|
Related Topics:
| Enter the Barbells - Hello! First I want to say that there seems to be some very folks on these and thanks for taking the time to provide a virtual library of reading material on the subject. I have almost no prior to I was..
Strength of non-olympic barbells? - I've just bought a barbell for use in the garage - just wanted to do stuff at home like cleans, HCP, and military presses. I have thought about getting some squat racks at home, too, though. The barbell I've bought is 5ft long, and has those
assembling pro style dumbbells - On pro-style (fixed weight) how large of 1" plates are typically used? Is it 20 lbs, ie: for a 100 lb dumbbell would it be several 20 lb plates and some smaller ones? Thanks, Dave
dumbbells and slight hurt in the elbow - Hello! I have recently started to exercise in my home. I have been doing some curls and my elbow has been hurting lately. I have been doing these curls while standing up and while sitting in a chair (with my elbow just next to my knee). It doesn't..
Need to buy cast iron dumbbells! - Anyone tell me where is the place to buy some cast iron It doesn't matter if it is covered with vinyl. I need some that allow me to have a good grip and lasts long. I don't like the removable ones because i've heard the..
|
|
|
Next: Weight Lifting Equipment: Powertec Home Gym
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 02, 2006
Posts: 291
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: misc>fitness>weights (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561.TakeThisOut@urchin.earth.li>,
> Tom Anderson <twic.TakeThisOut@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> conclusion is bullshit.
>
> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that barbells
> should form the base because strength and power is still the primary
> point of resistant training.
Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or even
why they're any different. It's all weight!
> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all that is
> required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I have no
> problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the cultists.
Well, in that case, proceed!
tom
--
People don't want nice. People want London. -- Al |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Mar 07, 2005
Posts: 660
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li>,
>> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>>
>>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>>> conclusion is bullshit.
>>
>> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> the primary point of resistant training.
>
> Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
> even why they're any different. It's all weight!
What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
>> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>> cultists.
What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
*is* all that's required  .
Of course, on the flip side, there are plenty of kettlebell
aficionados that have been able to do fairly impressive things while
only training with kettlebells. So, depending on your goals, it is
even safe to say that a kettlebell may be all that is required.
Alternatively, you could probably get away with just pushing your car
around, or lifting big rocks. If you want to look like a yoga devotee
then all that is required is a purple mat.
The important thing is to not get carried away about the importance of
this "research." The only difference between this particular paper
and your standard kettlebell propaganda is that this paper doesn't
mention the word comrade even once. Heck, I am pretty sure that
_Enter the Kettlebell_ even cites more studies. In the entire paper
there is precisely one measurement, and the measurement taken
basically tells us that lifting a heavier weight requires more energy
than lifting a lighter weight.
I'm sure Newton would be impressed.
So be careful with your pointy stick. From here it would appear to be
sharp at both ends.
Jason |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 702
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf RemoveThis @workhorse.earlhome>,
Jason Earl <jearl RemoveThis @xmission.com> wrote:
> Tom Anderson <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561 RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li>,
> >> Tom Anderson <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
> >>>
> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
> >>
> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
> >> the primary point of resistant training.
> >
> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>
> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>
> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
> >> cultists.
>
> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
> *is* all that's required .
I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In my
training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
bodyweight exercises including hills
barbells
dumbbells
kettlebells
swing bells
sledge hammers
cabers
stones
shot
medicine balls
ropes
sleds
a 1997 Ford van :^)
etc.
But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training was
with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat, etc. Then we
would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed or power.
Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups as
the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance and
core work from rolling.
--
Keith >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 07, 2005
Posts: 660
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:57 am
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hobbes <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf.DeleteThis@workhorse.earlhome>,
> Jason Earl <jearl.DeleteThis@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li>,
>> >> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>> >
>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>
>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>
>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
>> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>> >> cultists.
>>
>> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
>> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
>> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
>> *is* all that's required .
>
> I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In
> my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
And here I was planning on writing a series of pamphlets on how the
use of this wonderful training device could change your life...
