Correct technique for dumbbell curls?

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Larry Hodges <2larry2 RemoveThis @2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, you're being anal. We're saying the same thing.
>
> If you think what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying,
> then you're not translating your thoughts into words properly.
>
> --Blair
> "Don't sway."

Well, I don't claim to be a poet. Just a smartass, and not a good one at
that!
--
-Larry
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote in message
news:mwvVd.82539$Zm5.10764@news.easynews.com...
> John <y_tu_momma_tambien RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It's not wrong. You just think it's wrong because you want to use your
own
> >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.
>
> >I said, "The weight remains the same throughout the motion whether you
use
> >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.
>
> >I said, "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." 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.
> >It should be less lateral and more vertical, not the way you stated it.
But,
> >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.

> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> John <y_tu_momma_tambien.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Hodges" <2larry2.DeleteThis@2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote in message
>>news:AJKdnWUD2-Kd9rzfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>>
>>>John wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
>>>>news:5vcUd.3226986$B07.508586@news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Hodges <2larry2.DeleteThis@2maximizesoftware2.com> 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
>>
>>>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.
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:33:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b RemoveThis @p.h> wrote:

>Larry Hodges <2larry2 RemoveThis @2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, you're being anal. We're saying the same thing.
>
>If you think what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying,
>then you're not translating your thoughts into words properly.

I think if your going to be critical Blair, particularly of my old
chum Larry, you will need in the first instance to put your own house
in order.

Your paragraph above is clumsy in the extreme, and substantially
grammatically incorrect. I do defend your right to post howsoever you
damn well please, but I also reserve the similar freedom to be
critical of your input!!

You may care to make your own corrections and re-post, or you may
prefer that I do it for you!! ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

John <y_tu_momma_tambien.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.TakeThisOut@p.h> wrote in message
>news:mwvVd.82539$Zm5.10764@news.easynews.com...
>> 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.

>> 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."
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

Charles <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:33:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote:
>
>>Larry Hodges <2larry2.DeleteThis@2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>No, you're being anal. We're saying the same thing.
>>
>>If you think what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying,
>>then you're not translating your thoughts into words properly.
>
>I think if your going to be critical Blair, particularly of my old
>chum Larry, you will need in the first instance to put your own house
>in order.
>
>Your paragraph above is clumsy in the extreme, and substantially
>grammatically incorrect.

False. It was concise, fluid, and utterly correct in both
syntax and semantics.

>I do defend your right to post howsoever you
>damn well please, but I also reserve the similar freedom to be
>critical of your input!!

And to be a liar?

>You may care to make your own corrections and re-post, or you may
>prefer that I do it for you!! ;o)

If you want my part of it to be like shooting fish in a fish-store.

--Blair
"Stovepipe."
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

rutabaga22 <rutabaga22 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>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.

Shit happens. Cliche's sometimes get post-officed.

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

* - don't bother; it's a joke
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b.RemoveThis@p.h> wrote in message
news:SzRVd.189963$Zm5.24531@news.easynews.com...
> John <y_tu_momma_tambien.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Blair P. Houghton" <b.RemoveThis@p.h> wrote in message
> >news:mwvVd.82539$Zm5.10764@news.easynews.com...
> >> 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.
>
> >> 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?

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

"Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
news:RBRVd.190066$Zm5.24345@news.easynews.com...
> Charles <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:33:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote:
> >
> >>Larry Hodges <2larry2.DeleteThis@2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>No, you're being anal. We're saying the same thing.
> >>
> >>If you think what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying,
> >>then you're not translating your thoughts into words properly.
> >
> >I think if your going to be critical Blair, particularly of my old
> >chum Larry, you will need in the first instance to put your own house
> >in order.
> >
> >Your paragraph above is clumsy in the extreme, and substantially
> >grammatically incorrect.
>
> False. It was concise, fluid, and utterly correct in both
> syntax and semantics.
>
> >I do defend your right to post howsoever you
> >damn well please, but I also reserve the similar freedom to be
> >critical of your input!!
>
> And to be a liar?
>
> >You may care to make your own corrections and re-post, or you may
> >prefer that I do it for you!! ;o)
>
> If you want my part of it to be like shooting fish in a fish-store.

I thought it was "shooting fish in a barrel?"
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

John <y_tu_momma_tambien.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
>news:SzRVd.189963$Zm5.24531@news.easynews.com...
>>
>> 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?"
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> John <y_tu_momma_tambien DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Blair P. Houghton" <b DeleteThis @p.h> wrote in message
>> news:SzRVd.189963$Zm5.24531@news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> 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?"

lol...are you guys still kicking each other in the nuts??
--
-Larry
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls? 

Larry Hodges <2larry2.DeleteThis@2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> John <y_tu_momma_tambien.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Blair P. Houghton" <b.DeleteThis@p.h> wrote in message
>>> news:SzRVd.189963$Zm5.24531@news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> "How many forearms am I holding up?"
>
>lol...are you guys still kicking each other in the nuts??

Sure.

Oh, and the girl at the desk said someone turned
yours into the lost&found.

--Blair
"Said they were really tiny,
so I figured they're yours."
 >> Stay informed about: Correct technique for dumbbell curls?