[quote]Dave_ wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Sxio wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
although you cannot purely isolate one area of a muscle <i.e. inner pecs> during an exercise, you can create more tension on different areas of the muscle in question with different exercises.
Oh Geeeez, that’s obviously a complete crock! Who would believe that???
Thankfully I know everything about lifting weights so if I don’t agree with it everyone else must be wrong.
what are you trying to say?
I don’t get it either.
I agree with Huey - I’ve been thinking about this more and more (with particular attention focused on the pectorals) and I’m convinced that you can create more tension in one part of a muscle than another, given the right stimulus…
Having said that, I believe that this doesn’t apply to all muscles e.g. the biceps.
[/quote]
I believe Sxio was attempting to illustrate the general attitude found amongst personal trainers. i.e. “I don’t agree with (or have never heard of) your theory(/idea/exercise/hair style/etc…), hence it must be wrong because I have this certificate saying I know what I’m talking about when it comes to exercise.”
“If you’re fat, you should lose the fat before you start lifting weights, otherwise you’ll build the muscle on top of the fat.” – I’ve taken to calling this the “Muscle/Gut Theory”.
I’ve even had one old guy go so far as to say that this will “lock the fat in”, and one could not lose it once this is done.
Or
“Low reps and low weight will make your muscle cut, heavy weights and low reps will give you bulk.”
OK, the low weight/low reps thing MAY help you lose fat, and thus see striations more clearly, but more than likely all you are going to get is flat, tired muscles.
But they say it as though it has a direct affect on the appearance of a muscle. The last part isn’t totally wrong, but it implies that your muscles will become these bulky, shapeless masses, unless you “cut” them by doing, you guessed it, high reps with low weights.
[quote]Dave_ wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Sxio wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
although you cannot purely isolate one area of a muscle <i.e. inner pecs> during an exercise, you can create more tension on different areas of the muscle in question with different exercises.
Oh Geeeez, that’s obviously a complete crock! Who would believe that???
Thankfully I know everything about lifting weights so if I don’t agree with it everyone else must be wrong.
what are you trying to say?
I don’t get it either.
I agree with Huey - I’ve been thinking about this more and more (with particular attention focused on the pectorals) and I’m convinced that you can create more tension in one part of a muscle than another, given the right stimulus…
Having said that, I believe that this doesn’t apply to all muscles e.g. the biceps.
[/quote]
it is true for all muscles, how significant this is when deisgning a training program is arguable, but the biceps are stimulated differently in all exercises, whether it be a barbell with a close grip or a wide grip, etc…
different exercises work muscles differently, this is no secret. s it significant or noticeable when it comes to hypertrophy objecrtives? that’s debatable. but if anyone is trying to say that muscle tension will be the same is all areas of the bicep in any exercise that flexes the bicep, they are 100% correct.
like i said, do some EMG testing and you’ll see different areas of the very same muscle be activated to different degrees through different exercises.
[quote]m0dd3r wrote:
I believe Sxio was attempting to illustrate the general attitude found amongst personal trainers. i.e. “I don’t agree with (or have never heard of) your theory(/idea/exercise/hair style/etc…), hence it must be wrong because I have this certificate saying I know what I’m talking about when it comes to exercise.”
[/quote]
Yes I was. A few on this message board have the same attitude. Sorry it was hard to get fellas. Sarcasm never works well over text.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
One I hear from old-timers:
“If you’re fat, you should lose the fat before you start lifting weights, otherwise you’ll build the muscle on top of the fat.” – I’ve taken to calling this the “Muscle/Gut Theory”.
[/quote]
i gotta agree with ya DC. The funny thing is when i ask these ppl, “How do u plan to lose the fat then?”
“Easy, to lose fat you have eat less like only twice a day then do lots of cardio.” - i guess this one goes to one of the most idiotic theories i have ever heard.
Btw it came from a friend of mine who had been in the gym for 4-5 years now, telling me how hardcore her cycling class is, how doing 100 crunches a day can get her abs and how going for belly dancing classes can make her body more curvy.
Well now she still looks the same the day before she joined the gym. Still like crap.
Her justifications:
MY genes are bad. I have fat genes.(RIGHT… when her mom is hotter than her - yes im serious - no MILF tendencies here)
My cycling class trainer tells me that I have to eat less and work harder as my genes are bad.
I told her that she isnt going anywhere because of the amount of cardio and yo yo dieting she is doing.
I think that was the most shocking thing she ever heard. Worst than Brad Pitt being gay. Sigh.
no i hate the myth that their ISNT such a thing as a clean bulk. I could easily get 5000 clean calories a day no problem, so long as you included milk, cheese, eggs, protein powder, sausages, beans, cookies, chocalate, yum
no i hate the myth that their ISNT such a thing as a clean bulk. I could easily get 5000 clean calories a day no problem, so long as you included milk, cheese, eggs, protein powder, sausages, beans, cookies, chocalate, yum
I love clean bulks[/quote]
So given adequate protein, EFAs and an equal caloric surplus, what is the difference between “clean” and “dirty”? Since when are cookies and chocolate a part of a “clean” bulk?
no i hate the myth that their ISNT such a thing as a clean bulk. I could easily get 5000 clean calories a day no problem, so long as you included milk, cheese, eggs, protein powder, sausages, beans, cookies, chocalate, yum
I love clean bulks
So given adequate protein, EFAs and an equal caloric surplus, what is the difference between “clean” and “dirty”? Since when are cookies and chocolate a part of a “clean” bulk?[/quote]
Washing the cookies and chocolate before you eat them makes them part of a “clean” bulk. Rinse thoroughly – soap flavor clashes with chocolate.
I always like when people who don’t know shit see you are big and ask
“Do you take steroids?”
Also when dealing with that subject
“Oh he’s big he definatly took roids”
“Steroids are stupid why would you want to look like that” my usuall answer I would rather look freakishly huge in a good way then 600 lbs of pure fat.
When asking about half bench" It works the triceps more, but look at the weight I am using"
“how many more sets do you have, I gotta do some curls on that {squat} rack”
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
[/quote]
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…
[quote]gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…[/quote]
That’s because it’s propagated by the largely male scientific community, who just loves the idea of Planetary Penetration!
[quote]gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
gojira wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
CU AeroStallion wrote:
Relativity. That theory was a bunch of shit.
What about Quantum Mechanics or the String Theory?
Punctuated Equilibrium
I think things went stale for me after my metasystem transition. Seem to have hit a plateau.
I was never a believer of the Bolide Theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs either. If it were true, then why do we still have frogs and insects and angiosperms and crocodiles and…[/quote]
Well, many insects can survive where other life forms can’t. Frogs and crocodiles, being amphibian, may have been at an advantage as opposed to other land dwelling animals in the confines of a theory based on the levels of iridium found within the clay layer that seperates the Cretaceous from the Tertiary.