[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.[/quote]
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
I think the fact is, if you’re not on a complicated body part split or at the very advanced level, the meat of your training should be compound exercises, and everything else should come after that.
I think this is probably true regardless of split. I can’t imagine many people succesfully training their chest by starting with flyes, heading over to cable crosses, moving on to pec deck and finishing with heavy bench.
The same could be said for shoudlers, back, quads, hams, whatever. Most BB’ers are going to hammer a muscle with a heavy compound before hitting the isolations.
Isolations have their place, but I don’t think they can replace compounds if overall mass is your goal.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but who is actually making a ‘chest workout’ by avoiding major pressing movements from either dumbbells, barbells or even machines like HS equipment? What I mean is, the things you all are discussing shouldn’t even need to be said. If someone is truly basing their workout around minor exercises like a pec deck flye, then they have completely missed the boat as I have NEVER heard ANY bodybuilder make a claim like that.
That is like saying, “people looking to gain muscle should probably eat food”.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
Only pretty-boy sissies or idiots do isolations. What, do you want to be able to only curl 35 pounds, with lumpy, useless arms? Come on. Compounds are all that you ever need to do, for ANY reason.
Anyway, here in the real world, some of this stuff shouldn't even be coming up. Who relies solely on iso-work? I have rarely seen anyone who is not rehabbing do only isolations. Too much anlalysing going on. Some things just don't require that much thought.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
Good point.[/quote]
I feel like this example is off. How many beginners really go balls out the way a veteran lifter does? I’m still pretty skinny, but I’ll see stars from pushing myself on barbell curls. This of course doesn’t negate the potential validity of the point, but it just seems more complicated.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
Good point.
I feel like this example is off. How many beginners really go balls out the way a veteran lifter does? I’m still pretty skinny, but I’ll see stars from pushing myself on barbell curls. This of course doesn’t negate the potential validity of the point, but it just seems more complicated.[/quote]
It isn’t more complicated. It is just as simple as he wrote it. Someone without much muscle mass at all who is a relative beginner hasn’t spent YEARS learning how their body responds to certain movements. An advanced lifter will no doubt be able to focus on building that target muscle up more from what he is doing.
“Seeing stars” doesn’t mean much. I don’t “see stars” from lifting unless I held my breath during the exercise. My body is adapted to the training I do. A beginners PERCEPTION of their training doesn’t always reflect reality.
I ahve no doubt many here THINK they are training hard when they really aren’t…because they’ve never been around people who are more serious than they are.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
Good point.
I feel like this example is off. How many beginners really go balls out the way a veteran lifter does? I’m still pretty skinny, but I’ll see stars from pushing myself on barbell curls. This of course doesn’t negate the potential validity of the point, but it just seems more complicated.[/quote]
Your right that we could complicate the original example more, God knows Mentzer did, but it really is pretty simple.
A advanced guy with 20" arms, a bodyweight 60 lbs heavier, and a total skeletal load of say 150 lbs greater once you count his larger size and heavier weight being lifted is getting a lot more total body hormonal and metabolic response when working biceps than the beginner that is working with 13" arms and less strength and size.
The beginner may need to use an exercise like pull ups to stress a comparable amount of muscle mass in order to get a comparable hormonal response as the other guy gets from his curls.
We could go on and on elaborating the differences in training response but I think this should be enough to let you better understand the point.
Who relies solely on iso-work? I have rarely seen anyone who is not rehabbing do only isolations. Too much anlalysing going on. Some things just don’t require that much thought. [/quote]
No one advocated pure isolation workouts.
This is not the debate, I did not mean that. I was wondering if the benefits of isolation exercices existed.
I enjoy using CT’s methodology of doing a heavy compound followed by an isolation superset, consisitng of a heavy isolation exercise and light isolation exercise.
For example
A.Bench 7,5,3, 7, 5, 3
B1. Decline Bench 3x7 (heavy)
B2. Two Position Cable cross over 3x9 (lighter)
[quote]Maldoror wrote:
…I was wondering if the benefits of isolation exercices existed.
[/quote]
There have been dozens of threads on this forum in the past year discussing the roles of compound vs. single joint movements (simple or isolation).
Most agree it’s best to use compounds as much as is practical and use simple movements for areas not sufficiently stimulated during the compounds.
For example, a lifter’s arms may need more stimulus than his chest or back, so targeting the triceps or biceps with additional simple movements is appropriate.
You can’t truly isolate any muscle in a lift.
Example, a preacher curl is often considered an “isolation” lift for the biceps brachii. But, it also involves the brachialis, brachioradialis, anterior deltoid fibers, and nearly all of the muscles of the forearm.
The best you can do is “target” muscles or body parts with single joint movements.
Who relies solely on iso-work? I have rarely seen anyone who is not rehabbing do only isolations. Too much anlalysing going on. Some things just don’t require that much thought.
No one advocated pure isolation workouts.
This is not the debate, I did not mean that. I was wondering if the benefits of isolation exercices existed.
[/quote]
The benefits definitely exist.
