ok, take it up with Charles Poliquin…
http://www.musclewithattitude.com/findArticle.do?article=05-052-training
[quote]USNS physique wrote:
You dont get it because the biceps curl technically doesnt isolate shit because elbow flexors are involved so its compound. [/quote]
Wrong. A compound exercise works across 2 or more joints. It has nothing to do with the number of individual muscles being worked. By that definition there would be no such thing as a true isolation exercise. That’s why exercises are either compound and single joint exercises and not compound or single muscle exercises.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
USNS physique wrote:
You dont get it because the biceps curl technically doesnt isolate shit because elbow flexors are involved so its compound.
Wrong. A compound exercise works across 2 or more joints. It has nothing to do with the number of individual muscles being worked. By that definition there would be no such thing as a true isolation exercise. That’s why exercises are either compound and single joint exercises and not compound or single muscle exercises.[/quote]
A semantic point to be sure, but the usually accepted definition of this subject is as the lady says. On the other hand I’ve always kind of scowled at isolation movements being strictly termed as such because almost all of them peripherally involve some thing else.
I’m paraphrasing here but I believe Alwyn Cosgrove tried to make his point about “isolation” exercises by asking people to pick up a pen using only one muscle. I did slighty cheated curls tonight and I’m pretty sure my forearms a little front delt and every muscle in my hand was working along with the biceps.
If we could get past the mindset of this is an isolation so its good/bad or this is compound so its good/bad and just do what makes up happy and gets results for that particular bodypart we’d be a much friendlier bunch here ha.
[quote]inthego wrote:
Fixation/Insertion Super Sets
In kinesiology, the origin is what is fixated and the insertion is what moves. If you can somehow superset movements that combine these two opposite functions, you tear fibers at both ends and you get super compensation.
Here is a nasty super set for biceps:
Do 4-6 reps of close-grip chin ups (or close grip pull downs, if you are not strong enough to do the chin ups), rest 8-10 seconds, and then do 8-10 reps of incline dumbbell curls.
Do five sets, resting approximately 2 minutes between sets, and I guarantee you there will be no way you can bend your elbows for at least 5 days without feeing extreme soreness.
Here is what is happening: When you are doing the chin-up, the origin is at the elbow and the insertion is at the shoulder. Then, when you do the incline dumbbell curls, it is the opposite: the origin is at the shoulder and the insertion is at the elbow.
Mechanically, you are doing two extremes and you are inducing fiber damage beyond belief.
For triceps, you can superset weighed dips with overhead triceps extensions. Do 5 reps of weighted dips, rest 8-10 seconds, and then do 10-12 reps of overhead triceps extensions with a rope.
Rest 2 minutes and repeat. Do a total of 5 sets and you will not be able to brush your hair for a few days.
Again, because of varying arm position in these two movements, you have the elbows below the shoulders in one movement and the elbows above the shoulders in the next.
The pain is quite exquisite.
-Charles Poliquin-
Solid
[/quote]
That finished every workout for about a month for me last year. It made my arms look like I actually lift weights.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
<<< If we could get past the mindset of this is an isolation so its good/bad or this is compound so its good/bad and just do what makes up happy and gets results for that particular bodypart we’d be a much friendlier bunch here ha. [/quote]
!!!SIREN BLARING LIGHTS FLASHING!!!
And we have this weeks winner of the “Why the Hell Does This Need to be said, but it Does” award!!!
Once this one single principle becomes a reality in somebody’s consciousness the possibilities are endless. Every idiot becomes a possible source of ideas, folks have to work a lot harder at being your enemy, opposing points of view don’t appear quite so opposing and every author is valuable.
How can this be you ask?
Because once the artificial barriers of this or that philosophy, this or that author and this or that illigetimately elevated personal belief come down, in other words all of the non existent black and white, the us vs. them mentality goes away too.
Ha thanks for the laugh tirib, after my thread went down the toilet I need a little reassurance that this site is worth coming back to. Your posts help for sure.
[quote]scottiscool wrote:
Ha thanks for the laugh tirib, after my thread went down the toilet I need a little reassurance that this site is worth coming back to. Your posts help for sure.[/quote]
I didn’t think your thread went down the toilet. There was a good bit of misunderstanding going there I think, but any thread that lasts a while is worth starting.
Tirib you’ve got a PM… too long for this thread
[quote]inthego wrote:
ok, take it up with Charles Poliquin…
http://www.musclewithattitude.com/findArticle.do?article=05-052-training [/quote]
Origins and insertions are anatomically defined by how the limb moves in relation to the core. What this is talkin about is moving your body around the bar vs moving the weight around your body. I don’t know if this is just a discrepency between anatomists and kinesiologists, but anatomically its not right.