Frack! Muscle stimulus debate...

Soul of Sol · 05-24-2007, 01:13 PM

Ok, this muscle stimulus debate has got me thinking. And thinking is uncomfortable for me.
So, taking a queue from the upper chest and bench press threads, if you contract a muscle in anyway, that is the only stimulus that is needed? For example, let's take Old Trusty, the flat bench press. If what I have been reading is correct, then inclines, declines and dips provide no additional stimulus what so ever. So I am now under the impression that all other movements besides the primary movement(flat bench) is just additional chest work, loading the muscle in the exact same way?
My uneducated hypothesis is that the only reason to train in differant planes is to place additonal work on the secondary movers. Plus the contractions in one exercise are differant from the contractions in another. For example, if you do dips or declines, the contraction at the bottom of the pecs is more severe than being performed during an incline press.

Ok, me been thinking too hard. me go lie down now.

PS-

NordicNacho · 05-24-2007, 01:28 PM

your body adapts. thats why you mix it up.

Soul of Sol · 05-24-2007, 02:47 PM

Ok..so if your body adapts. Why switch planes at all, tho? Just increase the weight or the reps to prevent adaptation. If the whole muscle is stimulated in every movement the same way, why switch movements?
I'm not trying to be a pain, and trust me, I train in all different planes. I'm just trying to think from a scientific point of view. The way I understand it from the readings, the only reason to switch planes is for the secondary movers. The primary is going to contract the same no matter what.

Of course all lifters know that the theory doesn't match up in practice, but WHY?

PS- Now I have about 4 trainers in my gym discussing this matter. All four have a degree in Kinesiology. It's pretty cool. Knowledge is power and all that.

fufu · 05-24-2007, 03:13 PM

You may be over thinking this.

**CowPimp** · 05-24-2007, 09:25 PM

Don't forget that you're also training different neural pathways with different lifts. You are recruiting different motor until pools depending on the movement done, and possibly even the type and speed of muscle contraction.

As well, you are changing the force curve with each lift. For example, do a typical bicep curl, and now you have peak tension when your elbow is at 90 degrees. Do a preacher curl, and now you have peak tension at 120 degrees or so, depending on the angle of the preacher pad.

The various muscles involved are also stimulated to varying degrees depending on the way you perform the movement. A good example is the incline bench press, which involves additional stimulation of the anterior deltoids.

As well, the range of motion varies depending on the movement. So, with a decline press I can use a greater load relative to the incline press, but the incline press allows for a greater range of motion.

Does that make sense?

Soul of Sol · 06-04-2007, 11:16 AM

CP- it makes perfect sense.

Thanks for all the input.

Supreme Sports · 06-04-2007, 11:25 AM

As I have stated previously, the amount of VOLUME that a muscle requires for optimal growth is directly proportionate to the DEVELOPMENT of that muscle.

VOLUME includes both the NUMBER OF SETS and amount of weight(amount of REPS)

ALWAYS PERFORM 6-12 reps on compound movements, and 8-15 on isolation movements.

Standing 5"10, 220lbs @ 7%BF, I require at LEAST 20 Sets for CHEST, BACK, and LEGS(sometimes doing 25-30 sets), and at LEAST 15 sets for Shoulders, Triceps and Biceps.

For an intermediate bodybuilder, I would suggest at LEAST 15 sets for CHEST, BACK, and LEGS, and at LEAST 10 sets for SHOULDERS, TRICEPS, and BICEPS.

Double D · 06-04-2007, 01:28 PM

I have a feeling you will be in the minority the entire time you are here.

And the bold lettering is just annoying.

Supreme Sports · 06-04-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double D

I have a feeling you will be in the minority the entire time you are here.

And the bold lettering is just annoying.

Understood.

Just stating what has worked for me and my colleagues.

ReproMan · 06-04-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double D

I have a feeling you will be in the minority the entire time you are here.

And the bold lettering is just annoying.

This is why I stopped posting a journal here though. I do a bodybuilding style workout and it works GREAT for me. I do basically what Supreme is saying, but I try to break it up in movements instead of bodyparts. It works....

