Tricep - Outer Head !!

[turbine5]

Okay, TheCurse, can you please layout your testing methods for me? I am interested to hear about this study of yours. You are claiming that you have tested your hypothesis on others. Tell me what variables were held constant and what variables were not; tell me how many people were involved in your study; tell me the background information of the people in your study; etc. I'm not trying to be a smartass. If you have a real repeatable scientific method in action here, I would be interested to get more information.

Furthermore, when you completed this study, what was the method you used to verify your results? Did you make sure that the outer head grew appreciably more than the other two heads?

i see your point here, but if you think that empirical work in fitness/medicine/health fields are any more rigorous, your are kidding yourself. You really have to question their studies thoroughly...the experiment set up, the actual statistical analysis, diagnostics....tends to leave a lot to be desired....

 

[Vieope]

...

....

...

So is your face.

 

[P-funk]

Curse...I was making a point. Even though you started at 155 (I started at 120 by the way!) you genetically have arms that respond well to training....much like my calves or legs (I wish it were my arms like yours!!). My point was just that anecdotal proof is only good enough when it applies to you and you only. For example, when I diet I diet a certain way. There are many books and approaches on dieting and people tell me that I should try this this way or that way etc...I can't argue with them and say that my way is better just because it is! It is better....for me....tried and true, that is what I go with. Doesn't mean it will work for you, yan, or cowpimp. The anecdotal evidence I provide on my diet is only as good as the paper it is written on (or the computer screen it is read on). It is good for me. Like I said, tried and true.

 

[TheCurse]

umm, i got to 205 before running one cycle of SD, which netted me 10 more pounds which i have already lost foreman. thats all my prohormone/aas experience. the picture of my tricep in my avatar is all natural me at about 204.
and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods. i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?

 

[GFR]

umm, i got to 205 before running one cycle of SD, which netted me 10 more pounds which i have already lost foreman. thats all my prohormone/aas experience. the picture of my tricep in my avatar is all natural me at about 204. and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods. i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?

My bad I toought you juiced. You look great for a natural athlete.

 

[CowPimp]

do pressdowns, your gonna emphasize the lateral head of the triceps to a greater degree than the long head.
do overhead dumbell presses and skullcrushers and you will emphasize the long head more.

Oh, yeah, when you put it that way... Science is definitely proven wrong...

where are your studies oh keyboard jockeys. like i said, i did it, helped others do it. no i dont keep peoples stats, gimme a break. i know the workout master cowpimp who doesnt look like he works out has all the right answers so what am i thinking getting results for me and others from my methods.

I'm just going on established kinesiology facts. That is, the function of the three heads of the triceps is to extend your elbow. If the elbow is being extended, then all three heads are being worked. The only exceptions being, as previously stated by Yanick, the assistance of the long head in hybrid movements when your shoulder is externally rotated and you are try to adduct or extend your shoulder.

You are the one who claims to have created a hypothesis and tested it out that flies in the face of this. Yes, the kind of information I asked for does matter, because otherwise you may have a very high margin of error, as I suspect you do.

You always come back to the fact that you're bigger than the people you argue with. That doesn't mean anything. If I wanted to be bigger right now, then I could be. I haven't been eating to gain weight for at least 6 months now, only to gain strength, which I have done successfully. Mass gain isn't my primary goal, and it never has been. Not to mention you have been training for quite a bit longer than I have.

so you are saying 'i read this so there!'
i probably read all the same shit and more
i guess i just think about things for myself, dont just always take what im spoon fed.

That's fine. I just want to understand how you accurately determined the conclusion you have come to.

Basically, for you to be correct in this matter one of two things has to be occuring: kinesiology lacks sufficient information about the function of the various heads of the triceps; or, there is a mechanism, that is yet undiscovered by anyone but yourself, that allows the long head of your tricep to hypertrophy to a different degree than the other heads of your tricep based on the training stimuli provided.

