Thread: Muscle Shaping

Good stuff.

I believe him!

Interesting. I didn't see fucking works cited though, wtf I wanted to look at the studies. I think one of my kinesiology profs was cited after a paragraph.

It makes sense to me.

i agree with him, you can definetely affect different parts of the muscle.....

eh.....I think he is looking at it the wrong way. I don't like his analysis. It is to simplistic.

Before I get into that, I will pre-empt what I am about to say by saying....I really don't know. I don't think anyone knows for sure if you can activate certain parts of a muscle over others. I see what he is doing with the drawing angles over the way the pecs run during different cable exercises, etc. To what extent that is true, really remains to be seen. Studies have never really backed that up. Since research has never backed that up, I fail to believe it. If one day, someone comes along and proves it wrong, I wont be surprised, and I will change the way I think about it. Until then, I just have to go with what the research reports and what the physiology text tells us is true.....

That said, his breakdown of the firing of a motor unit being like a little town and a power output going to each home is friggin' retarded. Think about what he is saying......"We can flip a light switch on in one room but light doesn't go on in the whole house." No fucking shit sherlock. The power to the whole house is just that....power to the whole house (think Nervous system). We flip a switch in one room, say our bicep (bicep curl) and that is the only room that power goes on in. I have never performed a bicep curl and had an impulse jolt my entire body. DUH. If what he is saying is true, then I could walk into my bedroom and turn the switch on half way, thus only turing on half the light bulb...possible..no. Why? All or none principle. The light is either all the way on or it is all the way off. No inbetween. The same with muscles. The quadraceps are 4 different muscles BUT they are innervated by only one nerve (one fucking light switch), the femoral nerve. They are either contracted, or they are relaxed, but one does not work while the others rest. Doesn't happen. The only way to increase the amount of motor units being recruited is to add more weight and make the muscle work harder.


By showing the different angles and such, what he did was just set up what we already know (especially if hypertrophy is your goal), work at angles to prevent the body from adapting to one movement patter and to prevent neurological burnout.

i understand what you are saying p funk, relating to quads...... leg extensions DEFINITELY contract the quad in a different way and stress the quad muscles different than a lunge or squat.....

this applies to other muscles imo too...

Originally Posted by swordfish

i understand what you are saying p funk, but leg extensions DEFINITELY contract the quad in a different way and stress the quad muscles different than a lunge or squat.....

of course they do......the lunge and squat use more muscles than the leg ext., which is concentracted, and is a single joint exercise and uses only the knee extensors.

The same 4 quad muscles are all working at the same time....not one over the other....So, you don't understand what I am saying at all.

imo you can have a DIFFERENT part of the quad working compared to another exercise..


this is an easier example....... incline dumbell press hits upper chest more than flat dumbell bench press....... even though the pec contracts in both the upper pecs are being more effected.............

Originally Posted by swordfish

imo you can have a DIFFERENT part of the quad working compared to another exercise..


this is an easier example....... incline dumbell press hits upper chest more than flat dumbell bench press....... even though the pec contracts in both the upper pecs are being more effected.............

how do you deem that possible? please tell me how you can contract one part of your quad and not the other. Quick, flex you mediallis. can't do it by itself. again, you aren't grasping what I am saying.

ok, i dont grasp what your saying then. you always want to be the one to argue..... ill just state my opinion as i did before. IMO you can affect different parts of the muscle more by hitting it from a different angle.......

Originally Posted by swordfish

ok, i dont grasp what your saying then. you always want to be the one to argue..... ill just state my opinion as i did before. IMO you can affect different parts of the muscle more by hitting it from a different angle.......

I am not arguing. I am debating. The problem is that there is no debate....research suggests one thing, but you don't like it so you want to give you opinion.

It is like debating over the defenition of a word. You don't like the defenition so you are going to make up your own.

In my opinion, the body doesn't need food for fuel and it doesn't sleep at all. See anything wrong with those statements? My opinion is not correct. They are not a matter of opinion type statements, the body needs food for fuel and it needs sleep.

Opinions mean nothing in the field of science. No one cares WHAT you think. They only care what you can prove.

I don't think he presented anything bulletproof there, but it may be possible. I'd like to see some of those references. Even if neuromuscular compartmentalization is a fact (I certainly think it's a distinct possibility), it seems like it was purely speculation that the compartments are geographically based, so to speak.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I don't think he presented anything bulletproof there, but it may be possible. I'd like to see some of those references. Even if neuromuscular compartmentalization is a fact (I certainly think it's a distinct possibility), it seems like it was purely speculation that the compartments are geographically based, so to speak.

I agree. It may be possible, but I don't know when, if, or how they will be ever able to show it.

Originally Posted by P-funk

I agree. It may be possible, but I don't know when, if, or how they will be ever able to show it.

Actually, one person who seems to believe in neural compartmentalization is Stuart McGill. He specifically mentions different neural compartments of the obliques in his book Low Back Disorders.

Again, even if that is the case, there are other things that must be determined proved before I believe that muscle shaping is ultimately possible as a result:

• Does hypertrophy specifically occur in geographically distinct regions of a muscle (We're talking one head here) if certain neural compartments are activated more than others during training?

• What is the peak and average variance in terms of neural activation of the different compartments?

• If a specific stimulus for hypertrophy can be applied to different locales of the same muscle based on differential activation of the neural compartments, does the body have some sort of regulatory mechanism to prevent an unbalanced growth in the muscle in question?