If you journey outside of this board you will see that this board is a huge minority in regards to the methodology preached here. This is a bodybuilding site and for some reason bodybuilding programs are looked down upon. Not saying what is preached here isn't right, but it's not geared toward bodybuilders. Funk has said many times that he thinks training bodybuilders is boring and most of his posts show that. He's a brilliant man that knows his shit, but he trains athletes, and what is effective for athletes isn't really effective for building large amounts of muscle mass, AAS or not.

Supreme Sports · 06-04-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReproMan

This is why I stopped posting a journal here though. I do a bodybuilding style workout and it works GREAT for me. I do basically what Supreme is saying, but I try to break it up in movements instead of bodyparts. It works....

If you journey outside of this board you will see that this board is a huge minority in regards to the methodology preached here. This is a bodybuilding site and for some reason bodybuilding programs are looked down upon. Not saying what is preached here isn't right, but it's not geared toward bodybuilders. Funk has said many times that he thinks training bodybuilders is boring and most of his posts show that. He's a brilliant man that knows his shit, but he trains athletes, and what is effective for athletes isn't really effective for building large amounts of muscle mass, AAS or not.

**CowPimp** · 06-04-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReproMan

This is why I stopped posting a journal here though. I do a bodybuilding style workout and it works GREAT for me. I do basically what Supreme is saying, but I try to break it up in movements instead of bodyparts. It works....

If you journey outside of this board you will see that this board is a huge minority in regards to the methodology preached here. This is a bodybuilding site and for some reason bodybuilding programs are looked down upon. Not saying what is preached here isn't right, but it's not geared toward bodybuilders. Funk has said many times that he thinks training bodybuilders is boring and most of his posts show that. He's a brilliant man that knows his shit, but he trains athletes, and what is effective for athletes isn't really effective for building large amounts of muscle mass, AAS or not.

I think that is utter nonsense. There are countless athletes that have huge amounts of lean body mass. I hate when people say that. I could name athletes who are huge all day long without any trouble. The amazing thing is that they aren't going for size most of the time (So they don't pay as much attention to nutrition as bodybuilders do), yet they accomplish it anyway.

There is a reason that bodybuilding splits are frowned upon. It's not so much that they are ineffective, it's the imbalances created by utilizing said splits. So, if getting big while increasing your risk of injury is acceptable for you, despite the fact that there are other methods which are just as effective, then by all means.

ReproMan · 06-04-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I think that is utter nonsense. There are countless athletes that have huge amounts of lean body mass. I hate when people say that. I could name athletes who are huge all day long without any trouble. The amazing thing is that they aren't going for size most of the time (So they don't pay as much attention to nutrition as bodybuilders do), yet they accomplish it anyway.

There is a reason that bodybuilding splits are frowned upon. It's not so much that they are ineffective, it's the imbalances created by utilizing said splits. So, if getting big while increasing your risk of injury is acceptable for you, despite the fact that there are other methods which are just as effective, then by all means.

It's been said time and time again, and I'll say it one more time. GENETICS.

So a balanced routine is nonsense? You can still train like a bodybuilder and not train body parts. But what do I know right? Lifting has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with memorizing text... (sarcasm)

Almost everything I have learned about lifting is from this board. The first 6 months I was here I took everything I read as the gospel which was a huge mistake. I got flat out smaller by using your routines. Then I stopped listening to the theories of 20 year old bookworms with less actual lifting experience than myself that were spewed out like it was the final word on all lifting and whaddya know. I started growing again.

I'll be perfectly honest. I haven't read a post of yours since you argued with GoPro some time back about his methods (which are tried and true, where is your book?). He has soooo much more experience than you it's pathetic yet you argued and argued. You lost huge points in my book with that one.

Where is GoPro these days? He is surely missed. One fellow that actually knew something about bodybuilding.

**Prince** · 06-04-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReproMan

This is why I stopped posting a journal here though. I do a bodybuilding style workout and it works GREAT for me. I do basically what Supreme is saying, but I try to break it up in movements instead of bodyparts. It works....

