-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Incline Bench Press
- Thread starter The Rose
- Start date
ballast
Registered
I think that the lesser angle you use, the better it emphasizes the upper pec area.When I do inclines, I use a 30* angle.Anything more than 30 and I feel it all in my shoulders.
------------------
matt toupalik
------------------
matt toupalik
Large And In Charge
Banned Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2000
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 55
25 to 30 degree incline will hit the upper pecs the most effectively.
------------------
If you build it they will come
------------------
If you build it they will come
I agree
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
OK, In a functional sense, there is no upper chest. The upper/lower chest cannot be targeted seperately. Inclines are also a bad chest exercise because the shoulders are put in their strongest position, and the chest put in its weakest. This will cause the shoulders to fail before the chest, and it will not be maximally stimulated.
Belial wrote an extensive and informative article on why the upper/lower chest cannot be seperately targeted, if you would like me to post just hollar.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Belial wrote an extensive and informative article on why the upper/lower chest cannot be seperately targeted, if you would like me to post just hollar.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:
OK, In a functional sense, there is no upper chest. The upper/lower chest cannot be targeted seperately.
<FONT COLOR="Blue">No one here said there was an upper/lower chest</FONT c>
Inclines are also a bad chest exercise because the shoulders are put in their strongest position, and the chest put in its weakest.
<FONT COLOR="Blue">Thats your "opinion" I personaly feel its a great exercise as long as the angle isn't over 30</FONT c>
This will cause the shoulders to fail before the chest, and it will not be maximally stimulated.
<FONT COLOR="Blue">Just because the shoulders fail before doesn't mean its a waist of time.</FONT c>
Belial wrote an extensive and informative article on why the upper/lower chest cannot be seperately targeted, if you would like me to post just hollar.
<FONT COLOR="Blue">Again, no one here asked if they could be seperated</FONT c>
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
"No one here said there was an upper/lower chest"
*Large did: "25 to 30 degree incline will hit the upper pecs the most effectively."
"Thats your "opinion" I personaly feel its a great exercise as long as the angle isn't over 30"
To each their own, i guess. But, incline does cause the chest to be weaker, and the shoulders to be stronger. That is not my opinion. So, using this info one could make the assumption that the shoulders would fail before the chest.
"Just because the shoulders fail before doesn't mean its a waist of time."
Not completely. But, as far as the chest in specific goes - why isn't it?
"Again, no one here asked if they could be seperated"
But Large said they could be.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 02:38 PM]</font>
*Large did: "25 to 30 degree incline will hit the upper pecs the most effectively."
"Thats your "opinion" I personaly feel its a great exercise as long as the angle isn't over 30"
To each their own, i guess. But, incline does cause the chest to be weaker, and the shoulders to be stronger. That is not my opinion. So, using this info one could make the assumption that the shoulders would fail before the chest.
"Just because the shoulders fail before doesn't mean its a waist of time."
Not completely. But, as far as the chest in specific goes - why isn't it?
"Again, no one here asked if they could be seperated"
But Large said they could be.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 02:38 PM]</font>
Ok Cack, will you agree that the Pectoralis Major (one Muscle) has two heads?
The Clavicular Head or the Upper head and
the Sternal Head or the Lowwer head.
When I or others are reffering to the Upper chest, we're talking about the Clavicular head of the Pectorlis which I beleive anyway is worked more using incline work.
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
The Clavicular Head or the Upper head and
the Sternal Head or the Lowwer head.
When I or others are reffering to the Upper chest, we're talking about the Clavicular head of the Pectorlis which I beleive anyway is worked more using incline work.
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it???s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
So you DON'T agree that the Pectoralis Major has TWO heads?
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
ballast
Registered
Supreme-I think what everyone is trying to say is that although it is impossible to "isolate" a particular section of muscle, it is possible to "emphasize" it.Here is a direct quote from Kinesiology of Exercise by Dr. Michael Yessis."If you use a narrower grip and keep your elbows in while executing the incline press, the stress falls fairly equally on the upper pectorals, the anterior deltoid, and the triceps.If you use a wider grip and keep your elbows out during execution, you will stress the upper pectoralis major and anterior deltoid even more."I don't know about anyone else here, but I am more inclined(pardon the pun)to believe a well known sports specialist with a Ph.D than an unknown "know it all".No offense.
