Ugh Togoth Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1327855&pageNo=0 ConclusionHopefully after reading this article you'll understand exactly how and why it's possible to put a bit more growth stimulus on certain portions of a muscle group. I'll say it again though: you can't isolate a portion of a muscle. In fact, with regular exercises you can't even isolate one specific muscle entirely. However, it is possible to shift a bit more physiological stress (thus place a greater growth stimulus) on certain portions of a muscle. This is due to the four levels of muscle subdivision, which go way beyond the gross anatomical division previously thought to be true. Please understand that this article in no way means that you should drop big heavy compound movements in favor of a "shaping" program. It simply means you can correct certain weaknesses by selecting the proper assistance exercises over time. The base of your training program should still revolve around the basic lifts. Another controversial article? We'll see.Skal vi i gang med cable flies til det inderste bryst? :4flex: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugh Togoth Posted November 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 (edited) Husk nu at variere inklinationen, når I laver jeres cable flies, så I kan få ramt HELE det inderste bryst! Edited November 22, 2006 by Ugh Togoth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugh Togoth Posted November 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 (edited) Og lav supersæt mellem jeres foretrukne presseøvelse og cable flies for at få et massivt inderste bryst.Eksempelvis incline dumbbell press efterfulgt af decline cable flies. Edited November 25, 2006 by Ugh Togoth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxPower Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 (edited) Man (jeg) fristes til at spørge om du har læst og forstået artiklens indhold eller bare synes det er sjovt at svømme imod strømmen og provokere? Eller er du bare ironisk? Sgu' svært at hitte ud af på skrift Jeg vil prøve at opsummere og kommentere de enkelte dele kort.Muskelhoveder:Det er oplagt at med visse musklers forskellige vedhæftningspunkter er det muligt at stresse en del mere end en anden, f.eks. det korte hoved af biceps mere end det lange, eller nedre bryst mere end det øvre.I praksis ved vi bare ikke helt hvor stor betydningen er.Fibrenes lagdeling:langsomme fibre i de dybe lag og hurtige fibre i de overfladiske. Spændende, men jeg har noget svært at se anvendelse af denne viden i forbindelse med BB, og i øvrigt er det overvejende de hurtige fibre der står for hypertrofien.Neuromuskulær opdeling:Forskellige dele af en muskel kan aktiveres forskelligt, men bestemt ikke uafhængigt af hinanden.Meget den samme argumentation som ved muskelhovederne. Fibersegmentering:Fibre i musklens længderetning er ofte inddelt i flere separate segmenter med individuel aktivering (men ikke isoleret). Det virker også praktisk ud fra et "signal-mæssigt" synspunkt at nervesignalet kommer så tæt på den fibergruppe man vil trække sammen. Men hvordan bruger kroppen denne mulighed i praksis?Giver det fysiologisk mening at aktivere den nederste eller øverste del af biceps mest når man laver et curl? Eller er det mere en opdeling der bruges til dels af fordele arbejdsbyrden for fibrene og for at kunne dosere kraften mere fint? Den fysiske belastning løber stadig langs hele musklens længde fra udspring til hæfte.Jeg synes der mangler nogle nogle skridt fra at kende til ovenstående og så udskrive konkrete øvelsesforslag der åbenbart skulle påvirker indre bryst mere end yderste.Det virker fuldstændig absurd at angive 12 forskellige target områder til pectoralis. Kan vi få nogle konkrete tal på hvor stor forskellen er i aktivering af hvert område, tak Det er en fin artikel for at komme lidt dybere i forståelse af anatomi end bare de overordnede muskelinddelinger, men man skal passe forfærdelig meget på at man ikke bliver totalt detaljeorienteret på et tidspunkt i dit træningsforløb hvor det er helt håbløst at tænke i de baner.I øvrigt synes jeg CT klarer det ganske fornuftigt med at holde igen på de gyldne løfter den perfekte træning for kavalergangen osv. Edited November 25, 2006 by MaxPower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 Is There A Biceps Curl?The apparently simple biceps curl, although one of the trademarks ofbodybuilding, remains poorly understood by gymnasium users and scientistsalike.Even EMG (electromyographic) studies have proved notoriouslycontradictory during attempts to ascertain exactly which arm muscles areinvolved at a specific instant during elbow flexion.Elbow flexion is produced by the cooperative action of the biceps brachii,brachialis and brachioradialis. Of these, the biceps cross the shoulder andthe elbow joints, whereas the other two flexors act strictly on the elbow.Thus, if strict arm flexion is to take place, there must be no movement aboutthe shoulder joint. This fact is well known to bodybuilders who execute thecurl with elbows dug into the sides of the trunk or with the back leaningfirmly against a wall.Several basic factors profoundly effect which elbow flexors become involvedin any type of forearm curl:- orientation of hand (pronated, supinated or neutral)- the intensity of resistance to movement- speed of movement- degree of shoulder extension/flexion- degree of shoulder abduction.A detailed EMG study of elbow flexion performed with variations of thesefactors was carried out by Basmajian (Muscles Alive, 1978). His timeanalysis of activity revealed that there is a completely random sequence ofappearance and disappearance of activity in the different elbow flexors ofhis subjects. In any sample of subjects, there appears to be no predictablepattern among the muscles for activating, sustaining and terminatingflexion.