Oh well, it probably wouldn't have made a very good gimmick anyhow.
> bodyweight exercises including hills
> barbells
> dumbbells
> kettlebells
> swing bells
> sledge hammers
> cabers
> stones
> shot
> medicine balls
> ropes
> sleds
> a 1997 Ford van :^)
> etc.
That sounds like a lot of fun, and to a certain extent that's the
point .
> But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training
> was with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat,
> etc. Then we would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed
> or power.
Exactly, even Steve agrees that when it comes to building strength and
power the best tool for the job is probably the barbell. It's
inexpensive, and it allows you to move ridiculous amounts of weight.
> Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
> changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
> course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
> progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
> absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
> them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups as
> the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance and
> core work from rolling.
It really is hard to beat deadlifts. It's entirely possible that
deadlifts are all you need .
Jason >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 264
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:01:56 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf.DeleteThis@workhorse.earlhome>,
> Jason Earl <jearl.DeleteThis@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li>,
>> >> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that his
>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>> >
>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>
>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>
>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
>> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>> >> cultists.
>>
>> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
>> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
>> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
>> *is* all that's required .
>
>I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell.
That's cuz you use chalk, duh.
>In my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
>
>bodyweight exercises including hills
>barbells
>dumbbells
>kettlebells
>swing bells
>sledge hammers
>cabers
>stones
>shot
>medicine balls
>ropes
>sleds
>a 1997 Ford van :^)
hockey sticks
whips
cattle prods
tasers
blackflies
backbacon hanging from a stick >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 264
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:09:32 -0400, "Steve Freides" <steve DeleteThis @fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>BTW, I was just looking through an early Pavel book entitled, "Beyond
>Stretching", and it's pre-kettlebell. He says you can't get them in the
>US, so he demonstrates a snatch with a powerblock dumbbell.
I googled "dumbbell snatch" and found only Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan jpegs. >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2005
Posts: 2030
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Jason Earl" <jearl DeleteThis @xmission.com> wrote in message
news:874piidy0y.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
> Hobbes <khobman800 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf DeleteThis @workhorse.earlhome>,
>> Jason Earl <jearl DeleteThis @xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561 DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li>,
>>> >> Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude
>>> >>> that his
>>> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
>>> >>
>>> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
>>> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
>>> >> the primary point of resistant training.
>>> >
>>> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others -
>>> > or
>>> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
>>> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
>>> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
>>>
>>> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
>>> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that.
>>> >> I
>>> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
>>> >> cultists.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably
>>> more
>>> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are
>>> folks
>>> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a
>>> barbell
>>> *is* all that's required .
>>
>> I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell. In
>> my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
>
> And here I was planning on writing a series of pamphlets on how the
> use of this wonderful training device could change your life...
>
> Oh well, it probably wouldn't have made a very good gimmick anyhow.
>
>> bodyweight exercises including hills
>> barbells
>> dumbbells
>> kettlebells
>> swing bells
>> sledge hammers
>> cabers
>> stones
>> shot
>> medicine balls
>> ropes
>> sleds
>> a 1997 Ford van :^)
>> etc.
>
> That sounds like a lot of fun, and to a certain extent that's the
> point .
>
>> But of those, for strength and power probably 75% of the training
>> was with a barbell. Basic exercises. Deadlift, clean, squat,
>> etc. Then we would work to transfer the strength to strength/speed
>> or power.
>
> Exactly, even Steve agrees that when it comes to building strength and
> power the best tool for the job is probably the barbell. It's
> inexpensive, and it allows you to move ridiculous amounts of weight.
>
>> Off on a tangent. I read an interesting study where they examined the
>> changes in physical capacity of NCAA Division I wrestlers during the
>> course of a season. I had always focused on the clean as the season
>> progressed. But it appeared that the capacity that deteriorated was
>> absolute strength - the base. In retrospect I think I should have had
>> them doing mostly deadlifts, one-armed presses and weighted pull-ups
>> as
>> the season progressed. They get all kinds of power, speed, endurance
>> and
>> core work from rolling.
