Training Myths List

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
K-Narf wrote:
Professor X wrote:
But…how do I train my “inner pecs”?

I think you should worry more about training your left abs…

Although we all know there are no “inner pecs” a motor unit does not have uniform thickness from origin to insertion. This is because satellite cells only run a short stretch of the length of the muscle fiber. Motor units that are thicker at the origin may be turned on preferrentially by a peak contraction reflex, or satellite cells may tend to accumulate around the origin more after a peak contraction exercise, or there may be more accumulation of contractile proteins near the origin because there is more actino-myosin overlap in the origin end of the muscle during a peak contraction exercise.

[/quote]

Wow see ya learn something everyday.

62

[quote]pookie wrote:
Myth: A newbie training with weights a few times (even once) will become “big” overnight.

As in: “I don’t train with weights 'cause I don’t want to get too big.”
[/quote]

I took weightlifting in high school. On day 1 the coach said “girls, i have some good news, by the end of this class you are not going to be hyooge and manly, youre going to be healthier, stronger blah blah blah . . . guys, I have some bad news, by the end of this class you are not going to be hyooge and manly, but youre going to be healthier, stronger blah blah blah . . .”

thought that was funny, as I had been training a few years at the time and still weighed 175 same as when I started. Stronger and a little defined, but a long, long way from hyooge.

63

Okay, this ribcage stuff is annoying. Look, the ribs “float”. Try taking a deep breath and watch your chest rise…

Now, whether or not “expanding” is the right word, there is certainly the ability for movement to occur.

Whether or not your ribcage expands, it might be possible for it to float higher, I don’t know, and I’m not claiming it works. However, if you changed the natural resting state of the ribs, the ribcage might “appear” larger.

LOL, I don’t even care, I just find this particular item annoying for some reason.

64

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
nptitim wrote:
I think you are confused about the elbow flexors. The biceps would be considered the most superior elbow flexor, since its origin is the highest and the bulk of the muscle is the middle of the arm and that is higher than the bulk of the other two elbow flexors. Preacher curls can hit the biceps, definitely, but the biceps are not considered a “lower lying elbow flexor” and the argument is that preacher curls hit a special, lower part of the biceps is debatable at best.

Second, doing concentration curls does not slacken the biceps and it definitely does not emphasize the brachioradialis. In fact, the brachioradialis is barely working in a concentration curl or any other curl where you have a supinated grip. Also the brachioradialis is not the muscle that is under your biceps, it is the muscle on your lateral forearm. The brachialis is the muscle under your bicep, but it is also not really emphasized by doing concentration curls. A neutral grip will place more emphasis on that muscle. The point of doing concentration curls is to place extra emphasis on the biceps itself.

Sorry, I meant brachialis. First, Poloquin recommends preacher curls done in the lower half of the ROM specifically to hit the biceps and keep other arm flexors out of it. Second, since the bicep crosses the shoulder joint, then when the arm is out in front of you, the bicep is not stretched around the shoulder joint as much. I think that gives it slack. I don’t see how it wouldn’t.

Since the brachialis only crosses the elbow joint, the position of the upper arm doesn’t affect its degree of stretch. Also, if you thicken the bicep tendons, they will be less deformable and as a result, a flexed bicep will not contract into as small of a space when flexed hard. I do think that the lower range of a preacher curl, especially with a slow eccentric, will thicken the bicep tendons particularly.

[/quote]

Regardless of where a muscles origin and insertions are will not make a difference to “peaking” your bicep, or working a specific part of the muscle.

Sarcomeres which make up the length of the muscle fibre contract PROPORTIONATELY along the whole length of the muscle, therefore the same amount of stress should be experienced throughout the muscle.

Maybe this myth comes from the fact that movements such as preacher curls are mechanically much harder in certain positions, therefore giving the impression that they are working specific portions of the muscle.

Anyone thinking anything different?

Wheels

65

I don’t want to add muscle. I just want to turn the fat I have into muscle. Can I do that on the eliptical machine?

66

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Each of these, while not strictly “true” do have elements of truth worth considering…

…#9 Protein can be bad for your kidneys, even if you are healthy, if it is taken in large amounts. It is widelely variable between individuals.

[/quote]

BULLSHIT! Prove it!

67

[quote]steelwheels wrote:
Regardless of where a muscles origin and insertions are will not make a difference to “peaking” your bicep, or working a specific part of the muscle.