------------------
matt toupalik
------------------
matt toupalik
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Yes, there are two heads to the pectoralis major. The question is - can you target one over the other? I think not.
Let me ask you this - have you ever seen a before/after pic in which the shape of the individuals muscles have changed?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 03:11 PM]</font>
Let me ask you this - have you ever seen a before/after pic in which the shape of the individuals muscles have changed?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 03:11 PM]</font>
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Like one of those Body-4-Life before/after pics.
Have you EVER seen them change the shape of their muscles?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Have you EVER seen them change the shape of their muscles?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Not realy, more of a size change, than a shape change. Some muscles become more defined because of lower BF so they might appear to change.
Whats your point? (I know you have one)
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
Whats your point? (I know you have one)
------------------
Just another day in the gutter
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
I'm just saying that if it were possitble to change the shape of a muscle, don't you think that the people who have made the most dramatic physique changes would have done it? Out of the millions of entrys, and thousands of winners?
Just something else to think about.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Just something else to think about.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
Large was correct in his statement that 30 degrees above the horizontal plane of the shoulder joint allows for optimal recruitment of the upper pectorals.
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Hahahaha...
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
This is the post Supreme was talking about.
It was written by Belial and another fellow.
"The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer" pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it???s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all???s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as ???heads??? by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be ???slack??? in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly???s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no ???slack??? because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement. For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called ???isolation??? approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the ???target??? region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to ???isolate??? a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can ???feel??? different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as ???evidence??? by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.
Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved. So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don???t expect to be able to correct so-called ???unbalanced??? muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about ???shaping??? you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique."
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
It was written by Belial and another fellow.
"The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer" pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it???s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all???s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as ???heads??? by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be ???slack??? in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly???s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no ???slack??? because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement. For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called ???isolation??? approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the ???target??? region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to ???isolate??? a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can ???feel??? different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as ???evidence??? by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.
Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved. So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don???t expect to be able to correct so-called ???unbalanced??? muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about ???shaping??? you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique."
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
There ya go.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
*** Do you mean place more emphasise on one over the other or isolate one over the other?
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
*Yawn*
I'm saying that any difference in fiber recruitment between an incline and flat press in relation to the clavicular and sternal heads of the pectoralis major would not be significant enough to produce varying degrees of muscle hypertrophy of the two heads.
Got that?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 09:24 PM]</font>
I'm saying that any difference in fiber recruitment between an incline and flat press in relation to the clavicular and sternal heads of the pectoralis major would not be significant enough to produce varying degrees of muscle hypertrophy of the two heads.
Got that?
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 09:24 PM]</font>
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:
*Yawn*
I'm saying that any difference in fiber recruitment between an incline and flat press in relation to the clavicular and sternal heads of the pectoralis major would not be significant enough to produce varying degrees of muscle hypertrophy of the two heads.
Got that?
*** Supreme, I understand now what you mean. You may find that clearly articulating yourself will save you the trouble of having to further explain yourself.
As far as agreeing with your assumtion.....I don't. I understand that a muscles shape is predetermined. As far as the emphasis placed on the different heads, since this is possible there may be a varying degree in hypertrophy. I would need to see the EMG study to see what the difference is so that I can make my desicion.
Exercise, my drug of choice
<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by Maki Riddington on 06-11-2001 at 10:06 PM]</font>
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Ahhhh...so nice to come to a friendly resolution
Btw, I do remember viewing EMG results of the pec major (remember, the clavicular and sternal heads are both part of the pec major - the pec minor is a completely different muscle, although it shares many of the same functions) and the results were that a decline DB press is the exercise that recuited the most fibers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Btw, I do remember viewing EMG results of the pec major (remember, the clavicular and sternal heads are both part of the pec major - the pec minor is a completely different muscle, although it shares many of the same functions) and the results were that a decline DB press is the exercise that recuited the most fibers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
*** I posted this on another board and here is one of hopefully many disections of this post. What this shows is that one cannot be to sure of himself/herself on any topic because there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the human body and how it functions.
