This is really odd

[nol3afclover]

On my legs days, I do very heavy weights when I work out my quads and hammies. I do curls for my hammies and quads with quite a bit of weight, but I'm never sore the next day. For kicks, I did about 20 lunges just cause I never really do them. I did them WITHOUT weights and to my surprise, can hardly walk today. My hammies, quads and butt is soooo sore...I am amazed how that can be, when heavy weights doesn't.

 

[maleficent]

Does your form change from even slightly without the weights from with the weights?

is it possible that you're working slightly different muscle groups?

 

[LandonsBaby]

I find lunges much different than doing a curl with weight. It works the leg differently. And wow, can you get sore from doing something you aren't used to doing!

 

[nol3afclover]

I find lunges much different than doing a curl with weight. It works the leg differently. And wow, can you get sore from doing something you aren't used to doing!

Well, if I do concentration curls with tons of weight, and then switch to preacher curls which I dont do often, I don't expect to be sore, since its the same muscle worked. So yes, wow.

 

[Steve]

Who cares?

Soreness isn't an indicator of a workout's efficacy.

Plus, you're comparing pretty crappy isolation exercises with great compound work.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Steve hit the nail on the head. That no pain no gain bullshit went out ages ago... soreness can mean a ton of things... least of all effectiveness. In all fairness, you probably don't realize that you've now worked a group of muscles you've never targeted before with weights. The lunges (as Steve mentioned) are a perfect compound exercise for the legs, so the probability that you hit a new muscle in there is very high...

damn, I feel like a repetitive asshole.

 

[JDhd]

I was just going to copy and paste the same thing Steve and Pooh said.... but I thought that'd be a little ridiculous and changed me mind.

Instead.... here's a cheesy emoticon: