-
what is your opinion on working different parts of small muscles? as in do you feel you can work a certain head of the tricep or bicep? it seems like you would be able to but i’ve heard some say you can’t work different sections of the muscle like that.
-
is it possible to work the inner chest? Again i’ve heard you cant because of the way the fibers run but i’ve heard some bodybuilders (like Milos Sarcev) say you can with cable crossovers, incline flyes, etc…this one seems less likely.
Of course you can work different heads of the triceps by having your arm overhead.
I would be less worried about what a BBer says when it comes to muscle actions and focus on those that have a little better understanding of anatomy.
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
-
what is your opinion on working different parts of small muscles? as in do you feel you can work a certain head of the tricep or bicep? it seems like you would be able to but i’ve heard some say you can’t work different sections of the muscle like that.
-
is it possible to work the inner chest? Again i’ve heard you cant because of the way the fibers run but i’ve heard some bodybuilders (like Milos Sarcev) say you can with cable crossovers, incline flyes, etc…this one seems less likely.[/quote]
Yes to all of that.
This is an age old argument!
I think…(snoozzze…)
That both parties are right.
Here are the facts as i see them; You CANNOT ISOLATE a head of a muscle, in fact it is a human impossibility to isolate any one muscle, when the bicep moves, as does the cococobrachialis, Brachialis, Brachioradialis AT LEAST! etc.
There is also no such thing as an ‘inner chest’ or ‘Lower Bicep’ - anatomically speaking.
If you contract a muscle, ALL of the fibres contract as they run the whole length of the muscle - parallel to one another.
So if you do Preacher curls in the hope of stimulating the ‘lower biceps’ then the whole of the muscle is worked, as when a fibre contracts, it is contracted throughout the whole tissue.
So far this is all true.
BUT! Lets take the preacher curl… with the anatomical positioning of the body (the upper arm in front of the body; shoulder flexed), the biceps is in an unnatural position that is to say, NOT the anatomical position it would prefer, and it isnt working in the manner in which it was designed - with the traps, legs, shoulders.
Can everyone agree that a muscle gets more ‘stimulation’ to grow with MORE tension? That if more tension is given to the right bicep than the left, all being equal the right will hypertrophy more?
So, back to the Preacher curl. In this exercise, due to the position of the biceps when the elbow is FULLY extended, the pivot is in a position that makes the Bicep HIGHLY disadvantaged. When the movement is started, there is a very high amount of tension on the distal end of the biceps and tendon. More so than the proximal end, this is fact. This eases off as the weight rises, and the bicep begins to become in a stronger position.
After the exercise, the distal end of the muscle has had exposure to much higher tensions and forces than the proximal end, and while the whole muscle has in fact been trained, the distal end has the POTENTIAL to hypertrophy to a greater extent to deal with the excessive forces during that move.
JMO - i think this is what happens.
Thoughts?
JJ
so basically you cannot isolate a different head of the bicep, tricep, etc…but you can make it so you can put more emphasis on another part? thats what im thinking cause i know you couldnt only work a certain part of the triceps but i always thought you could put more emphasis on one head (until i read something by CW). i mean the same goes for delts right? i would definitely think a front raise would work the anterior delts more and lateral raises would work the medial head more (im not sure if thats the same as with tri’s but it seems to make sense)
about the chest though, do you actually think you can work the inner chest? i know you can put more emphasis on upper chest but i dont think you can work the inner or outer more.
I believe i have answered that.
I believe you can, due to different positions giving tension to different areas of the movement, causes more tension to certain areas of the muscle.
I thought it was fairly well understood that the part of flying movements where the hands are closest is where the inner fibres of the chest have the most tension…
I absolutely believe this to be the case.
You have to understand that the word ‘isolation’ is a bit of a mis-nomer. It is IMPOSSIBLE to isolate ANY head or muscle at all in the human body.
But it is possible to:
Make a certain muscle group the prime mover - causing higher tensions over that area.
Favor the use of certain heads of the same muscle with certain movements - causing higher tensions over that area.
Manipulate the loading to place more stress on distal or proximal fibres of a muscle/muscle head - yup, causing higher tensions on the area.
One of the arguments for this theory not being correct it that a muscle is either contracted or not… But in that case why dont we contract the bicep with as much force when lifting a cup to our mouth as the 45lb DB’s?
Because we recruit less/more fibres via the motor units.
So if there is more tension placed towards the distal end of the bicep (for example again) then more units will fire in that area.
Theory of course - but one i 100% believe.
JJ
JJ i agree with your points about the different heads but i think the chest is different. as mentioned by the OP the fibers of the chest run in a way that you can emphasize the upper/lower portions but i am pretty sure you cannot emphasize the inner portion
Yes to both!
