been doing it 3x a week.

Also if I do hammer curls 3x a week is it beneficial whatsoever to do preacher curls even if its only once a week? Or is it overkill?

Only do hammer curls 3x a week if you're doing mroe important compound movements twice as often.

-TIM-
08-31-2005, 09:42 AM
How many times per week should one do hammer curls? They are one of my favorite excercises but I want to make sure I don't overdo it. Right now I've been doing it 3x a week.

Also if I do hammer curls 3x a week is it beneficial whatsoever to do preacher curls even if its only once a week? Or is it overkill?Directly working bis once a week would be enough. Especially if your back workout is on a different day. Hammer curls are fun/great, but doing a few sets of preacher curls would be fine too. I just wouldn't overload on the number of sets you're doing between the two.

I personally do barbell curls and hammer curls for bis.

IZich
08-31-2005, 11:55 AM
It may not be someone's goal, but it happens. Your body is naturally scared/intimidated by things that are potentially harmful - heights, spiders, snakes, and big biceps. My point is that you wouldn't be intimidated by them if they weren't important to strength/fighting/whatever.



I agree that they aren't necissarily 'needed'. You can make great gains in strength sticking to heavy compound movements, that's the basis of any good strength routine. However I think that direct training of the biceps through curls(preferably hammer) and direct training of the triceps can significantly improve gains in strength and size. If you train hammer curls and skullcrushers and you put 20lbs on each exercise, you have a much stronger upperbody than you did before. If you could hit a button right now and immediately have those gains, you would have a better row, bench press, overhead press, pullup, whatever. That's why it makes sense to train elbow flexors and extensors directly, even if you only give em 2-4 sets.

aww, the fight is over? Someone say something inflammatory, i just got here :)
:lurk:

Meat_Head
08-31-2005, 11:57 AM
aww, the fight is over? Someone say something inflammatory, i just got here :)
:lurk:

Jim licks nuts. :D
:ninja: :evillaugh :fart:

IZich
08-31-2005, 12:07 PM
*rings gong*
MORTAAAL COMBAAAAAT!!

Titanium_Jim
09-01-2005, 12:32 AM
My point is that you wouldn't be intimidated by them if they weren't important to strength/fighting/whatever.

I agree that they aren't necissarily 'needed'.
Make up your mind. And BTW, your biceps play VERY little part in fighting strength.

You can make great gains in strength sticking to heavy compound movements, that's the basis of any good strength routine. However I think that direct training of the biceps through curls(preferably hammer) and direct training of the triceps can significantly improve gains in strength and size. If you train hammer curls and skullcrushers and you put 20lbs on each exercise, you have a much stronger upperbody than you did before. If you could hit a button right now and immediately have those gains, you would have a better row, bench press, overhead press, pullup, whatever. That's why it makes sense to train elbow flexors and extensors directly, even if you only give em 2-4 sets.
I never said otherwise. I actually am very fond of skullcrushers AND hammer curls, both are in my current routine. You missed the entire point of what I was saying. I meant actual bicep isolating curls are not needed at all for any kind of functional strength gains. Triceps exercises and hammer curls, yes. This is what I was saying all along. Maybe I look at it a little differently than you do because my biceps grow very easily.

Meat_Head
09-01-2005, 10:40 AM
Make up your mind. And BTW, your biceps play VERY little part in fighting strength.


My mind is made up. Direct bicep and tricep work is not necissarily NEEDED like squats aren't necissarily NEEDED to build big and strong legs. There are other ways of accomplishing those goals, but why do that when there's a quicker and likely easier way of getting the results? Biceps play little part in 'fighting strength'? Most fights go to the ground, that's generally accepted these days. Biceps play an ESSENTIAL role in takedowns(lifting someone's leg up to get them off balance for example), and once you are on the ground there are plenty of situations where you need to flex your elbows to put someone in a hold, get out of one, etc. Then of course the added weight to your arm big biceps give makes a very significant difference in punching power/strength. Anyone with a heavier hand and arm has more weight/momentum behind the punch.