The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer"
pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one
or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training,
are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and
Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either
separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense.
Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural
distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy
texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because
the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the
proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along its anterior surface
(it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with
the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the
Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be
a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical
function of the muscle.
Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous
muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms
upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in
order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative
portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague
and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or
universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to
contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another
region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once
demonstrated to a bunch of us smarty know-it-all's taking his
course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a
linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its
constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to
insertion.
*** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle.
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]
Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple
functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which
are referred to as "heads" by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because
they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to
shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it
because otherwise there would be "slack" in one when the other
shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some
special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when
the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in
relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of flyes),
the point however is that even in these special cases there is
no "slack" because there is in fact contractile activity (whether
concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or
heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a
particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint
geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers
in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or
less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the
required movement.
For example, during a decline fly, though muscle
fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the
upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of
the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we
commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater
percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of
the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely, when
performing an incline flye there is greater shortening in the fibers
towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called "isolation" approach to training
claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers
equates to greater tension in the "target" region than in others, and
therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at
odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly
shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to
increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges.
Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater
degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is
greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs,
and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to
suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another
in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been
shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in
fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to
increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as
fatigue sets in.
The ability to "isolate" a head, or region of a muscle to the
exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by
limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a
greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more
knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade
magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure nonsense
and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology,
anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not
support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of
information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used. Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb.
And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes? I also have
carried out EMGs studies and studied biomechanical models which clearly
appear to militate against isolation of specific regions of muscle, but, when
I witnessed this display, read work by biofeedback specialists and saw how some
disabled folk could voluntarily activate certain muscle regions, I was
compelled to be less dogmatic. I know that there os at least one biofeedback
expert on this group - maybe he would care to add his comments.
One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle? So
far, this is sheer speculation on my part, but I would be interested to see if anyone
has come across references which allude to this possibility. Mel Siff ]
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer"
pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one
or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training,
are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and
Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either
separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense.
Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural
distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy
texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because
the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the
proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along its anterior surface
(it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with
the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the
Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be
a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical
function of the muscle.
Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous
muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms
upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in
order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative
portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague
and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or
universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to
contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another
region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once
demonstrated to a bunch of us smarty know-it-all's taking his
course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a
linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its
constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to
insertion.
*** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle.
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]
Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple
functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which
are referred to as "heads" by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because
they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to
shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it
because otherwise there would be "slack" in one when the other
shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some
special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when
the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in
relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of flyes),
the point however is that even in these special cases there is
no "slack" because there is in fact contractile activity (whether
concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or
heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a
particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint
geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers
in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or
less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the
required movement.
For example, during a decline fly, though muscle
fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the
upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of
the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we
commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater
percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of
the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely, when
performing an incline flye there is greater shortening in the fibers
towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called "isolation" approach to training
claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers
equates to greater tension in the "target" region than in others, and
therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at
odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly
shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to
increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges.
Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater
degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is
greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs,
and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to
suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another
in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been
shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in
fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to
increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as
fatigue sets in.
The ability to "isolate" a head, or region of a muscle to the
exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by
limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a
greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more
knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade
magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure nonsense
and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology,
anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not
support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of
information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used. Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb.
And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes? I also have
carried out EMGs studies and studied biomechanical models which clearly
appear to militate against isolation of specific regions of muscle, but, when
I witnessed this display, read work by biofeedback specialists and saw how some
disabled folk could voluntarily activate certain muscle regions, I was
compelled to be less dogmatic. I know that there os at least one biofeedback
expert on this group - maybe he would care to add his comments.