No offence to the experts on anatomy, but I’d ALSO listen to a variety of people whove made some progress that I’m interested in duplicating. Scores of bodybuilders, including charles glass have used the incline DB press (with bells pressed together) to place stress on the ‘inner chest’. No idea why it works, but it does. Also one arm pec deck flies leaning into the movement past the centerline will also over time give you some improvement.
your oprimary focus should be to build size in the chest by working both the upper and lower parts (incline and decline presses, wide dips) but finish with the cable cross or pec deck or try CT’s (I believe) movementr that I described above (bells pressed together)
Read Target Bodybuilding by Per A. Tesch.
He took trainees and made them perform different exercises, normally 5 sets to failure, then used MRI’s to determine which part of the muscle was worked.
Book does not cover back, chest or shoulders,
Does cover Bicep, Tricep, Legs and Calfs.
Fast read but will give you great insight on how the body works.
Michael
[quote]David1991 wrote:
JJ i agree with your points about the different heads but i think the chest is different. as mentioned by the OP the fibers of the chest run in a way that you can emphasize the upper/lower portions but i am pretty sure you cannot emphasize the inner portion[/quote]
The fibres run horizontally, laterally, whatever you call it. It attaches to the Sternum, the Clavicle, the Rib, the Humerus
and the Corocoid Process (Maj. and Min.)
According to my theory, this it the perfect positioning for differing tensions.
With the hands close and loaded, the inner fibres of the pec are under higher forces/tensions than the outer fibres… This is far from impossible!
JJ
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Yes to both!
No offence to the experts on anatomy, but I’d ALSO listen to a variety of people whove made some progress that I’m interested in duplicating. Scores of bodybuilders, including charles glass have used the incline DB press (with bells pressed together) to place stress on the ‘inner chest’. No idea why it works, but it does. Also one arm pec deck flies leaning into the movement past the centerline will also over time give you some improvement.
your oprimary focus should be to build size in the chest by working both the upper and lower parts (incline and decline presses, wide dips) but finish with the cable cross or pec deck or try CT’s (I believe) movementr that I described above (bells pressed together)[/quote]
well thats true that some pro’s definitely recommend it but i think we all know not all the pro’s have a full understanding of the anatomy. they know working out for sure, but i’ve heard somewhat “bogus” claims by pro’s. it’s definitely interesting though, i’ve always just seen the science of why the inner chest cant be worked
[quote] JJ wrote:
The fibres run horizontally, laterally, whatever you call it. It attaches to the Sternum, the Clavicle, the Rib, the Humerus
and the Corocoid Process (Maj. and Min.)
According to my theory, this it the perfect positioning for differing tensions.
With the hands close and loaded, the inner fibres of the pec are under higher forces/tensions than the outer fibres… This is far from impossible!
JJ[/quote]
but if they run horizontally that would mean it works the entire upper or lower level, not different sides of the level. if it was vertically i assume it would be the other way around
[quote]Michael Petrella wrote:
Read Target Bodybuilding by Per A. Tesch.
He took trainees and made them perform different exercises, normally 5 sets to failure, then used MRI’s to determine which part of the muscle was worked.
Book does not cover back, chest or shoulders,
Does cover Bicep, Tricep, Legs and Calfs.
Fast read but will give you great insight on how the body works.
Michael[/quote]
really dont feel like buying a book and reading it right now. do u have a quick summary of it at least explaining its point on working seperate heads/parts of the muscle?
[quote]David1991 wrote:
but if they run horizontally that would mean it works the entire upper or lower level, not different sides of the level. if it was vertically i assume it would be the other way around
[/quote]
That is exactly what i am saying… For starters, do you actually know anything about the physiology of skeletal muscle?
Anyway, that is what i am saying, that while the whole length of the fibre contracts, it is POSSIBLE for certain sarcomeres to be contracting with more force within the same fibre, due to the dynamics of the load.
I know that this is a highly controversial subject at the moment, but all the anecdotal evidence does suggest this to be the case, both sides of the argument are both theorised as it is, as we STILL dont totally understand muscular contraction fully - the sliding filament theory is the most likely one - and there is room for ‘my’ theory in that.
Know what i mean David1991?
JJ
[quote] JJ wrote:
David1991 wrote:
but if they run horizontally that would mean it works the entire upper or lower level, not different sides of the level. if it was vertically i assume it would be the other way around
That is exactly what i am saying… For starters, do you actually know anything about the physiology of skeletal muscle?
Anyway, that is what i am saying, that while the whole length of the fibre contracts, it is POSSIBLE for certain sarcomeres to be contracting with more force within the same fibre, due to the dynamics of the load.
