Dumbbells vs Barbells!

[Eivind]

This is basically a very open question, but I'm wondering what the difference is between the two. Aside from the fact that using a barbell enables you to use more weight, while dumbbells use more stabilizer muscles and provide a bigger ROM for some upper body exercises(bench press, curls, front lat raises, etc). Or is that simply the only difference between the two? I've tried searching on Google, but the first 3 pages were all about dumbbell vs barbell bench press, so I gave up.

I've always wondered why barbells are a must for any strength program, since technically you only need one for squats and deadlifts. Dumbbells use more muscles, barbells allows more weight. But isn't strength defined as being strong, not as lifting a lot of weight?

[Jeffs]

When using dumbbells you are restricted by stabilizing muscles, and so you can't really develop the strength you need elsewhere. For example is bench press, the chest is much stronger than the triceps, so when you are restricted by the triceps, after a certain point you won't really challenge the chest any more. At least that sounds reasonable to me.

Of course, using dumbbells as variation and assistance is great.

[lovestolift]

But isn't strength defined as being strong, not as lifting a lot of weight?

strength
n.
The state, property, or quality of being strong.

strong
adj.
Physically powerful; capable of exerting great physical force.

You cannot exert great physical force unless there is something to exert it on, i.e. a weight. So the more weight you move, the stronger you are. Your definition proves to be nebulous. How can something be measured as strong if not my how much force it can apply?

[Jeffs]

@lovestolift You're right, but I don't think that's what he meant. You can be strong, and still don't lift much weight. It depends on what you are lifting. For example, if you lift 70kg with dumbbells, does that mean that you are weaker than someone who lifts 100kg with a barbell? Not necessarily, because you are using different muscles. Could be that you are stronger in some other muscles, but then again, is that the goal?

[Eivind]

But isn't strength defined as being strong, not as lifting a lot of weight?

strength
n.
The state, property, or quality of being strong.

strong
adj.
Physically powerful; capable of exerting great physical force.

You cannot exert great physical force unless there is something to exert it on, i.e. a weight. So the more weight you move, the stronger you are. Your definition proves to be nebulous. How can something be measured as strong if not my how much force it can apply?

Excuse my bad attempt at trying to translate an old saying we have over here :p

Basically, the purpose of a strength training program is to get stronger. Big numbers don't always equal big strength!

[Bluegreyhound]

My track coach used to tell us that Barbells are for "building", Dumbbells are for "refining". I never really understood what he meant, but since we always seemed in need of much "building" we just stuck with Barbells.

[Bluegreyhound]

@lovestolift You're right, but I don't think that's what he meant. You can be strong, and still don't lift much weight. It depends on what you are lifting. For example, if you lift 70kg with dumbbells, does that mean that you are weaker than someone who lifts 100kg with a barbell? Not necessarily, because you are using different muscles. Could be that you are stronger in some other muscles, but then again, is that the goal?

Well, the likely answer to the above example is yes. Almost 50% more weight with a barbell in the same plane of motion.

Anyway, just stick to comparisons in the same exercise. It's hard enough making comparisons even with the same exercise as different leverages and techniques can make a difference e.g. leverage and technique differences can make the Barbell squat an easier exercise (i.e. more weight lifted) without necessarily requiring more overall strength.

[Lazarus]

This is basically a very open question, but I'm wondering what the difference is between the two. Aside from the fact that using a barbell enables you to use more weight, while dumbbells use more stabilizer muscles and provide a bigger ROM for some upper body exercises(bench press, curls, front lat raises, etc). Or is that simply the only difference between the two? I've tried searching on Google, but the first 3 pages were all about dumbbell vs barbell bench press, so I gave up.

I've always wondered why barbells are a must for any strength program, since technically you only need one for squats and deadlifts. Dumbbells use more muscles, barbells allows more weight. But isn't strength defined as being strong, not as lifting a lot of weight?