If you journey outside of this board you will see that this board is a huge minority in regards to the methodology preached here. This is a bodybuilding site and for some reason bodybuilding programs are looked down upon. Not saying what is preached here isn't right, but it's not geared toward bodybuilders. Funk has said many times that he thinks training bodybuilders is boring and most of his posts show that. He's a brilliant man that knows his shit, but he trains athletes, and what is effective for athletes isn't really effective for building large amounts of muscle mass, AAS or not.

oh lord, I will not even respond to this.

ReproMan · 06-04-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

oh lord, I will not even respond to this.

Well it's true..

Don't get me wrong, I love it here, but there is a huuuuuuuge bias. Huuuuge.

Oh and FYI, I'm prepared for the flaming. What would an unpopular opinion on IM be without it....

**CowPimp** · 06-04-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReproMan

It's been said time and time again, and I'll say it one more time. GENETICS.

So a balanced routine is nonsense? You can still train like a bodybuilder and not train body parts. But what do I know right? Lifting has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with memorizing text... (sarcasm)

What about genetics?

It's entirely possible to make a balanced body part split. If you care to search around, you will see that I have suggested splitting legs into glute/hamstring exercises and quads exercises, and splitting the back into back thickness (Traps) and back width (Lats) exercises, if you prefer to keep to a body part split. I have also said that it's a good idea to select your exercises based on movements/joints, and then distribute the exercises based on whatever muscle group you are working that day.

Quote:

Almost everything I have learned about lifting is from this board. The first 6 months I was here I took everything I read as the gospel which was a huge mistake. I got flat out smaller by using your routines. Then I stopped listening to the theories of 20 year old bookworms with less actual lifting experience than myself that were spewed out like it was the final word on all lifting and whaddya know. I started growing again.

I simply don't believe that you lost size following a full body program, or whatever you did. It is easy to just maintain your size. I would believe that you didn't grow, but getting smaller would require some seriously pussy workouts or a totally lacking diet. It's easy for you to say that to create support for your argument.

Quote:

I'll be perfectly honest. I haven't read a post of yours since you argued with GoPro some time back about his methods (which are tried and true, where is your book?). He has soooo much more experience than you it's pathetic yet you argued and argued. You lost huge points in my book with that one.

Where is GoPro these days? He is surely missed. One fellow that actually knew something about bodybuilding.

Who cares if I didn't write a book? There are plenty of people who have that support training the same way that I often suggest, if that's what is important to you. There are lots of people in both camps, and lots of people in both camps with good results.

Also, just because I argue with Gopro doesn't mean anything. I totally respect him. He has heaps of experience which I do not, he is very well read, and he has a lot of credentials. Still, arguing and discussing things is the point of this forum. As far as I can remember, our debates have always been very civil and brought to light a lot of good information that the board members here can use to make their own decisions.

ReproMan · 06-04-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

What about genetics?

It's entirely possible to make a balanced body part split. If you care to search around, you will see that I have suggested splitting legs into glute/hamstring exercises and quads exercises, and splitting the back into back thickness (Traps) and back width (Lats) exercises, if you prefer to keep to a body part split. I have also said that it's a good idea to select your exercises based on movements/joints, and then distribute the exercises based on whatever muscle group you are working that day.

What about genetics?

The athletes you refer to are gifted genetically. The only athletes I see that are monsters without training that way are NFL players and the guys in the strongman competitions. Those are elite athletes, and I'm pretty confident they make up a fraction of the athletes you speak of.

And the rest of this post was basically my original argument. I just didn't go into that much detail...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I simply don't believe that you lost size following a full body program, or whatever you did. It is easy to just maintain your size. I would believe that you didn't grow, but getting smaller would require some seriously pussy workouts or a totally lacking diet. It's easy for you to say that to create support for your argument.