I never said otherwise. I actually am very fond of skullcrushers AND hammer curls, both are in my current routine. You missed the entire point of what I was saying. I meant actual bicep isolating curls are not needed at all for any kind of functional strength gains. Triceps exercises and hammer curls, yes. This is what I was saying all along. Maybe I look at it a little differently than you do because my biceps grow very easily.

Earlier you said:
"I have to say that biceps are one of the most useless muscles. More like your body's bling."

You agree'd with gutz as well who said:
"Curls really are not needed for strength...Biceps really don't do much other than look good..."

What I was saying is that they AREN'T useless muscles. Elbow flexor(biceps included) strength is VERY important for strength. As much as glutes or lats or pecs? No, but important nonetheless.

I'm glad you finally agree that hammer curls and tricep exercises are important for functional strength gains. I'd say that pretty much all of the World's Strongest Man competitors over the last 20 years would agree...

Tony H
09-01-2005, 11:25 AM
"Biceps play an ESSENTIAL role in takedowns(lifting someone's leg up to get them off balance for example"

Biceps would be more important for defending against leg attacks/takedowns and grappling. You really can't overpower someone else's leg with your biceps unless he's pretty weak. You use your legs and back for that.

IZich
09-01-2005, 12:55 PM
:) (no one knows how happy i am)

Meat_Head
09-01-2005, 01:34 PM
"Biceps play an ESSENTIAL role in takedowns(lifting someone's leg up to get them off balance for example"

Biceps would be more important for defending against leg attacks/takedowns and grappling. You really can't overpower someone else's leg with your biceps unless he's pretty weak. You use your legs and back for that.

Obviously your biceps aren't the ONLY muscle working in a takedown, you don't have a preacher bench under you while you curl their leg... You essentially perform a full body row, but since its in a standing position and you pull up and flex the elbow it involves alot of bicep strength along w/ back and legs. I was only giving an example of one way biceps assist in fighting anyway. I see what you mean about defending leg attacks and takedowns though, that would involve alot of curl/press type motions.

[[[----]]]
09-01-2005, 02:37 PM
I pick up the tens and doing them over and over until a vein either bursts out of my bicep or head.

Meat_Head
09-02-2005, 12:55 PM
]]']I pick up the tens and doing them over and over until a vein either bursts out of my bicep or head.

If this is true you waste alot of time and brain cells...

Titanium_Jim
09-03-2005, 10:41 PM
big biceps give makes a very significant difference in punching power/strength.
This couldn't be further from the truth.


What I was saying is that they AREN'T useless muscles. Elbow flexor(biceps included) strength is VERY important for strength. As much as glutes or lats or pecs? No, but important nonetheless.I said one of the most useless, because I use my bicep strength functionally very little. I don't really consider fighting as functional, but really, the person with outstanding overall strength will almost always be the better fighter than someone who focuses too much on their muscle size, especially biceps.

I'm glad you finally agree that hammer curls and tricep exercises are important for functional strength gains. I'd say that pretty much all of the World's Strongest Man competitors over the last 20 years would agree...Read through what I typed again. I never said I didn't think tricep exercises or hammer curls were not necessary in a strength training routine, or not good for functional strength. I said bicep curls themselves will not add a significant amount of functional strength, and will definitely not put more power behind your punch (maybe just a TINY bit if you are able to throw a good hook the right way - but even then the power of a punch comes from the ball of the foot all the way up to the wrist).

ROMANMAN
09-04-2005, 12:29 AM
Cant we all just be friends people. Why are you so worried who can knock someone out faster. I believe triceps need to be trained directly like any other muscle but biceps need very little work, although a couple curls here and there never hurt anyone. BTW I love hammers.

getfit
09-04-2005, 02:40 AM
honestly !why get scientific about hammer curls!

they're just hammer curls! just do them if you want! and if you don't don't do them!