>
> It really is hard to beat deadlifts. It's entirely possible that
> deadlifts are all you need .
I think Pavel, in PTP, assigns something like 80-90% of "it" to
deadlifts, and adds a one-arm standing overhead press for the remainder.
You could argue until the cows come home about what's still missing, but
I think the answer is "not much."
BTW, I was just looking through an early Pavel book entitled, "Beyond
Stretching", and it's pre-kettlebell. He says you can't get them in the
US, so he demonstrates a snatch with a powerblock dumbbell.
-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
> Jason >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 02, 2007
Posts: 153
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:26 am
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 29, 6:39 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp... RemoveThis @earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
[...]
> I googled "dumbbell snatch" and found only Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan jpegs.
Did you hear that or did you write that?
Either way, awesome joke.
(But, yeah, MORE awesome if you actually came up with that.)
-- >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 702
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <43tbd35ami8v0ekqi4n9ugr4kl2rv7sqk3.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Lucas Buck <sbcpark.DeleteThis@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:01:56 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <878x7vdwlc.fsf.DeleteThis@workhorse.earlhome>,
> > Jason Earl <jearl.DeleteThis@xmission.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708281546220.16561.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li>,
> >> >> Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And that's pretty much all he says of any substance. I conclude that
> >> >>> his
> >> >>> conclusion is bullshit.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still think the point was that all are good tools, but that
> >> >> barbells should form the base because strength and power is still
> >> >> the primary point of resistant training.
> >> >
> >> > Hmph. I still don't see why barbells are better than the others - or
> >> > even why they're any different. It's all weight!
> >>
> >> What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the only "real"
> >> weight is the caber. Unless you get slivers every time you work out
> >> you are actually a pansy with "fluffy" muscles.
> >>
> >> >> You don't find the barbell people arguing that barbells are all
> >> >> that is required. You do find some kettlebell people saying that. I
> >> >> have no problem with anyone taking a pointy stick and poking the
> >> >> cultists.
> >>
> >> What are you talking about? I would bet that there are probably more
> >> people that say a barbell is all that is required than there are folks
> >> that say a kettlebell is all that is required. And why not, a barbell
> >> *is* all that's required .
> >
> >I've trained many athletes and I've never stuck to the barbell.
>
> That's cuz you use chalk, duh.
>
> >In my training of an olympic team freestyle wrestler we used:
> >
> >bodyweight exercises including hills
> >barbells
> >dumbbells
> >kettlebells
> >swing bells
> >sledge hammers
> >cabers
> >stones
> >shot
> >medicine balls
> >ropes
> >sleds
> >a 1997 Ford van :^)
>
> hockey sticks
> whips
> cattle prods
> tasers
> blackflies
> backbacon hanging from a stick
>
>
Canadian bacon WORKS!
:^)
And we have to do something with old hockey sticks.
--
Keith >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 25) Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:52:41 -0700, Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Aug 27, 10:09 am, Hobbes <khobman....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
>> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
>> both as an academic and practical coach).
>>
>> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
>> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
>> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
>> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
>> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
>> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
>> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
>> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
>> foundation of performance training programs."
>>
>> ...
>>
>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
>
>
> Why is that? I would guess that barbells allow for heavier loads, and
> make for compound movements as opposed to the more isolated effects
> available with dumbbells and kettlebells.
>
> What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
> barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??
>
> Speaking of physics: I can curl a 100-lb. kettlebell with my right
> hand, standing, but cannot do so with a 100-lb. dumbbell under the
> same circumstances!
The main reason why You can just divide Your barbell bench press weight in
half when using dumbbells has to do with balance. When using a barbell,
the lifter only really needs to keep the weight stable fore and aft
(towards the head and feet). With dumbbells, the weight must also be
stabilized left and right. this adds new stress to the muscles. When
doing bench press with dumbbells, even the core muscles get worked a
little in order to keep the lifter on the bench. At the moment, i
consider that to be distinct advantage.
Also, with dumbbells, the stronger arm can not make up for the weaker arm.