Ok, I'll go with maintain size, which wasn't my goal. And I imagine it was the exact opposite of "pussy workouts" that led to that maintenance (probable overtraining). Diet has never been an issue with me, I'm a meso and I was just recalling the other day when initially lost all the fat I carried around for years, I was nearly starving myself to do it, and some how I managed to get stronger over a 9 month period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Who cares if I didn't write a book? There are plenty of people who have that support training the same way that I often suggest, if that's what is important to you. There are lots of people in both camps, and lots of people in both camps with good results.

Also, just because I argue with Gopro doesn't mean anything. I totally respect him. He has heaps of experience which I do not, he is very well read, and he has a lot of credentials. Still, arguing and discussing things is the point of this forum. As far as I can remember, our debates have always been very civil and brought to light a lot of good information that the board members here can use to make their own decisions.

Yeah, they were civil for this forum, I'll give you that. I guess my point is that as knowledgeable as you are (and I never denied that) it doesn't hurt to look the part. Your ideas are solid, but they aren't your ideas yet. This is all regurgitation of what you have read. When you get out there and train some top bodybuilders and athletes, I'll be more inclined to take your words closer to heart.

Train an athlete like an athlete and a bodybuilder like a bodybuilder. This is not a new concept.

I'm still trying to figure out what was "utter nonsense" about my original post.

Was it the "Funk is brilliant" part?

**P-funk** · 06-04-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Funk is brilliant

I agree.....that is utter nonsense.

**Dale Mabry** · 06-04-2007, 10:05 PM

Here is where I see the problem. I think a lot of people start out reading the rags and pulling their routines from there when they get into lifting. These programs work and then they stop doing them in favor of the movement-based routine. Now, this movement type thing works, but not as well as the BBer style. Now, is this because of the program itself, or is it because during the easiest period to grow you had done the BBer routine?

I have no problem with BBer workouts, I just choose not to train people that way unless they request it.

**CowPimp** · 06-04-2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReproMan

What about genetics?

The athletes you refer to are gifted genetically. The only athletes I see that are monsters without training that way are NFL players and the guys in the strongman competitions. Those are elite athletes, and I'm pretty confident they make up a fraction of the athletes you speak of.

And the rest of this post was basically my original argument. I just didn't go into that much detail...

We don't necessarily have to be talking about elite athletes. Powerlifters and strongmen at all levels train for strength, with a higher frequency, and they are still big if we look at some decent weight classes.

Also, bodybuilders are the same deal, so what is your point here? Old school natural bodybuilders used to train using full body programs, then steroids started coming around and all of the sudden split routines became more popular...

Quote:

Ok, I'll go with maintain size, which wasn't my goal. And I imagine it was the exact opposite of "pussy workouts" that led to that maintenance (probable overtraining). Diet has never been an issue with me, I'm a meso and I was just recalling the other day when initially lost all the fat I carried around for years, I was nearly starving myself to do it, and some how I managed to get stronger over a 9 month period.

Well, I don't know what you did. If you think you overtrained then you probably setup the program improperly. Also, it is very easy to get stronger while losing fat initially. I did the same thing. Everyone does that for the first several months after they begin lifting.

Quote:

Yeah, they were civil for this forum, I'll give you that. I guess my point is that as knowledgeable as you are (and I never denied that) it doesn't hurt to look the part. Your ideas are solid, but they aren't your ideas yet. This is all regurgitation of what you have read. When you get out there and train some top bodybuilders and athletes, I'll be more inclined to take your words closer to heart.

The look the part business is such a load of horseshit. First of all, to go through this for the 10 millionth time, size is not my goal. Strength and health are my goal. I wouldn't mind getting bigger, but I don't care as long as I get stronger. Therefore, I haven't been trying to get bigger most of the duration of my lifting career. Only portions of it have I been shooting for adding some size.

I have also only been lifting for a few years, and it takes more than that to get to what you probably consider big. That's what I lack the most compared to many others out there: experience. That's okay. It will come in due time.

As well, I am extremely active. I can maintain 195 pounds on 4300-500 calories per day. Eating is fucking expensive! I just can't prioritize getting that big over everything else in my life. I'm still in school for fuck's sake. Try budgeting out $500 a month on food as a student just to maintain your size!

