|
|
|
|
Originally posted by phantom939 Wow, and I thought the peak was pure genetics and there was nothing I could do to help it at all. Score. |
|
Originally posted by gopro Technically, the peak IS pure genetics, as you cannot really change the shape of a simple muscle like the biceps, but again, by increasing the size of the brachialis, which lies underneath the biceps, you will effectively push the bis up higher and make them look like they are more "peaked." |
|
Originally posted by phantom939 Sounds good to me. |
|
Originally posted by Mr.No Hey GP, I read somewhere that the common mistake people make when training their biceps is actually training their brachialis instead, and that's why their biceps is not progressing. It said that you should isolate your biceps as much as you can with minimum pressure on brachialis in order to get bigger bi's. This is apparently a common mistake people make and that's why their bi's wont grow to the fullest. What do you think about this? Thx. |
|
Originally posted by gopro Well, first, we are talking about 2 different muscles here. Both should be developed to the max. Second, while doing regular curls of any kind its kind of hard not to isolate the bis over the brachialis, not the other way around. The brachialis only comes into play to a large extent if you curl with a hammer or reverse grip, and/or curl with your elbows up by you ears and bring the weight behind your head (this can only be done with cables). Some people use an ez curl bar too much which does pronate the forearm and thus takes some action away from the bis and places it on the brachialis, but other than that, all "regular" curls with the palms facing the ceiling will mainly recruit the biceps. |
| palms facing the ceiling |
|
Originally posted by gopro Well, first, we are talking about 2 different muscles here. Both should be developed to the max. Second, while doing regular curls of any kind its kind of hard not to isolate the bis over the brachialis, not the other way around. The brachialis only comes into play to a large extent if you curl with a hammer or reverse grip, and/or curl with your elbows up by you ears and bring the weight behind your head (this can only be done with cables). Some people use an ez curl bar too much which does pronate the forearm and thus takes some action away from the bis and places it on the brachialis, but other than that, all "regular" curls with the palms facing the ceiling will mainly recruit the biceps. |
|
Originally posted by Mr.No Cool, thanks GP. |
|
Originally posted by Saturday Fever What makes the biceps a "simple muscle" and how would a "simple muscle" be unshapable, while it is implied that a "complex muscle" would be? Likewise, if the purpose of the brachialis is functionally identical to that of the biceps, how does changing where your palm is facing use one muscle more than the other? I mean, if you flex your biceps, your elbow bends and your wrist draws towards your shoulder. If you flex your brachialis, the same exact thing happens. So functionally, how is any of this valid? |
|
Originally posted by gopro And the REAL expert on training has arrived! Do we really want to go into the "muscle shaping" debate again? I don't think so. Now, as to the brachialis...if you are actually dumb enough to think that doing a hammer curl or a reverse curl works the bicep and brachialis in the same manner as a barbell curl then you are more pathetic than your bench press. SNF, stop trying to challenge me...its getting old and its not gonna work. I have forgotten more about how to build muscle than you will ever know. |
|
Originally posted by plouffe Doing movements with cambered bar hits the brachialis more than if you were to do the same movement with a straight bar. I believe thats how it goes. |
|
Originally posted by PreMier Wow, spoken like a true Moderator(IE: someone that should set an example). heh.. Just curious, but can you squat or say... deadlift as much as SF? |
|
Originally posted by Saturday Fever See, the misconception here comes from you instantly getting defensaive when I speak. Nowhere did I say you were wrong. I asked. And I didn't ask in a condescending way. I asked, simply, to be told (or taught) the answer to my questions. I don't "know-it-all." I have said to many people on this site in my very brief stay that what they said surpassed my knowledge. So you getting defensive is you getting defensive. If I ask questions, and continue to ask questions based on your answers, I am only seeking answers. I know we have butted heads once before, but believe me when I say I only want answers. So if you can answers my questions, great. If not, that's fine too. I'm not insulting you, nor trying to. As I said, I only seek answers. |
| I used to squat 500 lbs regularly |
| "The long head (lateral head) of the biceps brachii is activated significantly more than the short head (medial head) of the biceps brachii since the short head enters into active insufficiency as it continues to contract. " (exrx.net) |
| It's a matter of bio mechanics and attachments: tendond insertion and origins. |
|
Originally posted by Saturday Fever What makes the biceps a "simple muscle" and how would a "simple muscle" be unshapable, while it is implied that a "complex muscle" would be? Likewise, if the purpose of the brachialis is functionally identical to that of the biceps, how does changing where your palm is facing use one muscle more than the other? I mean, if you flex your biceps, your elbow bends and your wrist draws towards your shoulder. If you flex your brachialis, the same exact thing happens. So functionally, how is any of this valid? |
|
Originally posted by Quadsweep Saturday Fever: I have not read any of your previous postings. I think your last post was sober. It makes me wonder, have you become a victim subjected to roid rage? Maybe you ask him questions he is incapable of answering? Maybe he forgot to take his mood stabilizers? Regarding your question. It's a matter of bio mechanics and attachments: tendond insertion and origins. I suggest you to read up on the subject and study a few anatomical charts. It's not entirely true that you cannot shape a muscle. I don't think the biceps can be considered as a simple muscle since it crosses to joints (biarticular). Exercises like the prone incline curl: "The long head (lateral head) of the biceps brachii is activated significantly more than the short head (medial head) of the biceps brachii since the short head enters into active insufficiency as it continues to contract. " (exrx.net) Gopro Even I can do that drugfree. |
|
Originally posted by gopro -Are you trying to insinuate that I am not drug free? -Do I care what you can or can't squat? |
|
Originally posted by Saturday Fever This doesn't need to be a pissing contest. Let's just figure out, functionally, how the angle of the wrist effects a difference in the usability of the biceps and the brachialis. In the end we'll all be better for it. |
|
Originally posted by Tank316 thats the way i looked at it, seems like someone doesnt know you to well do they G. |
| I understand your enjoyment in finding out the exact "scientific" reason why certain things are so, and that is great, but certain things are better proven in the real world. I say this because some scientific "evidence" is not conclusive, or, is interpreted differently by different people. |
| No matter WHAT "proof" I would submit to you, you will never believe that incline presses will selectively cause greater hypertrophy of the upper area of the pectoralis...correct? |
|
Originally posted by Saturday Fever ok. |
|
Originally posted by gopro Yeah, I know, I know...I'm way to big to be natural
|
|
Originally posted by Quadsweep Please accept my humble apology |