Sarcomeres which make up the length of the muscle fibre contract PROPORTIONATELY along the whole length of the muscle, therefore the same amount of stress should be experienced throughout the muscle.
[/quote]

First, I never said you could peak your bicep, only that you could build the underlying brachialis which could push up the bicep in the middle.

Second, because the muscle is round and not straight, not every fiber will have the same force on it. Fibers in the middle of a bulging flexed muscle will have to exert more force because their line of force is not directly in opposition to the force. When the muscle is more extended and therefore flatter, the fibers on the end may have the same force on them as ones in the middle. Also, in the extended position, such as near the bottom of a preacher curl, a) the force rises because of changing leverages but also b) there is an increasing stretch reflex as well, therefore, the fibers near the ends may experience the greatest mechanical damage in this range.

Third, what do you mean when you say sarcomeres contract proportionately along the whole length of the fiber? Do you mean, proportionalely in length, or force, because biomechanically it can’t be both for a non-flat muscle. Imagine holding your arm extended out such as before a curl. Very slightly flex isometrically. What happens? First, only the smallest motor units contract, but they do so 100% (all or nothing). Do they shorten? Minimally, because the tendon stretches slightly. Therefore, muscle fibers do not shorten in an “all or nothing” manner, because if they did, the fibers of that motor unit would rip off the tendon.

Is the same force present in along the whole length of the fibers of the MU-no because the muscle is not flat. Does every sarcomere experience the same force-there is nothing that says that there can’t be more sarcomeres on one end of the muscle than the other. Satelite cells may be added more on one end or another or in the middle.

I am not saying you are not working with correct principals (all or nothing etc) just that that principle doesn’t always give the definitive answer that we may think it does on first glance.

I am also not spouting off what I think are the facts here. I don’t know if you can target the muscle near the end, I only know that there are possible reasonable mechanisms that could still leave the door open on a “myth” like this. If “all or nothing” answered all our questions, then why is it better to do full range movements, or is it?

68

[quote]pino34 wrote:
Nutrition isn’t important as long as you train hard.[/quote]

Dave Tate was a typical example of this (Trained his ass off and shit diet). However, he was a very accomplished powerlifting athlete with HUGE lifts. With this myth it depends on what your objectives are.

69

[quote]boonville410 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

Each of these, while not strictly “true” do have elements of truth worth considering…

…#9 Protein can be bad for your kidneys, even if you are healthy, if it is taken in large amounts. It is widelely variable between individuals.

BULLSHIT! Prove it![/quote]

Once again, sorry, I should have said that it may be bad for the kidneys in large amounts.

  1. There are dozens of studies that show that higher protein diets accelerate kidney damage in individuals even with the mildest level of kidney disfunction. Just do a search for protein kidney disfunction. In these studies, individuals with “high” protein diets were only eating 120-150 grams a day on average.

  2. If 120 grams can negatively affect “mildly disfunctining” kidneys then it is not unreasonable that 300+ grams per day could negatively affect non-disfunctional kidneys.

Its like any other inflammatory response. Protein signals inflammation, almost by its very definition. Immune cells are running around looking at protein to see if its a virus or bacterial marker or pyrogen or allergen. If inflammation excedes a manageable level it is bad.

70

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Pullovers after squatting to expand the ribcage.

Pullovers with good breathing technique DID widen my ribcage. Sorry.[/quote]

How old were you? Was it normal growth?

71

Sorry guys, I didn’t really read the whole thread carefully enough to notice that the pullover-ribcage issue has been such a hot topic.

I do believe the ribcage can be enlarged through exercises like the pullover or swimming. Besides myself, I know a couple of guys personally who did just that.
Anyone who happens to have some swimmers in their family knows how well this sport can widen the thorax - probably by increasing lung capacity.

72

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Pullovers after squatting to expand the ribcage.

Pullovers with good breathing technique DID widen my ribcage. Sorry.

How old were you? Was it normal growth?[/quote]

Good question. I must have been about 17. Note that while I did pushups in series of 50 and was an able chinner, my chest and overall frame was thin.
Then I started doing these and I must admit I never, ever again had such good gains from one exercise. After two months my ribcage started to widen significantly.

73

Drinking more than 2 gallons of water a day will cause you to drown in your own blood.

While it is little more extreme than two gallons of water drinking too much water can lead to water intoxication and to a related problem resulting from the dilution of sodium in the body, hyponatremia. Supposedly, the human kidneys can handle about 15 liters of water a day, IF they are spread out over the day. But if very large amounts are consumed rapidly water intoxication can result.