Also, a lot of experts in the industry don't look the part. That doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.

Quote:

Train an athlete like an athlete and a bodybuilder like a bodybuilder. This is not a new concept.

I'm still trying to figure out what was "utter nonsense" about my original post.

Was it the "Funk is brilliant" part?

I was referring to your comment about what is good for training athletes not being good for gaining size. To some extent you are right (Obviously agility training isn't doing shit for size), but the strength/accessory work can certainly add muscle mass to your frame.

ReproMan · 06-05-2007, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowPimp

We don't necessarily have to be talking about elite athletes. Powerlifters and strongmen at all levels train for strength, with a higher frequency, and they are still big if we look at some decent weight classes.

Also, bodybuilders are the same deal, so what is your point here? Old school natural bodybuilders used to train using full body programs, then steroids started coming around and all of the sudden split routines became more popular...

Well, I don't know what you did. If you think you overtrained then you probably setup the program improperly. Also, it is very easy to get stronger while losing fat initially. I did the same thing. Everyone does that for the first several months after they begin lifting.

The look the part business is such a load of horseshit. First of all, to go through this for the 10 millionth time, size is not my goal. Strength and health are my goal. I wouldn't mind getting bigger, but I don't care as long as I get stronger. Therefore, I haven't been trying to get bigger most of the duration of my lifting career. Only portions of it have I been shooting for adding some size.

I have also only been lifting for a few years, and it takes more than that to get to what you probably consider big. That's what I lack the most compared to many others out there: experience. That's okay. It will come in due time.

As well, I am extremely active. I can maintain 195 pounds on 4300-500 calories per day. Eating is fucking expensive! I just can't prioritize getting that big over everything else in my life. I'm still in school for fuck's sake. Try budgeting out $500 a month on food as a student just to maintain your size!

Also, a lot of experts in the industry don't look the part. That doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.

I was referring to your comment about what is good for training athletes not being good for gaining size. To some extent you are right (Obviously agility training isn't doing shit for size), but the strength/accessory work can certainly add muscle mass to your frame.

Heh, I'll just let it be. You're gasping for air here obviously and I didn't mean to insult you. My bad.

PWGriffin · 06-05-2007, 05:46 AM

ReproMan, are you even a trainer? How can you speak about what works for most people/some people/ANYBODY. You can ONLY speak for yourself. CowPimp is a trainer, and as such he has trained people using his methodology and gotten results. I have trained people and NEVER USED bodypart splits and have gotten great results with my clients and dare I say, TREMENDOUS results with a handful...and I'm not even that experienced either.

05-24-2007, 01:13 PM	#1
Soul of Sol Solar Entity Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Milky Way and L.A. Posts: 159 Photos: 4	Frack! Muscle stimulus debate... BODYBUILDING SUPPLEMENTS High Quality Supplements For Bodybuilders and Athletes. www.ironmaglabs.com Ok, this muscle stimulus debate has got me thinking. And thinking is uncomfortable for me. So, taking a queue from the upper chest and bench press threads, if you contract a muscle in anyway, that is the only stimulus that is needed? For example, let's take Old Trusty, the flat bench press. If what I have been reading is correct, then inclines, declines and dips provide no additional stimulus what so ever. So I am now under the impression that all other movements besides the primary movement(flat bench) is just additional chest work, loading the muscle in the exact same way? My uneducated hypothesis is that the only reason to train in differant planes is to place additonal work on the secondary movers. Plus the contractions in one exercise are differant from the contractions in another. For example, if you do dips or declines, the contraction at the bottom of the pecs is more severe than being performed during an incline press. Ok, me been thinking too hard. me go lie down now. PS-
	"I'm the kingpin you can't win" ~ Safiir Journal

05-24-2007, 01:28 PM	#2
NordicNacho Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,414 Photos: 18	your body adapts. thats why you mix it up.
	http://www.roqofthe80s.com/#

