[quote]Professor X wrote:
kellyc wrote:
Did anyone say “muscle memory” yet?
Hopefully not because muscle memory is very real.[/quote]
No kidding. I gained the 4 inches I lost from my broken arm in under 2 months, as well as the 18 pounds I shed.
Just a quick question, sounds stupid. My routine doesn’t involve any curls at all, mostly barbell rows and pullups, but I can add maybe 3-4 sets of curls on one of the off days.
Is there a particular exercise that makes the bicep wider if you look at it from the front (hammer curls maybe?), or does thickness from the front just come with time, from say, doing regular curls?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
You’re of course right about the idea, but exercise induced GH production has been largely discounted as a major cause of hypertrophy. This is based primarily on the fact that you produce ten times more GH in the first 3 hours of sleep alone than the amount of elevation resulting from intense exercise.
But maybe there is a synergistic effect-having the GH spike while the muscle is actually doing the work might have a greater effect.
Perhaps the GH aspect of my first post was inaccurate, but the main point still stands.
A beginner who exercises intensely (or ‘squats’) will see some full body growth (even in areas not directly stimulated), while the beginner who exercises lightly (or ‘curls’) won’t see much growth at all.
Granted, this method might only take a beginner’s arms from 13" to 15", but that’s still growth, right? The failure of the original myth is thinking that squats will lead to large arms relative to the lifter’s body. That obviously requires direct arm stimulation.
But there is a grain of truth in the myth ‘squats will lead to big arms,’ and I thought I might point that out to Barney (or any beginner reading this thread that might not know that Barney was joking).[/quote]
I’m not arguing with you. In fact the main point of my posts has been that almost all of what people are calling myths are being too easily dismissed.
In my experience, squats, do have a general effect on muscle building. As you get stronger, they are also one of the quickest exercises to put you into overtraining. I am sure we agree on all of this.
Anyway, squatting may be underestimated as to its direct effects on upper body muscles. The lats are active and I find myself flexing them hard to help support upper spine posture. I flex my pecs hard, and my biceps and triceps and traps and abs, ok just about everything is flexed as hard as possible when squatting when you start to push up the weight.
HI everyone, long-time-lurker first-time-poster here.
How the hell can people argue that the ribcage cannot be expanded?? Have they not seen what happens to people when they start training for swimming/ running etc? Not just teens either, I’m pretty certain that this applies to anyone who is still relatively young and “malleable”.
I hate to dig up the ribcage-enlarging thing again, but pretty much everyone seems to have missed the mark somewhat.
After performing heavy breathing squats, ie - taking approx 8-10 hyooge breaths between reps (trust me you need to), you then assume the pullover position BUT keep the weight held in the fully stretched position.
So, there aren’t any actually repetions involved as such, you just get the stretch and lie there for about a minute, whilst still taking the biggest breaths you can the whole time. I’m not going to pretend I know how this works exactly, but there’s a lot of cartilage and muscle in your ribcage which can definitely be stretched, and adapt to heavy breathing by becoming larger *see asthmatics.
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
Very heavy low rep work only improves strength. It doesn’t add size.
The pec is one muscle therefor you cant shape it. You should hit it from all angles to build it optimally though. With that said, read this post, its pretty informative. Its from a board member by the name of Belial:
The existence of the so-called “upper”, “lower”, “inner” and “outer” pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it?s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all?s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as ?heads? by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be ?slack? in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly?s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no ?slack? because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement. For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called ?isolation? approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the ?target? region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to ?isolate? a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can ?feel? different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as ?evidence? by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.
Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved. So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don?t expect to be able to correct so-called ?unbalanced? muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about ?shaping? you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique.
Although, your chest will look how it looks, you can’t change the insertion points of pectorallis major. it is gentics. You can train your chest in a variety of different ways to stimulate as much growth as possible but the shape of the muscle wont change. Alterning the nagle of the bench will alter the plane of motion that the shoulder joint is moving through. It is important to be strong in a variety of planes of motion since movement in life happens in many planes, not just the sagital plane. Also altering the plane of motion you are in, the exercises and other variables will increase stimulation of the CNS, prevent adaptation and increase your potential for maximum growth/strength
[quote]WTlifter wrote:
Heres a good one:
If you are trying to lose weight zero calorie Jello is good for you because it has no nutricinal value and it fills you up.
My mom trys to till me this all the time![/quote]
Seems to be a parent thing. Mine buy the fat free puddings then double up on them.
[quote]Viking69 wrote:
The pec is one muscle therefor you cant shape it. You should hit it from all angles to build it optimally though. With that said, read this post, its pretty informative. Its from a board member by the name of Belial:
The existence of the so-called “upper”, “lower”, “inner” and “outer” pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. [/quote]
Are saying that the clavicular head is in fact not separate from the sternal head? Or are you saying that they can’t be isolated separately?
