Mudge

What were talking about is on an arc, favoring 1/2 of the muscle approximately by percentage, not one excersize per attatchment point to each rib, that is nonsensible.

Maybe what you would consider, an unfantastic difference, but I certainly believe that it is there, that you can favor by angle changes/different excersizes etc.

Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench
Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu
I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks

Robboe

Oh, well if you think it's true then it must be. Lets tell the world of this revelation.

Being held down by The Man

Mudge

Since people have been using various excersizes for years to purposely target specific areas, I think they know already.

Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench
Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu
I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks

Robboe

Show me one person who has managed it.

Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle.

I double-dare you.

Being held down by The Man

KryptoAllez

Yes, but growth most certainly does NOT occur evenly anyway! I don't think it EVER does! And maybe you cannot ISOLATE persay, but how about putting enough extra stress within one region more so than another to possibly induce slightly MORE hypertrophy than in another region? The body does not grow evenly, otherwise bodybuilders would only have to use compound movements! And then, with your logic, when some part of them was lagging, you'd just attribute it to bad genetics and stop there, well horse pucky!

Just look at athletes in different types of sports and see how specific training develops one's muscles differently. There is definitely no doubt that you can target different muscle heads. Yes it is more of a debate about targeting specific regions within a muscle but because the muscles are so complex, I believe it is possible.

For instance, there have been extensive studies done on discovering fiber type distribution (which I didn't even realize this til I did some further research) within human muscle tissue which have shown that certain sections within the same muscle group are made up of more fast or slow twitch fibers, like more fast twitch fibers near insertion points for example. Now that ALONE would account for the muscle's shape! So while people's muscles are very similar, some people could have a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers in certain regions such as the belly of the biceps, which would give them more of a peak. So perhaps people without a peak just have to work harder on targeting their fast twitch fibers since they have less of them to create the mass needed for the peak!

So now if for instance the upper lats are made up of more fast twitch fibers and the lower portion is made up of more slow twitch fibers, then it would stand to reason that you would train differently in order to stimulate the fibers that the section of muscle you are looking to improve. And this can be done in many ways, changes in angles of exercises, changing number of reps, or speed of movement, etc. Nobody has perfect symmetry, we all have flaws due to our genetics so those lagging parts have to be worked on harder than perhaps someone else.

TCD, I think you are just not giving the human body/muscles enough credit, you are making it more simplistic than it really is. I think there is plenty of evidence that different exercises target different heads and different sections of the muscle groups more than others and it just happens to be something that is very difficult to prove. But people should know that you can't always "prove" everything! We know there is gravity because of the EFFECTS it has but we can't actually prove IT exists. Well, this might just be another example of that, cause I sure can see the evidence, it's there, some just choose to ignore it or will be waiting til their dying day for proof that may never come. And those are the ones who are probably cutting themselves short just cause something hasn't been tangibly "proved".

To me that is like arguing with my speed skating coach if he tells me some weird drill will help my skating. I wouldn't say no and ask him to "prove" it, I mean, how could he? I just trust him because he's got years of experience and has been coaching for years, many top level skaters came from his training. So in the same way I trust bodybuilders who have been training for years, or PT's who have been training BB's for years. And people like you, TCD, are so freaking stubborn that you will STILL demand your "proof".

I think you're a hopeless case. Quite frustrating, that's for sure, ya stubborn 'ole coot. You're gonna grow up to be one stubborn old man, lol!

And in the case with Snake Eyes, he's not frustrating cause he's not making it too simplistic and he's backing up/explaining why he feels a certain way. TCD, your rebuttals just don't hold much weight if ya know what I mean, (no offense) you just don't give very strong arguments for your side. Okay I'm done. For
now...

Bodybuilding isn't everything, it's just that being small, weak, and puny REALLY sucks!!

Speed Skater - Last Lap, Tight Pack, Absolutely, Positively, Most Definitely Without a Doubt, NO FEAR (not even a little bit).

Mudge

Yep, were humans, not hydra.

ponyboy

Basic physiology dictates that muscles fire based on an "all or none" principle. Meaning that, once one fiber decides to contract they ALL do for each individual muscle group. You simply cannot ask part of a muscle to contract and part not to. If you could, people could do some pretty freaky stuff (imagine being able to only contract half of your bicep and have two peaks bobbing up and down!).

I do agree with the statement that muscles insert into different areas, especially large ones like in the back. TCD is right though, you cannot build specifically the lower lat, just like you can't specifically build the lower pec (as we have discussed before). Your muscles will grow into the insertion points that exist already and shape the muscle largely according to your genetics, not how you choose to exercise it.

I may have missed the point of the discussion, but Krypto, you are making some excellent points. I think we all need to break it down to basics.

Robboe

Isolation movements are not a necessity.

Yes, it is called genetics and is why people differ from one another. However, drug users and genetic feaks aside, the basic mode of growth is the same and you can't alter your genetics.

If this were true then it'd be possible to reshape a muscle. As we all know, no one has yet naturally achieved this.

Not that it will cause any significant difference in the muscle shape. The size may increase of course.

[quote]
And this can be done in many ways, changes in angles of exercises, changing number of reps, or speed of movement, etc. Nobody has perfect symmetry, we all have flaws due to our genetics so those lagging parts have to be worked on harder than perhaps someone else. [quote]

For overall growth, yes - ie if your triceps could be a little larger in relation to your biceps. However, there's no chance your gonna cause your lower lats to spread out a little more without causing the upper lats to grow in proportion.

Funny you should say that, cause i think you're over-complicating how easy it really is.

