I read the arms-discussion on the think tank forum today and I began to wonder about leverage. CW wrote how longer tendons and shorter muscle bellies are better for power output. It makes sense that a long muscle belly doesn’t have as much leverage as a short one and thus is forced to grow more, or at least a certain increase in size won’t have the same increase in strength it would have had had the tendon been longer due to poor leverage. Another thing I have noticed is how all the big armed bodybuilders have long arms, which is really a biomechanical disadvantage when lifting. So these “facts” led me to consider the following:
Since poor leverages are obviously of influence on the amount of hypertrophy we achieve, doesn’t it make sense that we select those exercises in which we have a distinct biomechanical DISadvantage when training for hypertrophy?
One of the tips of the day a few weeks ago was about this. I think it was Roberson’s but I’m not sure. It was along those exact lines, choose exercises that put you at a mechanical disadvantage and reap strength benefits when you return to “normal” form. Like using high bar narrow squats to get stronger in wider stance low bar squats.
Well, I think we pretty much already do select exercises that have terrible leverage. Look at bent-over-rows, now wouldn’t it be much easier to life that darn weight by hauling it up using the lower back and leg muscles? Strict form is the opposite of using leverage.
A good example of the extreme would be a gymnast performing on the rings. What makes his performance so amazing is that he’s lifting himself in ways with the worst leverage possible.
To play devil’s advocate, don’t loads matter more for hypertrophy than leverage?
The leverage during one-arm, one-leg overhead squats is terrible, but I doubt that they’d be a great hypertrophy exercise. To take an example that’s less of clay pigeon, surely nobody doubts that barbell back squats will elicit more hypertrophy than pistols.