Improving aesthetic proportions by selectively overloading lagging bodyparts is the main reason that bodybuilders commonly use isolation.
The degree to which selective overloading changes muscle shape or just the proportions within set genetic parameters doesn’t really matter.
Most competitive bodybuilders are advanced trainees thus isolation movements are also more effective as mass builders than they are for beginners and intermediates. This lessens one of the main objections to using a larger percentage of isolation movements in a training program.
These are the two biggest reasons advanced bodybuilders often advocate a higher percentage of isolation movements and complicated splits in their programs. For their goals and their level its a tried and true method.
Rahab and sports specific training are also big uses for isolation.
Piecing it all together in a reasonable way that helps meet your individual needs and goals is an art as well as a science. And a fun and interesting pursuit.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
veruvius wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Something that gets overlooked too is that many of these “isolation” movements do not actually completely isolate their target muscles to the exclusion of every other muscle in the body.
Good point and on a related note the stronger and larger you become the more effective “isolation” movements become as overall mass builders.
I remember Mike Mentzer writing about this obsevation after watching a skinny beginner do a few barbell curls and not even breaking a sweat. He compared this to his own barbell curls that created intense strain and effort in his entire body.
Not saying they can ever replace compound mass movements but they difinitely change as you advance.
Good point.
I feel like this example is off. How many beginners really go balls out the way a veteran lifter does? I’m still pretty skinny, but I’ll see stars from pushing myself on barbell curls. This of course doesn’t negate the potential validity of the point, but it just seems more complicated.
Your right that we could complicate the original example more, God knows Mentzer did, but it really is pretty simple.
A advanced guy with 20" arms, a bodyweight 60 lbs heavier, and a total skeletal load of say 150 lbs greater once you count his larger size and heavier weight being lifted is getting a lot more total body hormonal and metabolic response when working biceps than the beginner that is working with 13" arms and less strength and size.
The beginner may need to use an exercise like pull ups to stress a comparable amount of muscle mass in order to get a comparable hormonal response as the other guy gets from his curls.
We could go on and on elaborating the differences in training response but I think this should be enough to let you better understand the point.
[/quote]
That is a better way of putting it. In that case a bigger guy gets better results regardless of excercise, and I would suppose reps and intensity, assuming the little guy uses the same relative intensity.
It isn’t more complicated. It is just as simple as he wrote it. Someone without much muscle mass at all who is a relative beginner hasn’t spent YEARS learning how their body responds to certain movements. An advanced lifter will no doubt be able to focus on building that target muscle up more from what he is doing.
[/quote]
I wasn’t arguing that.
Well, I breath with every rep, but I seem to get head rushes pretty easily (outside of lifting). Maybe that’s just me. Regardless, your last sentence is what I meant. Newbies will go and lift and they’ll feel some fatigue and think they’re working hard. It took me a while to really get focused and lift hard, and when I did, I started making a lot more progress.
[quote]
I ahve no doubt many here THINK they are training hard when they really aren’t…because they’ve never been around people who are more serious than they are.[/quote]
I’ll definitely agree with this. I’ve never been in a gym environment of hardcore lifters, and I got sidetracked when I compared myself with the people around me. I had to come back here for a reality check.
So, if my strongest bodypart is my chest, I don’t need to perform cable crossover? The aim of isolation movements is to train a lagging bodypart, and they are not necessary if you want to build aestheic muscles. Am I right ?
[quote]Maldoror wrote:
So, if my strongest bodypart is my chest, I don’t need to perform cable crossover? [/quote]
Probably not. An example of an exception is if you primarily use dips for chest and you feel you are neglecting the clavicular aspect of your pecs. In that case, cable crossover flyes from a low position while seated in an incline bench would help.
They are not absolutely necessary, but they will make you achieve your goals faster for the few body parts that often are understimulated with compounds.
If you use purely compound movements, it will be difficult to get the biceps that many consider aesthetically pleasing. You could do it with underhand grip lat pulldowns, but then you won’t stimulate the middle trap, lat and posterior shoulder as well as overhand lat pulldowns. Better to do overhand lat pulldown supersetted with bicep curls to stimulate all of it. More efficient, effective, and balanced.
[quote]Maldoror wrote:
So, if my strongest bodypart is my chest, I don’t need to perform cable crossover? The aim of isolation movements is to train a lagging bodypart, and they are not necessary if you want to build aestheic muscles. Am I right ?[/quote]
No, you aren’t right. You are looking to place very strict boundaries on concepts that don’t work that way. Erase the idea that “all of the time you do this if you are that”. You take every instance on a case by case basis. Anyone telling you otherwise is full of shit. I have never avoided isolation movements.
I think the idea in itself is completely without merit unless someone is extremely weak all over as a rank beginner or they are so genetically gifted in a particular bopdy part (like calves) that they don’t need to train that body part for it to be extremely strong and well developed. Those are the ONLY times I would recommend someone focus so intently on compound movements alone.
Another point of view that we missed out on is that when do we need to specialize? zMany people think they are candidates for specialization but don’t realize they just have to put more effort into one aspect of training