(Basmajian's bøger bruges stadig ved SDU i Teoretisk Biomekanik faget).Moreover, muscles which display the greatest activity in individual subjectsonly begin the movement first and end it last. He concluded that there is afine interplay between the biceps, brachialis and brachioradialis throughoutelbow flexion, so that it is inappropriate to identify a specific muscle asplaying a specific role at any given instant. Most remarkable was the widevariation in the response produced by a given muscle. Although a generaltrend may be described, the same type or sequence of activity rarely occursin different subjects.The long head of the biceps (whose tendon passes through the shoulder jointcapsule) shows more activity than the short head in most subjects during slowelbow flexion, during supination of the hand against resistance, and duringshoulder flexion. There is little difference in electrical activity betweenthe two heads of the biceps during isometric contraction or during eccentricelbow extension. These observations are directly relevant to the bodybuilderwho wishes to exercise a specific head of the biceps more strongly.Miwa and Matoba (quoted by Basmajian) found that, during slow elbow flexion,biceps brachii is much more active electrically at certain angles of flexion.Unlike the variation of isometric force with angle, the EMG reveals peakactivity at 160 degrees, almost nil at 90 degrees (surprisingly, whereisometric force is near a maximum), and strong activity at full flexion(where isometric force is relatively low). Clearly, much still has to belearned about the interaction between the nervous and muscular systems.Biceps brachii is usually active during flexion of the supinated forearm forall intensities of loading and during flexion of the semi-prone forearmagainst resistance (as with 'hammer curls'). However, if the forearm isprone (as with reverse grip curls), the biceps play a minimal role duringconcentric and eccentric elbow flexion. This finding directly contradictsthe traditional belief among bodybuilders that the biceps continue to play amajor role during all forms of elbow flexion. It is brachialis whichdisplays this prominence, since it is active during fast and slow elbowflexion with forearm prone, semi-prone or supinated at all intensities ofloading. It appears that brachialis contributes to all variations of elbowflexion, since its line of pull does not change with pronation or supination.This fact reveals that the term 'biceps curl' should be eliminated from theexercise manuals and be replaced by the more accurate term 'arm curls' or'elbow flexions'.Brachioradialis does not play any significant role during any form of elbowflexion without a weight, although it becomes much more strongly involved during rapid flexion and extension with the forearm in all three positions ofrotation. This muscle, therefore, is seen to act as assistant mover whenrapid or strongly resisted flexion occurs.All three elbow flexors contract strongly when a resistance is overcomeduring flexion of the semi-prone forearm. Basmajian describes the semi-proneorientation of the forearm as the natural position, the position of rest andthe position of greatest mechanical advantage for most functions of the upperlimb. In other words, the hammer curl, with palms facing the sides of thebody, rather than the supinated (palms up) curl, should be regarded as thefundamental type of arm curl.Another interesting finding is that the triceps - traditionally regarded asonly an extensor of the elbow - is strongly active during pulling movements(such as seated rowing) with the elbow flexed. The biceps are powerfullyinvolved while the elbow is close to full extension, but the tricepscontribute as the angle of flexion increases, undoubtedly since the shoulderis extended backwards, thereby making use of the long head of the triceps asa shoulder extensor.The apparently simple act of elbow flexion, often regarded as synonymouswith the so-called biceps curl, displays subtle nuances of functionalanatomy which have eluded much of the fitness community for many years. Agreater appreciation of the richness of all variations of elbow flexion wouldcontribute significantly to the implementation of more effective normal andrehabilitative training.---------------------Dr Mel C SiffDenver, USAhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/Med så stor variabilitet er det vist nonsens at dele kroppen så meget op som tib prøver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugh Togoth Posted November 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Maxpower:Man (jeg) fristes til at spørge om du har læst og forstået artiklens indhold eller bare synes det er sjovt at svømme imod strømmen og provokere? Eller er du bare ironisk? Sgu' svært at hitte ud af på skriftJeg kan kun svare ja til alle tre spørgsmål. Dog er jeg ikke BARE ironisk, da jeg blot benytter ironien til at understrege de centrale spørgsmål samt selvfølgelig at provokere lidt. Jeg synes der mangler nogle nogle skridt fra at kende til ovenstående og så udskrive konkrete øvelsesforslag der åbenbart skulle påvirker indre bryst mere end yderste.Enig i, at det kan virke absurd, og at der på ingen måde er evidens for at fremstille dette skema, men hans pointe er nu stadig god nok. Det er meget muligt, at forskellige øvelser kan ramme