Which one is it, and can you give me more information on your empirical evidence? Simply saying "it worked for me because I'm bigger than you" is not going to fly, because you may just have a tricep with a genetically gifted long head.

 

[CowPimp]

and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods. i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?

You say that, but did you actually measure the difference in growth rates between all the heads...

 

[P-funk]

and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods. i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?

yes, and other people have had success with my methods of training legs. Anyone can and will improve if you show them something totally different then they are used to. but, that doesn't prove the outerhead theroy.

anyway, I guess my point was missed and this is no longer a discussion as much as it is a headache so i am bowing out.

 

[TheCurse]

im kinda confused now too p, plus im talking long head not lateral head you numbskull!

and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.

 

[buildingup]

im kinda confused now too p, plus im talking long head not lateral head you numbskull!

and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.

cowpoop = owned!

 

[CowPimp]

and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.

It's not a thinly veiled attack. You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis. You just keep dodging my questions. They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read. Stop trying to get personal. I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form. You are getting defensive for no reason here...

Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me? I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years. I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.

Here is the bottom line. Science says one thing, and you say another. However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion. At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered. So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?

 

[Yanick]

Here is the bottom line. Science says one thing, and you say another. However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion. At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered. So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?

CP, forget it bro. don't you know he has big arms so he's right about everything!

Fuck questioning and researching, we just need to get big arms to know what we're talking about.

Lo and behold, i've always idolized Mel Siff, but TheCurse has opened my eyes. He was a skinny bastard so he couldn't possibly know anything about training, i'm gonna go burn my copy of Supertraining and Fact and Fallacies of Fitness and re-subscribe to Muscle and Fitness because Ronnie can barely put together a cohesive sentence but he has 20+ inch arms so he must be right!

 

[GFR]

It's not a thinly veiled attack. You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis. You just keep dodging my questions. They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read. Stop trying to get personal. I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form. You are getting defensive for no reason here...

Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me? I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years. I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.

Here is the bottom line. Science says one thing,Really??? please show us all the scientific studies on lying triceps extensions vs reverse grip triceps extensions and how each exercise develops the muscle differently or exactly the same. and you say another. However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion. At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered. So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?

Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.

 

[CowPimp]

CP, forget it bro. don't you know he has big arms so he's right about everything!

Fuck questioning and researching, we just need to get big arms to know what we're talking about.

Lo and behold, i've always idolized Mel Siff, but TheCurse has opened my eyes. He was a skinny bastard so he couldn't possibly know anything about training, i'm gonna go burn my copy of Supertraining and Fact and Fallacies of Fitness and re-subscribe to Muscle and Fitness because Ronnie can barely put together a cohesive sentence but he has 20+ inch arms so he must be right!

Haha. I love sarcasm. Maybe I spat out a little sarcasm and that's what he was calling an attack from me... Anyway, that was great for a laugh Yanick. Thanks.

 

[CowPimp]

Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.

The proof is that all 3 of the heads of the tricep contract when you extend your elbow...

 

[GFR]

The proof is that all 3 of the heads of the tricep contract when you extend your elbow...

Thats not the question here......now please show us the studies proving your "opinion".

 

[CowPimp]

Thats not the question here......now please show us the studies proving your "opinion".

The poster's original question was an attempt to find exercises that "specifically target" the outer head of the tricep. Except in the causes already mentioned (When assisting shoulder adduction/extension), that isn't possible because all of the heads of the tricep contract together during elbow extension.

 

[Yanick]

Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.

unfortunately that is way too insignificant of an issue for scientists to actually study.

BUT, yes there always is a but , established scientific facts prove you guys completely wrong.