So You are lifting the weight that Your weakest arm can lift, not
something in-between as might be done with a barbell. (For most people,
the difference is not very significant.)
As for the difference in curling kettlebells and dumbbells, i don't really
know, but it might have to do with a change in leverage because of
how/where the weight is positioned about the hand. >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 264
|
(Msg. 26) Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:26:03 -0700, Curt <curtjames DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 6:39 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp... DeleteThis @earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I googled "dumbbell snatch" and found only Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan jpegs.
>
>Did you hear that or did you write that?
Of COURSE it's my own material.
I included Lohan just to yank Cohen's chain. >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 02, 2007
Posts: 153
|
(Msg. 27) Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:34 am
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Aug 31, 2:26 am, Lucas Buck <sbcp... RemoveThis @earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:26:03 -0700, Curt <curtja... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 29, 6:39 pm, Lucas Buck <sbcp... RemoveThis @earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> I googled "dumbbell snatch" and found only Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan jpegs.
>
> >Did you hear that or did you write that?
>
> Of COURSE it's my own material.
(adds Lucas Buck to official Hero list)
> I included Lohan just to yank Cohen's chain.
(underlines name)
 )
--
Curt >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 02, 2006
Posts: 291
|
(Msg. 28) Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Shava_X wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:52:41 -0700, Prisoner at War wrote:
>
>> What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
>> barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??
>
> The main reason why You can just divide Your barbell bench press weight
> in half when using dumbbells has to do with balance. When using a
> barbell, the lifter only really needs to keep the weight stable fore and
> aft (towards the head and feet). With dumbbells, the weight must also
> be stabilized left and right. this adds new stress to the muscles.
> When doing bench press with dumbbells, even the core muscles get worked
> a little in order to keep the lifter on the bench.
Okay, so what if we took our 315 lb bencher and trained up his
stabilisers? Could he then do a 2 x 157.5 lb bench?
I bench with dumbbells, and on the rare occasions that i try a barbell, i
can't suddenly lift more. I presume that since my stabilisers have been
trained for it, they're on a par with my pecs, so they're not the limiting
factor, and taking them out of the picture doesn't give me any advantage.
But then i'm not using anything like a 157.5 lb dumbbell!
> At the moment, i consider that to be distinct advantage.
Indeed.
tom
--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10 >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 29) Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:30:35 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Shava_X wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:52:41 -0700, Prisoner at War wrote:
>>
>>> What're the physics which allow for a 315-lb. bench with an olympic
>>> barbell, but doesn't translate into a 157.5-lb. dumbbell bench??
>>
>> The main reason why You can just divide Your barbell bench press weight
>> in half when using dumbbells has to do with balance. When using a
>> barbell, the lifter only really needs to keep the weight stable fore and
>> aft (towards the head and feet). With dumbbells, the weight must also
>> be stabilized left and right. this adds new stress to the muscles.
>> When doing bench press with dumbbells, even the core muscles get worked
>> a little in order to keep the lifter on the bench.
>
> Okay, so what if we took our 315 lb bencher and trained up his
> stabilisers? Could he then do a 2 x 157.5 lb bench?
>
> I bench with dumbbells, and on the rare occasions that i try a barbell, i
> can't suddenly lift more. I presume that since my stabilisers have been
> trained for it, they're on a par with my pecs, so they're not the limiting
> factor, and taking them out of the picture doesn't give me any advantage.
>
> But then i'm not using anything like a 157.5 lb dumbbell!
>
>> At the moment, i consider that to be distinct advantage.
>
> Indeed.
>
> tom
When You switch to a barbell, You can not suddenly lift more then You were
lifting with dumbbells? And You You find this surprising?
You can lift what can not keep stable, but just because those stabilizing
muscles no longer have to do as much does not mean the large muscle that
do the lifting will be magically endowed with additional strength either. >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 18, 2007
Posts: 53
|
(Msg. 30) Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Jason Earl" <jearl.TakeThisOut@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:87ps17ed0v.fsf@workhorse.earlhome...