[quote]Dave_ wrote:
HI everyone, long-time-lurker first-time-poster here.
How the hell can people argue that the ribcage cannot be expanded?? Have they not seen what happens to people when they start training for swimming/ running etc? Not just teens either, I’m pretty certain that this applies to anyone who is still relatively young and “malleable”.
I hate to dig up the ribcage-enlarging thing again, but pretty much everyone seems to have missed the mark somewhat.
After performing heavy breathing squats, ie - taking approx 8-10 hyooge breaths between reps (trust me you need to), you then assume the pullover position BUT keep the weight held in the fully stretched position.
So, there aren’t any actually repetions involved as such, you just get the stretch and lie there for about a minute, whilst still taking the biggest breaths you can the whole time. I’m not going to pretend I know how this works exactly, but there’s a lot of cartilage and muscle in your ribcage which can definitely be stretched, and adapt to heavy breathing by becoming larger *see asthmatics.
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
:-)[/quote]
Well, I guess then all I can say is congratulations.
Would you mind posting your before and after X-ray pics so that we can assess your progress? Thanks.
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
HI everyone, long-time-lurker first-time-poster here.
How the hell can people argue that the ribcage cannot be expanded?? Have they not seen what happens to people when they start training for swimming/ running etc? Not just teens either, I’m pretty certain that this applies to anyone who is still relatively young and “malleable”.
I hate to dig up the ribcage-enlarging thing again, but pretty much everyone seems to have missed the mark somewhat.
After performing heavy breathing squats, ie - taking approx 8-10 hyooge breaths between reps (trust me you need to), you then assume the pullover position BUT keep the weight held in the fully stretched position.
So, there aren’t any actually repetions involved as such, you just get the stretch and lie there for about a minute, whilst still taking the biggest breaths you can the whole time. I’m not going to pretend I know how this works exactly, but there’s a lot of cartilage and muscle in your ribcage which can definitely be stretched, and adapt to heavy breathing by becoming larger *see asthmatics.
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
Well, I guess then all I can say is congratulations.
Would you mind posting your before and after X-ray pics so that we can assess your progress? Thanks.[/quote]
Certainly, it is after all tradition that bodybuilders get x-rays taken every couple of months as a point of reference.
Maybe I should rephrase…
I certainly increased the size of my thorax, and the measurements around my chest went up a little too quickly for it to be discounted as crazy amounts of serratus hypertrophy.
Anyways, this is obviously one of those “guilty until proven innocent” discussions.
All I can say is if you are that interested, take up swimming and do the breathing squats and the ribcage stretches yourself.
Oh and yeah, I thought of another one - look at opera singers - were their ribcages always that huge? Great example of this is michael crawford.
over and out.
[quote]Dave_ wrote:
Certainly, it is after all tradition that bodybuilders get x-rays taken every couple of months as a point of reference.
Maybe I should rephrase…
I certainly increased the size of my thorax, and the measurements around my chest went up a little too quickly for it to be discounted as crazy amounts of serratus hypertrophy.
[/quote]
I’m by no means an expert in this regard, but I’m pretty sure that a tape measure can’t be considered a valid approach, as virtually any increase in muscle size in the chest or the back region will influence the measurement.
I’m interested in the topic, but, based on the information I have gathered on the issue, I don’t consider it worth the effort.
Are you sure an increase in lung capacity would result in greater chest diameter at rest? What if it only brought a greater compliance to expand when pressure is applied? Does anyone have thoughts on this?
It’s not over until the fat lady sings… 
[quote]Viking69 wrote:
The pec is one muscle therefor you cant shape it. You should hit it from all angles to build it optimally though. With that said, read this post, its pretty informative. Its from a board member by the name of Belial:
Followed by post
[/quote]
While this mini article is mostly correct, it is incomplete in several details and wrong in others.
It is very possible for one head of the triceps to be slack when the other is contracting. Same with upper and lower pecs. This assertion is outright incorrect.
He needs to better define “contraction”. He seems to cross over between concentric contraction involving shortening, and contraction at all (force production). For example, all of the lower pec fibers may contract the same independent of angle, but they do not all SHORTEN the same independent of angle. In a strictly decline movement, the upper fibers of a pennate muscle may not shorten at all. They may flex with the same force, but isometrically. It is even possible for the upper fibers of the lower pecs to become longer (while exerting force) as the lower ones become shorter.
Also, crossbridging increases force production in a muscle continuously for most of the ROM, and only when overlap is maximal near the point of peak contraction, does the force producing potential drop.
Finally, he overlooks the possiblily the reflexes may act differently in different positions of flexion-eliciting higher threshold contractions.
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
Well, I guess then all I can say is congratulations.