Actions.—The Triceps brachii is the great extensor muscle of the forearm, and is the direct antagonist of the Biceps brachii and Brachialis. When the arm is extended, the long head of the muscle may assist the Teres major and Latissimus dorsi in drawing the humerus backward and in adducting it to the thorax. The long head supports the under part of the shoulder-joint. The Subanconæus draws up the synovial membrane of the elbow-joint during extension of the forearm.

gotten from here

 

[GFR]

The poster's original question was an attempt to find exercises that "specifically target" the outer head of the tricep. Except in the causes already mentioned (When assisting shoulder adduction/extension), that isn't possible because all of the heads of the tricep contract together during elbow extension.

Still no answer.........................again give us the studies to support your opinion.

You might read this.......take notice of the Origins.



origin:
lateral head: superior 1/2 of post. lat. surface of humerus;
long head: infraglenoid tuberosity of scapula;
medial head:
- inferior 2/3 on posterior surface of the humerus, beginning at the spiral groove;
- medial head surrounds the radial nerve in the spiral groove;

- insertion: supraposterior surface of the olecranon process of the ulna
and deep fascia of the forearm;
- action: extends forearm at the elbow. Longe head aids in adduction and
extension of the arm at the shoulder;
origin:
lateral head: superior 1/2 of post. lat. surface of humerus;
long head: infraglenoid tuberosity of scapula;
medial head:
- inferior 2/3 on posterior surface of the humerus, beginning at the spiral groove;
- medial head surrounds the radial nerve in the spiral groove;

- insertion: supraposterior surface of the olecranon process of the ulna
and deep fascia of the forearm;
- action: extends forearm at the elbow. Longe head aids in adduction and
extension of the arm at the shoulder;


http://www.rad.washington.edu/atlas/tricepsbrachii.html
Origin Long head: infraglenoid tubercle of scapula
Lateral head: posterior surface of humerus, superior to radial groove
Medial head: posterior surface of humerus, inferior to radial groove
Insertion Proximal end of olecranon process of ulna and fascia of forearm
Action Chief extensor of forearm; long head steadies head of abducted humerus
Innervation Radial nerve (C6, C7 and C8)
Arterial
Supply Branches of deep brachial artery


The medical illustrations contained in this online atlas are copyrighted © 1997 by the University of Washington. They may not be utilized, reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the University of Washington.


This is only Anatomy.................we are debating Physiology here.

 

[GFR]

unfortunately that is way too insignificant of an issue for scientists to actually study. That is an opinion.....................not interested in your opinion....facts please.

BUT, yes there always is a but , established scientific facts prove you guys completely wrong.Please post them.......I'm still waiting as are many others.



gotten from here There is no data about exercises and how they develop the muscles in question.......That is only an Anatomy description......we are debating Physiology here...Anatomy is only a small part of the question

 

[Yanick]

You might read this.......take knotice of the Origins.
http://www.rad.washington.edu/atlas/tricepsbrachii.html
Origin Long head: infraglenoid tubercle of scapula
Lateral head: posterior surface of humerus, superior to radial groove
Medial head: posterior surface of humerus, inferior to radial groove
Insertion Proximal end of olecranon process of ulna and fascia of forearm
Action Chief extensor of forearm; long head steadies head of abducted humerus
Innervation Radial nerve (C6, C7 and C8)
Arterial
Supply Branches of deep brachial artery
This is only Anatomy.................we are debating Physiology here.

oh my god its like banging your fuckin head against the wall.

that proves my whole point.

they are even innervated by the same nerve.

they all share one insertion point on the ulna and two of the heads originate on the back of the humerus while one (the long head as stated a million times already) originates on the scapula. now explain to me how many different ways you can extend your elbow, and how each of those recruits each head of the triceps either exclusively or moreso than the others, and forget about the long head being recruited to assist in shoulder extension etc etc.

and another thing. show us your studies smart guy, that state that you CAN isolate, or move the workload over to one head vs the others. How is this achieved, how can you contract (conc, iso, ecc) one head more than the others? show me one piece of evidence, besides i have big arms, that supports your claim.

 

[Yanick]

do me a favor, don't respond to me inside the quote. its just makes it easier for me to quote you later on.