Well, technically, you can do deadlifts and squats with dumbbells. But practically, I would mainly agree, barbells are mainly necessary for deadlifts, squats, and power cleans, in a basic strength program. Therefore, one can logically deduce, adding in the above premise that barbells are a must for such a strength program, that deadlifts, squats, and cleans, are a must for a basic strength program. Does that answer your question?

[killerdude494949]

Barbells allow you to use more total weight. If you can barbell bench press 300 pounds you will probably use 120s in each hand for dumbells, so the net weight is 240 rather than 300. The result is less total strength, less growth response. At least for someone who is not relatively strong to his/her own bodyweight yet. Strength on barbell exercises also tend to transfer better to their dummbell versions, but not the other way around. But training will dumbbells is good for assistance lifts and also allowing your arms to move in a more natural range of motion. I believe dumbbells are better for hypertrophy training once your past the beginner stage, because they increase the tension on the muscle significantly. If thats what you want..

[anchorman45]

I totally disagree with dumbells not transferring well to barbells. A few months ago my bench press completely stalled and after a few weeks of struggling and regressing I decided to try dumbells. When I first started I could barely do dalf the total weight of the barbell jsut because I had to learn to stabilize the weight. I felt it in much more of my chest and felt a burn like I never had before. I progressed quickly and was able to go way past my old barbell weight in just a few months. In my opinion dumbells transfer over to barbells much more than the other way around. Just my 2 cents.

[Lazarus]

anchor, it sounds to me like your bench was triceps dominant, the db bench activated your pecs and your ant. delts maybe, then when you went back to the barbell bench you kept that pec involvement. (If that's true, you are believing that you had weak stabilizers before, when in fact it's just that db bench and bb bench have significant differences in biomechanics, and you could no longer hide the pecs/delts behind dominant tris. This is something that I'm dealing with atm, as a newbie short-armed lifter) Credit dumbbells for that? If you want, but you could have achieved the same ends with any of a bunch of different barbell lifts, wide-grip bench being the most obvious to me. Perhaps this guess isn't true in your case, but the point of the example holds true anyway, as it's undoubtedly true for many.

This whole thread is just like that example, the truth is being lost in a cloud of generalization. Which takes more stabilization? OHP a 100 lb db, or OHP a 100 lb barbell with one hand? (Not a theoretical example, this is one of 2 lifts in Pavel's PTTP program, which explains this as his rationale)

If you all want to get uselessly theoretical, start debating why we don't backsquat with 4 foot barbells, or 10 foot barbells (Yes, I'm aware they're not readily available, the question is why this is so) The practical reasons for using a barbell to squat and deadlift are so obvious that it's a wonder this thread has more than 2-3 posts.

[Zendefone]

Just a thought, barbell may seems to be more ''funtional'', as you can see, most heavy things comes as 1 peice, like a rock, keg, box, funitures etc. Even BW exercises like pull ups, push ups, muscle ups you are working to ''lift your body'', which comes as a peice too and you would have to use 2 hands to work together, more similar to a barbell movement than a dumbell.

[Eivind]

After doing some more research, it's pretty clear that it's close to impossible to pick a "better" tool, since they both have their advantages and disadvantages. I've read some comparisons regarding certain exercises and how they function with barbells and dumbbells, and it seems to pretty much boil down to what exercises you do.

It's really hard to come with a conclusion of what's better, so I'm not even sure what to think anymore! I guess you could say barbells are for strength, while dumbbells are for hyperthropy and improving weaknesses at barbell lifts.

[StevieB]

I find the problem with dumbbells is getting the f***ing things in place.
I can comfortably unrack 120kg from the rack for a bench press, but struggle getting even 2 50kg DBs into a bench position.

[Bluegreyhound]

I find the problem with dumbbells is getting the f***ing things in place.
I can comfortably unrack 120kg from the rack for a bench press, but struggle getting even 2 50kg DBs into a bench position.

I can totally empathise with this. I tried once to do seated DB shoulder presses with just two 25kg DB and struggled to lift it to the shoulder level to start my exercise. Eventually I had to basically power snatch them while standing, then sit down as if box squatting and recline back. Needless to say, I just stuck with BB OHP after that.