muskelfibrene forskelligt.Det er netop dette, der udfordrer et af MOL-dogmerne, så jo som bekendt hedder: ”en muskel kan ikke andet end at trække sig sammen, så det er ikke muligt på nogen måde at påvirke aktiveringen gennem øvelsesvariation!"Så jeg siger bare, at man nok skal passe på med at fremsætte dette MOL-dogme, hvis man ikke har andet at have det i, end en forsimplet forståelse af muskelaktivering. I så fald er den udtalelse tilsvarende absurd.Charles Poliquin har på samme vis i mange år argumenteret for vigtigheden af øvelsesvariation på stort set samme baggrund, dog umiddelbart uden at forsøge at give en ”videnskabeligt” forklaring ved at skrue en lille teori sammen.Så igen er min pointe bare, at man måske skulle passe lidt på, når man skråsikkert skråler op med MOL-dogmet, der lyder, at bodybuildere er vanvittige, når de kører flere øvelser til eksempelvis pecs og også inkludere isolationsøvelser og fly bevægelser for at variere og øge påvirkningen af forskellige muskelfibre i musklen. Ligesom med dogmet i forhold til punktslankning og dogmet i forhold til muskelvækst på trods af et samlet dagligt energiunderskud, så skal man på MOL nok være påpasselig med at tro, at man ligger inde med den endelige sandhed og alt andet er noget vrøvl. Specielt når dogmerne bygger på et meget spinkelt grundlag.Ptpoul:Dit citat understøtter blot en af hovedpointerne i Thibaudeaus artikel. Øvelsesvalg/variation er centralt i forhold til, hvordan musklerne rammes. Derudover omhandler dit citat level 1 i hans artikel og ikke level 3, som netop er hans centrale pointe, og det der hovedsageligt er ”nyt” og diskuteres her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugh Togoth Posted December 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) Edited December 3, 2006 by Ugh Togoth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptpoul Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Hmm... Altid en provokation fra Ughhhh Jeg skulle vel have skrevet:Det er nonsens at bilde sig selv ind, man kan komme med generelle anbefalinger for alle, gående på hvilke muskelfibre rammes i hvilke øvelser -eller variationer af disse.Incline bænkpres træner ikke nødvendigvis det samme for Per og Palle. For Palle trænes forside af skuldre og Triceps måske i langt højere grad end den clavikulære del af pectoralis, hvorimod Per bare rammer den claviculære del af pectoralis helt fantastisk på den måde At man varierer som Poliquin gør det handlæer mere om at undgå stagnation i en given øvelse end at påvirke forskellige dele af musklen.Poliquin mener at ved at f.eks. at skifte grebet en smule i en biceps curl, går der længere tid før man stagnerer styrkemæssigt i den givne øvelse.Det er sandsynligvis i højere grad et neuralt fænomen fremfor muskulært betinget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Sikke en brystdag - men hva' - det er bare på med vanten og starte fra en ende af!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 (edited) BTW Så synes jeg CT, der i øvrigt også har baggrund i vægtløftning, har lagt navn til nogle langhårede artikler. Træningsprogrammer hvor folk hopper rundt, går trillebør med hinanden, sokker på hænderne i en gymnastik sal, mirakel programmer med før og efter billeder ala TVSHOP etc etc. En mand der skriver så mange forskellige ting. Edited December 3, 2006 by sas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 BTW og CT... øhh til alle os, der ikke render rundt med en forkortnings ordbog..!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugh Togoth Posted December 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Hmm... Altid en provokation fra Ughhhh Jeg skulle vel have skrevet:Det er nonsens at bilde sig selv ind, man kan komme med generelle anbefalinger for alle, gående på hvilke muskelfibre rammes i hvilke øvelser -eller variationer af disse.Incline bænkpres træner ikke nødvendigvis det samme for Per og Palle. For Palle trænes forside af skuldre og Triceps måske i langt højere grad end den clavikulære del af pectoralis, hvorimod Per bare rammer den claviculære del af pectoralis helt fantastisk på den måde At man varierer som Poliquin gør det handlæer mere om at undgå stagnation i en given øvelse end at påvirke forskellige dele af musklen.Poliquin mener at ved at f.eks. at skifte grebet en smule i en biceps curl, går der længere tid før man stagnerer styrkemæssigt i den givne øvelse.Det er sandsynligvis i højere grad et neuralt fænomen fremfor muskulært betingetEnig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 BTW og CT... øhh til alle os, der ikke render rundt med en forkortnings ordbog..!! CT= Christian ThibaudeauBTW = By the way = lige ved vejen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Nothing is shown for emphasizing Level 2. Does rep speed or rep number have any impact? That was done on purpose. I do have my hteory on that. I think that heavy lifting will prerentially hypertrophy the superficial fibers and lower-intensity volume work will focus more on the deep fibers. This might (and this is my hteory) explains in part why individuals who focus more on heavy lifting (either powerlifters or bodybuilders lifting heavy weights) have that "hard as a rock" look but do not have muscle bellies that look as full (good examples are Dorian Yates, Branch Warren, most olympic lifters, etc.) while those who only use lighter weights for "the pump" appear to be "rounder" but lack that super hard look (e.g. Flex Wheeler, Serge Nubret, etc.). But this is just a theory.CTSpændende at se hvad hans forskning leder frem til Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.