 

[GFR]

oh my god its like banging your fuckin head against the wall.

that proves my whole point.

they are even innervated by the same nerve.

they all share one insertion point on the ulna and two of the heads originate on the back of the humerus while one (the long head as stated a million times already) originates on the scapula. now explain to me how many different ways you can extend your elbow, and how each of those recruits each head of the triceps either exclusively or moreso than the others, and forget about the long head being recruited to assist in shoulder extension etc etc.

and another thing. show us your studies smart guy, that state that you CAN isolate, or move the workload over to one head vs the others. How is this achieved, how can you contract (conc, iso, ecc) one head more than the others? show me one piece of evidence, besides i have big arms, that supports your claim.

All you did was post the same Anatomy info that I did....
Now show me some scientific studies to prove your opinion.
And I didnt say you can "isolate."

Again because you cant seem to read.....this is also and to a larger part a Physiology issue.

 

[CowPimp]

Still no answer.........................again give us the studies to support your opinion.

I was talking basic textbook kinesiology here. Yanick scrounged up a link though.

 

[GFR]

I was talking basic textbook kinesiology here. Yanick scrounged up a link though.

Yes a link about Anatomy only......
Please post some scientific studies supporting your opinions



post 72 by cowpimp
It's not a thinly veiled attack. You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis. You just keep dodging my questions. They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read. Stop trying to get personal. I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form. You are getting defensive for no reason here...

Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me? I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years. I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.

Here is the bottom line. Science says one thing, and you say another. However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion. At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered. So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?



I am just asking of you the same thing you are asking of thecurse

 

[swordfish]

cowpimp, p-funk, thecurse, foreman rules, and whoever the hell is is talking about this, including the person who posted, all of you guys chill, who cares about the outer head, your not competing, just worry about getting your ARMS GETTING BIG, hit cg, skull-crushers, dips, overhead ext, pushdowns. just pick a couple and hit it hard and heavy, 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps for 2 or 3 exercises. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE OUTER HEAD. QUIT OVERANALYZING EACH DAMN MUSCLE FIBER. just keep lifting and hitting it hard with the basics!

and if you want to worry too much about a muscle, worry about your thighs and your back, much much bigger.

 

[Yanick]

All you did was post the same Anatomy info that I did....
Now show me some scientific studies to prove your opinion.
And I didnt say you can "isolate."

Again because you cant seem to read.....this is also and to a larger part a Physiology issue.

its actually a kinesiology issue, but that is semantics. we can extrapolate from anatomy, physiology and kinesiology that one head cannot be worked moreso than the others, it is not necessary to study it but if you have a couple of hundred grand and a lab i'm sure you'll find someone willing to do a valid study on it, but that guy won't have big arms so he'll just be wrong.

ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ns-l-j, -z-)
n.
The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans.
The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.

Main Entry: anat·o·my
Pronunciation: &-'nat-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
1 : a branch of morphology that deals with the structure of organisms —compare PHYSIOLOGY 1
2 : a treatise on anatomic science or art
3 : the art of separating the parts of an organism in order to ascertain their position, relations, structure, and function : DISSECTION
4 : structural makeup especially of an organism or any of its parts

phys·i·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fz-l-j)
n.
The biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts.
All the functions of a living organism or any of its parts.

listen bottom line is you dodge every single question i throw at you and return with retarded questions like show me your studies. its is obviously out of my control what kind of studies are being performed out there in the world so its not fault that there aren't any studies that prove my point however there are also no studies that prove your point so its a double edged sword you see?

which brings me back to basic kinesiology and anatomy.

i will post up some basic, undeniable scientific facts which can be found in any text.