05-24-2007, 02:47 PM	#3
Soul of Sol Solar Entity Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Milky Way and L.A. Posts: 159 Photos: 4	Ok..so if your body adapts. Why switch planes at all, tho? Just increase the weight or the reps to prevent adaptation. If the whole muscle is stimulated in every movement the same way, why switch movements? I'm not trying to be a pain, and trust me, I train in all different planes. I'm just trying to think from a scientific point of view. The way I understand it from the readings, the only reason to switch planes is for the secondary movers. The primary is going to contract the same no matter what. Of course all lifters know that the theory doesn't match up in practice, but WHY? PS- Now I have about 4 trainers in my gym discussing this matter. All four have a degree in Kinesiology. It's pretty cool. Knowledge is power and all that.
	"I'm the kingpin you can't win" ~ Safiir Journal

05-24-2007, 03:13 PM	#4
fufu fiendish thingy Elite Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 15,703 Photos: 4	You may be over thinking this.
	fufu's 1337 Journal Your diet will set you free.

05-24-2007, 09:25 PM	#5
CowPimp Fueled by Testosterone Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 15,400	Don't forget that you're also training different neural pathways with different lifts. You are recruiting different motor until pools depending on the movement done, and possibly even the type and speed of muscle contraction. As well, you are changing the force curve with each lift. For example, do a typical bicep curl, and now you have peak tension when your elbow is at 90 degrees. Do a preacher curl, and now you have peak tension at 120 degrees or so, depending on the angle of the preacher pad. The various muscles involved are also stimulated to varying degrees depending on the way you perform the movement. A good example is the incline bench press, which involves additional stimulation of the anterior deltoids. As well, the range of motion varies depending on the movement. So, with a decline press I can use a greater load relative to the incline press, but the incline press allows for a greater range of motion. Does that make sense?
	The only time it's bad to feel the burn is when you're peeing... CowPimp Picks Up Heavy Shit MySpace YouTube Videos

06-04-2007, 11:16 AM	#6
Soul of Sol Solar Entity Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Milky Way and L.A. Posts: 159 Photos: 4	CP- it makes perfect sense. Thanks for all the input.
	"I'm the kingpin you can't win" ~ Safiir Journal

06-04-2007, 11:25 AM	#7
Supreme Sports Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 53	As I have stated previously, the amount of VOLUME that a muscle requires for optimal growth is directly proportionate to the DEVELOPMENT of that muscle. VOLUME includes both the NUMBER OF SETS and amount of weight(amount of REPS) ALWAYS PERFORM 6-12 reps on compound movements, and 8-15 on isolation movements. Standing 5"10, 220lbs @ 7%BF, I require at LEAST 20 Sets for CHEST, BACK, and LEGS(sometimes doing 25-30 sets), and at LEAST 15 sets for Shoulders, Triceps and Biceps. For an intermediate bodybuilder, I would suggest at LEAST 15 sets for CHEST, BACK, and LEGS, and at LEAST 10 sets for SHOULDERS, TRICEPS, and BICEPS.

06-04-2007, 01:28 PM	#8
Double D Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 9,901	I have a feeling you will be in the minority the entire time you are here. And the bold lettering is just annoying.

06-04-2007, 10:05 PM	#19
Dale Mabry Moderator Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 13,748 Photos: 10	Here is where I see the problem. I think a lot of people start out reading the rags and pulling their routines from there when they get into lifting. These programs work and then they stop doing them in favor of the movement-based routine. Now, this movement type thing works, but not as well as the BBer style. Now, is this because of the program itself, or is it because during the easiest period to grow you had done the BBer routine? I have no problem with BBer workouts, I just choose not to train people that way unless they request it.
	If sense were common, everyone would have it. 4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

06-05-2007, 05:46 AM	#22
PWGriffin The Damned Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: birmingham alabama Posts: 1,609	ReproMan, are you even a trainer? How can you speak about what works for most people/some people/ANYBODY. You can ONLY speak for yourself. CowPimp is a trainer, and as such he has trained people using his methodology and gotten results. I have trained people and NEVER USED bodypart splits and have gotten great results with my clients and dare I say, TREMENDOUS results with a handful...and I'm not even that experienced either.