[[[----]]]
09-04-2005, 11:37 AM
I only usually do 3 or 4 sets of bis a week! They hurt so freakin bad after my bad day anyway!

Meat_Head
09-04-2005, 09:28 PM
This couldn't be further from the truth.


Biceps play an ESSENTIAL role in takedowns(lifting someone's leg up to get them off balance for example), and once you are on the ground there are plenty of situations where you need to flex your elbows to put someone in a hold, get out of one, etc. Then of course the added weight to your arm big biceps give makes a very significant difference in punching power/strength. Anyone with a heavier hand and arm has more weight/momentum behind the punch. Furthermore, w/out strong elbow flexors how would you even put someone in an armbar or choke hold?



I said one of the most useless, because I use my bicep strength functionally very little. I don't really consider fighting as functional, but really, the person with outstanding overall strength will almost always be the better fighter than someone who focuses too much on their muscle size, especially biceps.
Read through what I typed again. I never said I didn't think tricep exercises or hammer curls were not necessary in a strength training routine, or not good for functional strength. I said bicep curls themselves will not add a significant amount of functional strength, and will definitely not put more power behind your punch (maybe just a TINY bit if you are able to throw a good hook the right way - but even then the power of a punch comes from the ball of the foot all the way up to the wrist).

If you don't use your bicep strength funtionally, you can't do pullups, rows, carry objects in your arms/hand, deadlift without tearing a muscle, etc. etc. That makes them important for functional strength, period. And hammer curls work the biceps very hard, therefore they could be considered 'bicep curls'.

Titanium_Jim
09-05-2005, 07:13 PM
You still fail to see all my points, so I will respectfully bow out of whatever this is.

Meat_Head
09-05-2005, 07:35 PM
You still fail to see all my points, so I will respectfully bow out of whatever this is.

What points? List them and I'll address them all.

IZich
09-06-2005, 03:09 PM
nooooo please dont. everyone stop. i was out of popcorn on friday, and the greasy bag is starting to taste bad.

MixmasterNash
09-06-2005, 03:13 PM
Some folks are way too worried about the peculiarities of forearm rotation regarding curls.

Can everyone involved do 20 pullups? If not, stop worrying about curls and and the brachioradialis and do some damn pullups.

Guido
09-06-2005, 03:24 PM
Some folks are way too worried about the peculiarities of forearm rotation regarding curls.

Can everyone involved do 20 pullups? If not, stop worrying about curls and and the brachioradialis and do some damn pullups.W0rd....y0.

Meat_Head
09-06-2005, 03:49 PM
Some folks are way too worried about the peculiarities of forearm rotation regarding curls.

Can everyone involved do 20 pullups? If not, stop worrying about curls and and the brachioradialis and do some damn pullups.

What if stronger curls/brachioradialis could increase the amount of pullups you can do?

getfit
09-06-2005, 04:21 PM
Some folks are way too worried about the peculiarities of forearm rotation regarding curls.

Can everyone involved do 20 pullups? If not, stop worrying about curls and and the brachioradialis and do some damn pullups.
:bow:

Titanium_Jim
09-06-2005, 11:18 PM
Some folks are way too worried about the peculiarities of forearm rotation regarding curls.

Can everyone involved do 20 pullups? If not, stop worrying about curls and and the brachioradialis and do some damn pullups.
That's what I've been trying to say all along, but the meathead's logic defies reason.

Meat_Head
09-07-2005, 12:44 PM
That's what I've been trying to say all along, but the meathead's logic defies reason.

If you wanted to say something as simple as that, you had plenty of time to:

Originally Posted by Titanium_Jim
You still fail to see all my points, so I will respectfully bow out of whatever this is.

Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
What points? List them and I'll address them all.

-----

Also, there's really not much of a point in going past 10-12 bodyweight pullups without increasing weight. The only thing that makes you better at is doing bodyweight pullups...

On the other hand, stronger elbow flexors would help you do more pullups or pullups with a heavier weight regardless of how you attained them.