One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle? So
far, this is sheer speculation on my part, but I would be interested to see if anyone
has come across references which allude to this possibility. Mel Siff ]
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
LOL...I KNEW you were going to come in and copy/paste what Mel Siff had to say.
Rather than speak for Belial, I'll let him defend his own article...
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Rather than speak for Belial, I'll let him defend his own article...
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
Maki Riddington
Banned Member
Of course I was.
If you really believe in what you are preaching then you should be able to easily defend yourself. You have been using this so I see no reason to let Belial step in now. I figured I would get someone who is light years ahead of me in knowledge to take a look at the post since it was generating alot of replies.
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
If you really believe in what you are preaching then you should be able to easily defend yourself. You have been using this so I see no reason to let Belial step in now. I figured I would get someone who is light years ahead of me in knowledge to take a look at the post since it was generating alot of replies.
------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
I'm going to let Belial respond to the statements made directly to his article, as I wouldn't like it if some were to speak for me.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
TheSupremeBeing
Banned Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chillin' in mah cribb, yo.
Ahh, screw it
"** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle.
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]"
Well, as i don't know Belial's professor, i cannot make a comment about his educative skills. I have a hard time believing that a motor neuron does not contract on an all-or-none basis, as this goes against EVERY other thing i have read, and i read a lot. Under certain cirumstances, such as fatigue some MU's may not be able to twitch at their maximum frequency and force - but this would have nothing to do with isolating certain portions of a muscle. I also have doubts of the accuracy of EMG tests as far as reading muscle fiber stimulation.
"*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of
information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used. Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb."
This also has nothing to do with the pectoralis muscle. The brain combines two control mechanisms to regulate the force a single muscle produces. The first is RECRUITMENT. The motor units that make up a muscle are not recruited in a random fashion. Motor units are recruited according to the Size Principle. Smaller motor units (fewer muscle fibers) have a small motor neuron and a low threshold for activation. These units are recruited first. As more force is demanded by an activity, progressively larger motor units are recruited. This has great functional significance. When requirements for force are low, but control demands are high (writing, playing the piano) the ability to recruit only a few muscle fibers gives the possibility of fine control. As more force is needed the impact of each new motor unit on total force production becomes greater.
"And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes?"
I have never seen this. But, what he is talking about would very well be an act of trickery. Like i said - i've never seen this, or even heard of this for that matter, so i can't really comment.
"One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle?"
What the hell is he going on about? Is he trying to say that the brain may send different signals through MU's? Other than just to signal the muscles to contract? If so - is there ANY basis for what he is *guessing*? Frankly, that just doesn't make sense.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
"** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle.
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]"
Well, as i don't know Belial's professor, i cannot make a comment about his educative skills. I have a hard time believing that a motor neuron does not contract on an all-or-none basis, as this goes against EVERY other thing i have read, and i read a lot. Under certain cirumstances, such as fatigue some MU's may not be able to twitch at their maximum frequency and force - but this would have nothing to do with isolating certain portions of a muscle. I also have doubts of the accuracy of EMG tests as far as reading muscle fiber stimulation.
"*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of
information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used. Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb."
This also has nothing to do with the pectoralis muscle. The brain combines two control mechanisms to regulate the force a single muscle produces. The first is RECRUITMENT. The motor units that make up a muscle are not recruited in a random fashion. Motor units are recruited according to the Size Principle. Smaller motor units (fewer muscle fibers) have a small motor neuron and a low threshold for activation. These units are recruited first. As more force is demanded by an activity, progressively larger motor units are recruited. This has great functional significance. When requirements for force are low, but control demands are high (writing, playing the piano) the ability to recruit only a few muscle fibers gives the possibility of fine control. As more force is needed the impact of each new motor unit on total force production becomes greater.
"And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes?"
I have never seen this. But, what he is talking about would very well be an act of trickery. Like i said - i've never seen this, or even heard of this for that matter, so i can't really comment.
"One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle?"
What the hell is he going on about? Is he trying to say that the brain may send different signals through MU's? Other than just to signal the muscles to contract? If so - is there ANY basis for what he is *guessing*? Frankly, that just doesn't make sense.
------------------
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