1. muscles work by contracting across a joint and bringing the insertion and origin closer together thereby moving the bones that make up that joint.
2. a muscle can only contract, that is all it does.
3. the elbow is a hinge joint and can only move in one degree/plane of motion.
4. the actions of the elbow are flexion and extension.
5. the triceps extend the elbow (and assist in some shoulder/wrist actions)
6. no matter where your humerus is in space (abducted, flexed, extended, ripped off from the body etc), the action of the triceps is still extension.

now tell me which one of these scientific facts you disagree with and we can go from there.

 

[Yanick]

cowpimp, p-funk, thecurse, foreman rules, and whoever the hell is is talking about this, including the person who posted, all of you guys chill, who cares about the outer head, your not competing, just worry about getting your ARMS GETTING BIG, hit cg, skull-crushers, dips, overhead ext, pushdowns. just pick a couple and hit it hard and heavy, 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps for 2 or 3 exercises. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE OUTER HEAD. QUIT OVERANALYZING EACH DAMN MUSCLE FIBER. just keep lifting and hitting it hard with the basics!

and if you want to worry too much about a muscle, worry about your thighs and your back, much much bigger.

dunno bout the rest of these guys but i'm having a blast!

 

[GFR]

its actually a kinesiology issue, but that is semanticsYes it is....and that is no way to prove a point....plus Kinesiology is a branch of Physiology...so your splitting hairs here . we can extrapolate from anatomy, physiology and kinesiology that one head cannot be worked moreso than the others, it is not necessary to study it but if you have a couple of hundred grand and a lab i'm sure you'll find someone willing to do a valid study on it, but that guy won't have big arms When did I bring up arm size?????....nice try buddy so he'll just be wrong.

ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ns-l-j, -z-)
n.
The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans.
The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.

Main Entry: anat·o·my
Pronunciation: &-'nat-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
1 : a branch of morphology that deals with the structure of organisms ???compare PHYSIOLOGY 1
2 : a treatise on anatomic science or art
3 : the art of separating the parts of an organism in order to ascertain their position, relations, structure, and function : DISSECTION
4 : structural makeup especially of an organism or any of its parts

phys·i·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fz-l-j)
n.
The biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts.
All the functions of a living organism or any of its parts.

listen bottom line is you dodge every single question i throw at you and return with retarded questions like show me your studies. its is obviously out of my control what kind of studies are being performed out there in the world so its not fault that there aren't any studies that prove my point however there are also no studies that prove your point so its a double edged sword you see?

which brings me back to basic kinesiology and anatomy.

i will post up some basic, undeniable scientific facts which can be found in any text.

1. muscles work by contracting across a joint and bringing the insertion and origin closer together thereby moving the bones that make up that joint.
2. a muscle can only contract, that is all it does.
3. the elbow is a hinge joint and can only move in one degree/plane of motion.
4. the actions of the elbow are flexion and extension.
5. the triceps extend the elbow (and assist in some shoulder/wrist actions)
6. no matter where your humerus is in space (abducted, flexed, extended, ripped off from the body etc), the action of the triceps is still extension.

now tell me which one of these scientific facts you disagree with and we can go from there.

Posting definitions and taking pot shots at me just proves you have no idea what certain exercises do to the triceps muscle.

All you have to say is that its your opinion.....but instead you 2 just keep asking for proof ( when we said from our first posts it was just our opinions from experience)....and yet you 2 still have shown 0 proof to support your opinions.

We are all familiar with Anatomy here but that is not the issue......

 

[Yanick]

okay, i have no proof obviously because none exists (if there was definitive proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion). all we can do is extrapolate from the basic sciences that moving the workload from one head over to another is impossible.

very true, you never mentioned anything about arms i'm still bitter about yesterday lol.

so, since we both agree there is no definitive proof either way the only thing we can do is present current knowns and use logic to extrapolate a conclusion. the undeniable facts i have posted up above, but you skirt the whole issue. i have explained how i extrapolated my conclusion from known scientific facts, now i'm asking you to do 1 of two things. either prove that my conclusion is flawed in some way...that my interpretation of the facts is wrong or present your own conclusion and explain how you came to it in a logical manner.