74

[quote]HvRv wrote:
6. Creatine will make you stronger

  1. Muscles will make you slow

So I need more good stuff to put on my list. Enlighten me…[/quote]

Um… #6 isn’t a myth, creatine is effective in most people for enhancing performance.

12 is based on the idea of optimal weight for sprinters and the like, so it has a basis in truth.

Just wanted to let you know…

-Dan

75

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

  1. There are dozens of studies that show that higher protein diets accelerate kidney damage…
    [/quote]

What studies? You can’t just say, “there are studies.” List them.

Mildest level of kidney dysfunction = kidney dysfunction!!! It does not equal normal!

I wholeheartedly disagree. That is not a logical inference.

“Dietary protein intake and renal function”

William F Martin, Lawrence E Armstrong and Nancy R Rodriguez

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA and Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

76

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
#4, Strength training can stunt the growth of children.
[/quote]

How can lifting generate enough force to cause enough damage to close an epiphysial plate? Moreover, can one verifiable case study of this phenomenon be produced?

How does increasing the capacity of the ATP-CP system not improve limit strength?

Why? ALso, what do you mean by large amounts?

Tom didn’t have problems after 5 years.

Normal wear and tear; I’d still rather squat than run.

True. Just not as much as the bruceleewannabes of the world think.

-Dan

77

[quote]boonville410 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
What studies? You can’t just say, “there are studies.” List them.

  1. If 120 grams can negatively affect “mildly disfunctining” kidneys then it is not unreasonable that 300+ grams per day could negatively affect non-disfunctional kidneys.

I wholeheartedly disagree. That is not a logical inference.

“Dietary protein intake and renal function”
[/quote]

I read the “study.” Was something missing-I only found the results of a review of literature? The longest study cited was 6 months, and the highest protein intake cited was 1.4-1.9 g/kg bodyweight. For a 220 pound individual that is 140-190 grams/day, not my definition of very high. Atkins dieters often consume 2 grams/pound of body weight which would be 440 grams. The study also showed enlarged kidneys within 6 months at a “high” level but did not define “high”

I didn’t list studies because the search I did produced too many to chose from.

No study has linked very high protein intake with any onset of kidney disfunction-I agree, but that doesn’t make it an answered question. The study that would need to be done has not been.

78

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
#4, Strength training can stunt the growth of children.

How can lifting generate enough force to cause enough damage to close an epiphysial plate? Moreover, can one verifiable case study of this phenomenon be produced?

…[/quote]

This little guy hasn’t grown an inch since he started lifting.

79

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

How can lifting generate enough force to cause enough damage to close an epiphysial plate? Moreover, can one verifiable case study of this phenomenon be produced?

How does increasing the capacity of the ATP-CP system not improve limit strength?

Why? ALso, what do you mean by large amounts?

Tom didn’t have problems after 5 years.

Normal wear and tear; I’d still rather squat than run.

[/quote]

I don’t know how much force it takes to affect growth, or if it is force at all. Forces from jumping and running excede lifting, but they don’t cause muscular hypertrophy at the same level-in other words it’s not a question of force at all, but rather the same bioelectrical signal that signals bone building-both tension and time are required. There are probably no studies-either way.

I never said creatine would not increase limit strength but the limiting factor in limit strength movements is more likely to be neuromuscular firing rate-ATP stores may reach short term strength comprimising deficiencies within 1.5 seconds of maximal contraction. If it takes you longer than that to complete a max, you may benefit from more ATP, although since local ATP and CP depletion are a likely signal for hypertrophy, consuming creatine may make it harder to reach a depleted state and therefore achieve the hyertrophy signal.

Large amounts of protein? Atkins protocal of about 2 grams/pound of bodyweight.

Tom Platz was special, and squats may never cause you problems, but many olympic lifters have arthritis by their 30s. I didn’t have problems for 15 years, but cartilage damage in the knee joint does not heal naturally over time-there is no biological mechanism.

They are all myths in that they haven’t been proved, but they haven’t been disproved either.

80

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Pullovers after squatting to expand the ribcage.[/quote]

Children who start swimming at an early age (and keep swimming regularly for a number of years) I’m pretty sure will end up having larger chests than otherwise.

However, I’m not sure if the same mechanism works for adults. Even if it works, it must be much more difficult after the age of 15 or so.