Building the peak

[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.

 

[gopro]

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.

OK, fair enough.

Question #1

I don't want to get into a debate about muscle shaping b/c we have been through it ad nauseum. Suffice to say that you cannot affect the "shape" of the biceps very much, but you can affect the "shape" of muscles like the pecs, delts, quads, and tris. This does NOT MEAN altering genetics, but does mean using certain angles, grips, and exercises to work parts of a muscle to a larger extent, which will in turn allow the full genetic potential of the muscle to be realized. Yes, like incline presses for the upper chest, overhead extension for the long head of the tris, side laterals for delts, etc. If you are one of those people that do not believe in this, do not argue, just believe what you believe, b/c you will not get anywhere with me on this.

Question # 2

The brachialis becomes the stronger elbow flexor when the forearm is neutral or pronated. Also, when the arms are hanging at a 90 degree angle to the torso, or the arms are curling from a position whereby they are up by the ears and the bar is brought behind the head, the biceps are in a mechanically weak position and the brachialis is forced into greater action.

 

[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

I used to squat 500 lbs regularly

Even I can do that drugfree.

 

[Saturday Fever]

"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)

See, this does not suffice as far as what can or should be considered an answer. What causes the "short head" to "enter into active insufficiency as it continues to contract?" What does that have to do with the brachialis? It's is extremely vague statements like the one posted from exrx.net that cause me to question.

It's a matter of bio mechanics and attachments: tendond insertion and origins.

http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/Brachialis.html

Please note the origin and insertions of the biceps and brachialis in that image. What is the difference?

 

[CowPimp]

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?

I have noticed that when my hands are in a pronated position my brachialis burns more during the lift. I know this isn't the most scientific explanation, but real world experience means something too. I have never had my brachialis burn more than during drag curls.

 

[gopro]

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.

-Are you trying to insinuate that I am not drug free?
-Do I care what you can or can't squat?

 

[Tank316]

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?

thats the way i looked at it, seems like someone doesnt know you to well do they G.

 

[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.

 

[gopro]

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.

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?

The explanation that Quadsweep presented about the 2 heads of the bicep was not satisfying to you, but is to him. We can go in circles forever, which is why I mostly (not all the time, b/c "the lab" DOES have its place at times) go by what is tangible to me...what I can see and feel.

Anyway, carry on...I'll be over in the corner making my brachialis bigger with some heavy hammer curls!

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Tank316
thats the way i looked at it, seems like someone doesnt know you to well do they G.

Yeah, I know, I know...I'm way to big to be natural

 

[Saturday Fever]

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.

Is science proven in some alternate reality? Or is the real world the direct result of science. We don't have to agree something is conclusive. We don't have to interpret things the same. But it would be nice if there were something to interpret. Quadsweep did not offer an explanation. If I went back in time to college and submitted that as an answer in my physiology courses, it would have earned me an F. Now if I maybe (and this is hypothetical) presented that the brachialis is allowed greater tension than the biceps when the wrist is at a certain angle because of friction created at the elbow that limits the biceps ability to contract, that would carry much more weight and be looked upon more highly.

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?

I believe what can be proven. If you say you have seen results and gains in your upper chest due to incline pressing, then there is scientific evidennce that would back up what you call real world evidence. I choose science because, with incline especially, there are far too many variables. If your front delt has an insertion point well into what would be considered the "chest region" then incline pressing would give the appearance of an upper chest, when in actuality it may simply be a real good delt insertion that helps raise up the top part of the chest. By your book, inclines work the upper chest. By my book, inclines hit the delts better and the delts created the appearance of an upper chest.

Likewise there are people with poor genetics whose delt inserts immediately near the clavicle. This guy can do inclines all week and grow huge delts but never get a big "upper chest."

So we can agree to disagree. The end result is not to disprove being able to build a peak. The end result is to say decisively "Yes it can be done," or "No it can't be done," or "No it can't be done, but because of X it appears that's what is happening." And decisive is in how you interpret answers. And we don't have to agree. And we obviously don't have anything better to do since we're all wasting time on the forum anyways.

 

[gopro]

It all depends what you consider "proof." When I take someone's physique and alter its look (add upper chest, outer quad sweep, etc) through specialized training methods, that is what I consider proof.

There is no scientific proof that a medium can speak with the dead, but I had it proven to me to the point that I now believe that some actually have this gift.

 

[Saturday Fever]

ok.

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Saturday Fever
ok.

I'm sure we will have many more interesting discussions in the future...don't worry

 

[Quadsweep]

Originally posted by gopro
Yeah, I know, I know...I'm way to big to be natural

Please accept my humble apology

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Quadsweep
Please accept my humble apology

Accepted.