> "Steve Freides" <steve.TakeThisOut@fridayscomputer.com> writes:
>
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-98B001.08095227082007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> Posted on the Supertraining Group. Some people may not like the
>>> conclusion drawn the researcher (a very good one, BTW - well respected
>>> both as an academic and practical coach).
>>>
>>> "Exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells may provide
>>> variation in otherwise monotonous training situations. However,
>>> application of available research indicates the training stimuli
>>> elicited by these implements is less effective compared to barbells.
>>> The basis of strength & conditioning is developing neuromuscular (MS,
>>> RS & RS) and metabolic characteristics. While dumbbells and
>>> kettlebells may be utilized for assistance exercises, the currently
>>> available evidence indicates that barbell exercises should form the
>>> foundation of performance training programs."
>>>
>>> Which points out what many of us have been saying all along.
>>> Kettlebells can be a useful tool, but they aren't the be all and
>>> end all of training.
>>>
>>> The entire study is available on:
>>>
>>> www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/BARBELLS.pdf
>>
>> This:
>>
>> "In examining the literature, no comparative long-term investigations
>> have been performed to investigate the relative effectiveness of
>> exercises performed with dumbbells and kettlebells versus barbells.
>> Therefore, it is prudent to examine the biomechanics and physiology of
>> exercises performed with these implements, specifically in light of the
>> transfer of training principle, to determine their benefit for enhancing
>> performance."
>>
>> Sums it up in a nutshell - what we'd like to talk about hasn't been
>> studied, so we'll speculate. I don't disagree with most of what they're
>> saying, but it's really nothing more than that, speculation.
>>
>> "However for a given activity, once minimum aerobic levels are reached,
>> additional improvements do not further enhance performance14,20."
>>
>> Tell that to my son's soccer coach.
>>
>> "However, preliminary research3,17 indicates that the metabolic cost of
>> kettlebell exercise (5 sets of 10 repetitions for 3 exercises) is
>> approximately 4.97kcal.min-1 performed at 33% VO2max. In contrast,
>> weightlifting exercise with a barbell has a metabolic cost of
>> 11.5kcal.min-1 performed at 58% VO2max22. Thus, weightlifting exercise
>> with a barbell appears to be more effective for increasing total energy
>> expenditure and for stimulating increases in work capacity."
>>
>> OK, how about we lighten the barbell or use a heavier kettlebell?
>
> I had serious problems with that section as well as what was compared
> had basically nothing to do with the implement that was used and
> everything to do with the amount of weight used. The real key here
> was the percent V02max and it is easy to increase your percentage of
> V02max with the kettlebell by simply doing more reps, which is
> essentially what kettlebell folks do.
>
> When was the last time you heard of an Olympic weight lifter try and
> see how many snatches they could do at a certain weight in 10 minutes?
> That sort of workout is basically the bread and butter of working with
> a kettlebell, and it will *definitely* increase your work capacity
> (and V02max).
>
>> Of course, your conclusion is right, Keith - nothing is the be all
>> and end all of training, and if you had to pick one of the three to
>> get bigger and/or faster and/or stronger and couldn't have the other
>> two, then we'd all pick the barbell.
>
> Exactly. If you only had $100 to spend on equipment you'd get the
> starter Olympic set and be done with it. Even if you could afford
> other equipment the bulk of your time should be spent with the
> barbell.
>
> However, the kettlebell does have a few advantages. One, it's is far
> easier to take with you when you go somewhere. Heck, I take mine to
> work every day. It is also far easier to teach someone how to snatch
> a kettlebell than it is to teach the Olympic lifts. It's safer too,
> because if things get dicey you have a free hand to steady the
> weight. That makes the kettlebell a useful tool for someone that
> wants to spend some time training explosive strength without devoting
> a lot of time to learning to clean and snatch a barbell.
>
> Jason
Jason,
Why would you want to bring exercise equipment with you to work?
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche
http://www.hardbopdrums.com/ >> Stay informed about: Barbells, Dumbbells, and Kettlebells |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