Furthermore, even with these items thoroughly researched, you would still need to determine exactly what compartments exist in which muscles before solid recommendations on the application to training could be established; what types of movements preferentially activate the specific portions of the muscle would also be key.

what does he say about the obliques?

what research does he reference to back it up?

Under what circumstances is he talking about it? In the terms of hypertrophy of the oblique muscles? In terms of what?

RE: regulatory mechanism to prevent unbalanced growth in one are of a muscle over another....

If it were possible, I would think so. the body has a regulatory mechanism to attempt to prevent unbalances in the contra-lateral side.

what does that work anyone know ?

what is the yellow lines pointing at ?

teh yellow lines are showing the angle (the line of pull) of the pectorallis major as she performs that exercise.

Originally Posted by P-funk

what does he say about the obliques?

what research does he reference to back it up?

Under what circumstances is he talking about it? In the terms of hypertrophy of the oblique muscles? In terms of what?

RE: regulatory mechanism to prevent unbalanced growth in one are of a muscle over another....

If it were possible, I would think so. the body has a regulatory mechanism to attempt to prevent unbalances in the contra-lateral side.

I'll have to look it up again when I have a break between classes in a few hours. I don't believe he's referring to selective hypertrophy of the different compartments, merely the need to perform different exercises to full train the muscles in question. Again though, I have to go back and reference that point a little later.

Nice article, very usefull informations. Thank CP.

Originally Posted by P-funk

teh yellow lines are showing the angle (the line of pull) of the pectorallis major as she performs that exercise.

thanks mate

Originally Posted by P-funk

what does he say about the obliques?

what research does he reference to back it up?

Under what circumstances is he talking about it? In the terms of hypertrophy of the oblique muscles? In terms of what?

RE: regulatory mechanism to prevent unbalanced growth in one are of a muscle over another....

If it were possible, I would think so. the body has a regulatory mechanism to attempt to prevent unbalances in the contra-lateral side.

I found a few instances of mentioning the neural compartmentalization of the obliques, but they aren't followed by a reference so I can't tell you where the information came from.

This is the quote from McGill (The other mentionings were very similar, including the context):

Originally Posted by Stuart McGill, Low Back Disorders

A distinct upper and lower rectus does not exist in most people (although some individuals may have the ability to preferentially activate one section slightly differently from the other in select activities). Thus, training the rectus can be accomplished with a single exercise. This is not true for the obliques, as they have several neural compartments-lateral, medial, upper, and lower.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I found a few instances of mentioning the neural compartmentalization of the obliques, but they aren't followed by a reference so I can't tell you where the information came from.

This is the quote from McGill (The other mentionings were very similar, including the context):

Interesting.

I believe dale posted some research on the rectus and the upper and lower abs and contraction of each.

As far as the obliques go, they do have more than one innervation, as they are innervated by I believe 3 differnet spinal nerves (I am not 100% sure. I can look that up later if you want). Something like the quardacep muscularture, again, is only innervated by one nerve, the femoral nerve. So, you could see how compartamentalization is not the same across the board.

that scientific stuff means nothing to me, and proved nothing to me.

but IMO, from my short lifting experience, I think it's possible to emphasize different parts of the pec's. Not by doing incline/decline/flat benching, they all seam the same to me.

Say Cable fly's for instance. When my shoulders are slightly hunched over, It feels like I'm working my upper chest more. Back straight, pullling from low, I can feel the outer region getting worked more. Back straight, shoulders up and pulling from medium, I feel my chest getting worked as a hole, just slightly less on the upper.

that probably sounds stupid to someone who's educated in this stuff. but I"m just speaking from experience and what is working for me, I have no proof to offer.

Originally Posted by viet_jon

that scientific stuff means nothing to me, and proved nothing to me.

but IMO, from my short lifting experience, I think it's possible to emphasize different parts of the pec's. Not by doing incline/decline/flat benching, they all seam the same to me.

Say Cable fly's for instance. When my shoulders are slightly hunched over, It feels like I'm working my upper chest more. Back straight, pullling from low, I can feel the outer region getting worked more. Back straight, shoulders up and pulling from medium, I feel my chest getting worked as a hole, just slightly less on the upper.

that probably sounds stupid to someone who's educated in this stuff. but I"m just speaking from experience and what is working for me, I have no proof to offer.

some people perform chest press and say they never feel anything in their chest? Does that mean that their chest is not working?

Originally Posted by P-funk

some people perform chest press and say they never feel anything in their chest? Does that mean that their chest is not working?

IMO? Not using the pec's whatsoever? no.

I dont think they're using their pec's to the max potential though.

I was one of those people your referring to. I started a thread a while back complaining about why I couldn't get my chest to grow. I didn't know how to squeeze out the pec's, and was pressing mostly with my arms.

wow, good arguments CP and Funk...

Originally Posted by P-funk

Interesting.

I believe dale posted some research on the rectus and the upper and lower abs and contraction of each.

As far as the obliques go, they do have more than one innervation, as they are innervated by I believe 3 differnet spinal nerves (I am not 100% sure. I can look that up later if you want). Something like the quardacep muscularture, again, is only innervated by one nerve, the femoral nerve. So, you could see how compartamentalization is not the same across the board.

I'd be interested to see Dale's references on that. I have heard him mention it. I know one time he told me he asked a neuroscientist, or some such person, and they told him they though it was possible.

I see how we could easily start another upper/middle/lower pec debate here.