Would you mind posting your before and after X-ray pics so that we can assess your progress? Thanks.[/quote]
Not necessary. This is about busting the so called myth of chest expansion. The burden is to prove that it can’t normally happen, not just that there is no clinical evidence of it happening. If you can’t difinitively bust it for all practical purposes, you need to keep an open mind about it.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
Well, I guess then all I can say is congratulations.
Would you mind posting your before and after X-ray pics so that we can assess your progress? Thanks.
Not necessary. This is about busting the so called myth of chest expansion. The burden is to prove that it can’t normally happen, not just that there is no clinical evidence of it happening. If you can’t difinitively bust it for all practical purposes, you need to keep an open mind about it.[/quote]
The quoted post was not about busting the myth, it was about Dave claiming that the above-mentioned exercises actually expanded his ribcage. I wanted to find out exactly how he was able to assess this with such certainty.
Regarding the alleged myth of ribcage expansion, the counter-arguments I have heard by far outweigh any in favour of it being possible to a significant extent, all the more as ribcage expansion via breathing pullovers is the topic.
I’m waiting with an open mind for anyone to provide information other than “I did the exercises and now my chest is larger” or the like. Apart from one of your prior posts on this thread on the Darden article, this hasn’t happened yet.
I raised a few questions on the previous page:
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Given the fact that you perform the movement, i.e. “breathing pullovers” or whatever, for a certain and usually not very high amount of reps and thus the region is only under tension for a short amount of time, would this suffice to cause the cartilage to grow longer? Wouldn’t the surrounding bone structures have to undergo a change as well to keep up with the adaptation? Besides, how could you discern if it was your ribcage or the surrounding muscles that have grown? [/quote]
Still no takers?
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
I raised a few questions on the previous page:
Still no takers?
[/quote]
No, I thought about it. You are right that if the cartilage were stretched-like the colored area in the figure, the rib would have to either bend, or change its angle with the vertebra. This would also have to happen whenever you take a breath though.
fat turns into muscle
bench is bad for your shoulders, you should only go down to 90 degrees(like the most popular one at my gym)
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
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.
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?
[/quote]
A muscle fiber is made up of many myofibrils. These run the full length of the muscle from tendon to tendon. These myofibrils are split into 100’s of sarcomeres along its length. When the muscle contracts each of these sarcomeres shortens by the same amount depending upon the range of motion ie. a partial curl will only result in partially contracted sarcomeres, full curl, in fully contracted sarcomeres. It is known as the sliding filament model of muscle contraction.
Since a sarcomere is part of a myofibril, which in turn is part of an individual muscle fiber the “all or nothing” argument does not apply. This is because if the motor unit is switched on then the sarcomeres along the fiber being activated by the motor unit will all be doing the same thing.
If I haven’t explained it very clearly simply googling sarcomeres will bring up loads of pics that show it much better. In fact it may bring up some flaws in my argument, I don’t know.
Finally, I wasn’t trying to state that you said bicep peak could be increased, it is just that this is an often cited example.
PEACE
Wheels
PS my fave myth is the muscle into fat one. When I give up training I’m gonna turn all my muscle into fat. Then I’ll go and turn all the lead on my roof into gold, or some water into wine, or a sows ear into a silk purse, whatever.
[quote]steelwheels wrote:
A muscle fiber is made up of many myofibrils. These run the full length of the muscle from tendon to tendon. These myofibrils are split into 100’s of sarcomeres along its length. When the muscle contracts each of these sarcomeres shortens by the same amount depending upon the range of motion ie. a partial curl will only result in partially contracted sarcomeres, full curl, in fully contracted sarcomeres. It is known as the sliding filament model of muscle contraction.
[/quote]
I understand the model, but you see, I already showed that sarcomeres do not necessarily all contract by the same amount because there is nothing that requires that a myofibril is the same number of sarcomeres thick throughout its entire length. If satellite cells have been added more on one end than another, one end may have more contracting cells than another. A cell must contract 100% in terms of tension, and if fewer cells on one end and more cells on another all contract with 100% force, the ones on the fewer cell end will not shorten by the same percentage as the ones on the end with more cells.
Doing morning cardio fasted or not makes a fucking difference.
Lower level intensity aerobic exercise burns more fat than more intense exercise.
[quote]Dave_ wrote:
Oh and btw, this DID expand my ribcage (I’ve been doing it recently, and I’m 19 for the record).
[/quote]
Before we even begin to discuss whether ribcage expansion is possible, perhaps you could share what led you to conclude that your ribcage expanded?
A tape measure isn’t going to cut it. As michael said above, a chest x-ray is about the only way you could accurately determine whether your ribcage expanded or not.
So unless you’ve got the x-rays handy, you might want to stop claiming that you’ve increased the size of your ribcage.