I know that this is a highly controversial subject at the moment, but all the anecdotal evidence does suggest this to be the case, both sides of the argument are both theorised as it is, as we STILL dont totally understand muscular contraction fully - the sliding filament theory is the most likely one - and there is room for ‘my’ theory in that.
Know what i mean David1991?
JJ[/quote]
i understand what you mean, i have just never heard of putting more force/emphasis on different sides of individual fibers. if that were the case then that would mean being able to work the inner/outer chest, however i would just have to take your word for that since i haven’t seen/read research on it
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Of course you can work different heads of the triceps by having your arm overhead.
I would be less worried about what a BBer says when it comes to muscle actions and focus on those that have a little better understanding of anatomy.[/quote]
At this point of my life, I would be more worried with what a successful bodybuilder says, particularly one who has brought up a lagging muscle group or part of a muscle group (ie: upper chest, quad sweep, lower lats , etc.)
as it has been my observation that all the geeky anatomists and physiologists, with the exception of a tiny minority, ever sport a bodybuilder’s physique nor have they ever brought up a lagging muscle or muscle part to show their stuff on the line.
[quote]David1991 wrote:
JJ wrote:
David1991 wrote:
but if they run horizontally that would mean it works the entire upper or lower level, not different sides of the level. if it was vertically i assume it would be the other way around
That is exactly what i am saying… For starters, do you actually know anything about the physiology of skeletal muscle?
Anyway, that is what i am saying, that while the whole length of the fibre contracts, it is POSSIBLE for certain sarcomeres to be contracting with more force within the same fibre, due to the dynamics of the load.
I know that this is a highly controversial subject at the moment, but all the anecdotal evidence does suggest this to be the case, both sides of the argument are both theorised as it is, as we STILL dont totally understand muscular contraction fully - the sliding filament theory is the most likely one - and there is room for ‘my’ theory in that.
Know what i mean David1991?
JJ
i understand what you mean, i have just never heard of putting more force/emphasis on different sides of individual fibers. if that were the case then that would mean being able to work the inner/outer chest, however i would just have to take your word for that since i haven’t seen/read research on it
[/quote]
It isnt my word mate, it is a theory… i dont think you even fully understand the term.
Just because there is a research paper on it - is not proof one way or another.
It seems to work for me, that is for sure… let me put it like this.
My left pec has a dent in it. In medial, upper fibres, there is less development. I have had to do more close grip and incline work to try to amend the discrepancy.
IF a muscle fibre grows uniformly - then how is this even possible to have occurred in the first place?
I am NOT suggesting you can change the shape of a muscle, but you can make sure that each area of a muscle (distal, proximal, medial, lateral) has as much growth as possible, if someone always works the top half of the rep in curls, never does preacher/scott work - then they will have an underdeveloped bicep - mostly at the lower portion. This is where doing lower end partials can bring up that area.
It wont work to build above and beyond what the person has genetically in terms of shape, but you can make the most of what you have with exercises to train inner chest, lower bicep and whatever…
JJ
i see what your saying, i mean im sure years of bodybuilders have said it for a reason, in any case it’s interesing.
ive rarely heard of close grip for inner chest though, i’ve heard of flyes, crossovers, etc… but i’ve only heard of close grip for tricep emphasis
well then you learn something new every day.
If you think about it, where are the hands when the inner is SUPPOSED to be working the most during flye moves?
Correct, close in front of the body.
And during close benches - the same.
I tend to do all the way down to chest and no lockout, when doing it for chest, and lockouts for tri’s…
J
[quote] JJ wrote:
well then you learn something new every day.
If you think about it, where are the hands when the inner is SUPPOSED to be working the most during flye moves?
Correct, close in front of the body.
And during close benches - the same.
I tend to do all the way down to chest and no lockout, when doing it for chest, and lockouts for tri’s…
J[/quote]
when you do close grip for chest do you keep your arms out still? i would think you would and have your arms close to you for tri’s
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
At this point of my life, I would be more worried with what a successful bodybuilder says, particularly one who has brought up a lagging muscle group or part of a muscle group (ie: upper chest, quad sweep, lower lats , etc.)
[/quote]
Agreed 100% I’ll start with results(ie that bodybuilder) and work my way backwards to why he was successful as opposed to trying to figure out what could be successful on paper(anatomy textbook) and trying to get results out of it. That pretty much sums up everything I believe in bodybuilding wise lol. Results first, the whys and hows after if you care.
Ya Scott… i agree. if you do it the other way, you will FOREVER be chasing results that will probably never come.
There are alot of white coats and beards sat in labs electricuting eunoch rat soleus’ and so many people actually blindly follow those results over what works in the gym!
Bodybuilding by its nature is anecdotal first theory second. You do what works. Because it works! Then you find out why and this helps you to find what else might work.
JJ