Nah, i'm not stubborn. I just enjoy being unreasonably obstinate, obdurate, refractory and intractable.

His first few posts were simplistic cause he clearly realises that people over-complicate growth in order to make it sound more complex and to usually make money out of it. He only brought all the physiology and what-not into it because you did.

I'm not denying that physiology and kinesiology aren't my forté, but i do have the common sense to realise the basics and i know enough to realise that intramuscular targetting is not gonna cause significant growth in that area.


By the way, my earlier proposition towards Mudge to "Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle" still stands. It's something I'd love to see.

Being held down by The Man

Mudge

...and a tall order indeed. I think the best I could do is an experiment of my own. Since you seem to doubt that concentration curls can increase peak (correct me if I'm wrong here), then that would be an easy one for me to do.

Let me know if thats acceptable, and I'll see what I can do in, what length of time, 3 weeks sound good? 6? I'm on a 6 week challenge to myself right now.

Robboe

Dude, take as long as you want/need!

I'd love to see your arm get more peak. Not something i believe is gonna happen though, m'fraid.

P.s. You're right, i don't believe conc. curls will increase peak.

Being held down by The Man

Scotty the Body

I'm siding with TCD on this one, genetics will be what determines the shape of your muscles, doing one exercise isn't going to change the shape of a muscle but rather make the whole thing grow.
Doing different exercises is the better way to cause overall growth but the growth will be over the entire muscle not certain areas of it.

Next time your looking through a Muscle mag, notice that different BBers have different shapes to there Back's, chest, bi's, tri's etc, its not because they're doing one exercise over the other, its because of there genetics.

Cool

KryptoAllez

Well isn't that what he is looking for, increased size in the lower lats?

Can you proove that unequivicably?

That is the result of being challenged on my beliefs. How else to attempt to show why I believe the way I do?

Oh okay. But personally I think he brought all the physiology into it for the same reason I did, to show why he believes the way he does. And incidentally, what he knows I find highly commendable.

Fair enough. But yeah, that's my point, I think you are looking at the human muscles with too basic of a view when they certainly are more complex than that and as such, deserve further research other than just knowing the basics. Again, that's if you have an interest in getting all into it. I pretty much just shut up and lift but I use a variety of exercises to keep boredom away and because I believe it helps me target the muscles better in order to achieve better symmetry and proportion.

Maybe we need to have 2 separate threads going for questions like this. We'll have the "THOSE WHO BELIEVE YOU CAN'T ISOLATE OR PUT MORE STRESS ON CERTAIN REGIONS OF MUSCLES" and "THOSE THAT BELIEVE MANY DIFFERENT EXERCISES AND ANGLES ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE CLOSE TO PERFECT SYMMETRY." And then the questioner can pick which thread of responses he wants to believe, lol.

Prove to me that the muscles do not adapt in a specific way to exercises which emphasize stress on part of the muscle like eccentric exercises, and stimuli that stretch and lengthen the muscle, such as preacher curls and dumbbell flys. Prove to me that adaptation of the muscle does not take place in direct correlation with the given stimulus. Go ahead, I'd love to see that as well. You prove me wrong and then I'll work on proving you wrong.

Bodybuilding isn't everything, it's just that being small, weak, and puny REALLY sucks!!

Speed Skater - Last Lap, Tight Pack, Absolutely, Positively, Most Definitely Without a Doubt, NO FEAR (not even a little bit).

Scotty the Body

All you can do is make the whole thing bigger, have you ever seen anyone that had a larger lower portion of there lat? No, because it isn't possible. Overall, genetics will deturmin the shape.

Cool

Robboe

I was referring to overall size.

Not me personally, but unproportional growth is something i'd love to see.

It's great that you have beliefs. I believe in aliens, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Personally, i've tried and i've failed to see difference in intramuscular regions. I've also seen many others try and fail. I've also corresponded with others over the net who have tried and failed. And because of this, i've never seen fit to delve into the depths of physiology and what-not cause it seems very unnecessary, unless someone is interested in it of course.

The boredom factor is a good reason to switch exercises, true.

If you don't have the symmetry of SHAPE in the first place then you're never gonna get it. Symmetry of SIZE however, can be worked upon - ie getting your left arm the same size as your right etc... if you've got more biceps peak on your right bicep than your left then you've got it for life. Just look at Arnold. Why didn't he use concentration curls to even up his left bicep?

Muscle do adapt - by growing. All over.

I'll use a personally scenario here, just for fun. I stopped doing all incline work for my chest last July. Only recently i've started doing flyes on a slight incline (do to shoulder troubles from flat flyes - my preference.) My "upper chest" never grew better. Strange that eh?

I'll try, but it may take some time. I'll have to see what i can dig up.

Being held down by The Man

Sub-Zero

OI !!!! That's my line

I would put my point through here, but it seems Krypto is doing a well enough job.

Cold as ice !!

KryptoAllez

I know.

And it just fits so well.

Bodybuilding isn't everything, it's just that being small, weak, and puny REALLY sucks!!

Speed Skater - Last Lap, Tight Pack, Absolutely, Positively, Most Definitely Without a Doubt, NO FEAR (not even a little bit).

Sub-Zero

I forgive ya den :P

Cold as ice !!

Snake_Eyes

Well, lets look at this from another angle:

Why would a muscle *need* to be reshaped?

Muscles weren't designed to look good or be shaped properly; they evolved as a means of generating force to move the levers of the skeleton. When the muscle grows, its growing as a response to that force; why would it "short-change" itself, so to speak, by not maximizing that capacity?

Robboe

That is a fucking brilliant point.

Being held down by The Man