Tweet
Op T-nation hebben ze er een interessant debat over op het moment.
Het antwoord van Christian T
en nog een:
TomFurman wrote:
The nerves fire throughout the muscle. This has been known for years. There are two halves to the pecs. The sternal and clavicular. You DON'T build inner and outer pecs. That is malarky.
Check exercise physiology.
Point two. Wide Grip Bench to throat. It is not IF you get shoulder problems, but WHEN you get shoulder problems
The nerves fire throughout the muscle. This has been known for years. There are two halves to the pecs. The sternal and clavicular. You DON'T build inner and outer pecs. That is malarky.
Check exercise physiology.
Point two. Wide Grip Bench to throat. It is not IF you get shoulder problems, but WHEN you get shoulder problems
Not to sound like an asshole but I do have my B.Sc. in exercise science-kinesiology as well as my M.Sc. scolarity. I've read more than my fair share of physiology textbooks in my lifetime and spend most of my free time reading research papers on the subject.
The fact is that most exercise physiology texts are either somewhat general... there is so much to cover that they do not necessarily go into the deepest details; or outdated (even the updated edition are basically copies of the first editions with some added chapters, but no correction or updates in the earlier material).
Studies by Seger et al. found that different types of muscle contraction (eccentric vs. concentric) lead to localized muscle damage in specific parts of a muscle group. Eccentric contractions creates more damage in the distal portion (near both insertions) of a muscle group while concentric contractions creates more damage in the proximal (or muscle belly) portion.
Don't get me wrong, both types of muscle contractions creates damage on the whole muscle, but the relative amount of damage to different portions of a muscle is contraction-specific. That result is an indirect indication that it IS possible to put more training stress on different portion of a muscle group.
Furthermore, more recent physiology research has found that not all muscle fibers run all the way from one insertion to the other; many muscle fibers are actually intermediate fibers that only cover a small portion of the muscle length.
While these fibers do not represent the majority of the fibers within a muscle group, they still form a significant portion of the motor unit pool. If certain muscle fibers cover only a portion of a muscle, it also indicates that it is possible to place more growth stimulation on certain parts of a muscle.
Finally the fact that different parts of a muscle group can get sore depending on the exercises being performed is also an indirect indication that putting more growth stimulation on certain parts of a muscle group is possible.
Regarding the ''danger'' of neck press; no exercise is 100% safe, and this one is no more dangerous than other movements if performed correctly and if there is no pre-existing shoulder problem.
However I'd like to say that more effective techniques and exercises tend to carry a greater risk of injuries... lifting heavy weights is potentially more dangerous than lifting baby weights... movements such as the olympic lifts, squats and deadlifts are potentially more dangerous than biceps curl and triceps kickback..., lifting fast is potentially more dangerous than lifting slowly, etc. Does that mean that we should all limit our lifting to loads under 50% of our max on isolation exercises using a slow tempo?
The fact is that most exercise physiology texts are either somewhat general... there is so much to cover that they do not necessarily go into the deepest details; or outdated (even the updated edition are basically copies of the first editions with some added chapters, but no correction or updates in the earlier material).
Studies by Seger et al. found that different types of muscle contraction (eccentric vs. concentric) lead to localized muscle damage in specific parts of a muscle group. Eccentric contractions creates more damage in the distal portion (near both insertions) of a muscle group while concentric contractions creates more damage in the proximal (or muscle belly) portion.
Don't get me wrong, both types of muscle contractions creates damage on the whole muscle, but the relative amount of damage to different portions of a muscle is contraction-specific. That result is an indirect indication that it IS possible to put more training stress on different portion of a muscle group.
Furthermore, more recent physiology research has found that not all muscle fibers run all the way from one insertion to the other; many muscle fibers are actually intermediate fibers that only cover a small portion of the muscle length.
While these fibers do not represent the majority of the fibers within a muscle group, they still form a significant portion of the motor unit pool. If certain muscle fibers cover only a portion of a muscle, it also indicates that it is possible to place more growth stimulation on certain parts of a muscle.
Finally the fact that different parts of a muscle group can get sore depending on the exercises being performed is also an indirect indication that putting more growth stimulation on certain parts of a muscle group is possible.
Regarding the ''danger'' of neck press; no exercise is 100% safe, and this one is no more dangerous than other movements if performed correctly and if there is no pre-existing shoulder problem.
However I'd like to say that more effective techniques and exercises tend to carry a greater risk of injuries... lifting heavy weights is potentially more dangerous than lifting baby weights... movements such as the olympic lifts, squats and deadlifts are potentially more dangerous than biceps curl and triceps kickback..., lifting fast is potentially more dangerous than lifting slowly, etc. Does that mean that we should all limit our lifting to loads under 50% of our max on isolation exercises using a slow tempo?
I suggest that you read the review by Kawakami (2005) available in pdf format at:
http://www.shobix.co.jp/.../4/20050199.pdf
I present evidence that training can lead to changes in muscle architecture, pennation angle, fiber length and also that hypertrophy is not uniform throughout the whole muscle being trained.
A recent study by Keijo H?kkinen, Arto Pakarinen, William J. Kraemer, Arja H?kkinen, Heli Valkeinen, and Markku Alen (2001) mention that:
''It is also important to point out that it has been shown in younger adults that training-induced muscle hypertrophy (measured by use of MRI) can be nonuniform along the belly of the muscle.''
Meaning that it is possible to stimulate more growth in certain portion of a muscle.
Also see a study by Jose Antonio (2000) which states the following:
''Skeletal muscle is a heterogeneous tissue that exhibits numerous inter- and intramuscular differences (i.e., architecture, fiber composition, and muscle function). An individual muscle cannot be simplistically described as a compilation of muscle fibers that span from origin to insertion. In fact, there are unique differences within a single muscle and within single muscle fibers with respect to fiber size and protein composition. Electromyographic data indicate that there is selective recruitment of different regions of a muscle that can be altered, depending on the type of exercise performed. Longitudinal resistance-training studies also demonstrate that individual muscles as well as groups of synergist muscles adapt in a regional-specific manner. The author speculates that no single exercise can maximize the hypertrophic response of all regions of a particular muscle. Thus, for maximal hypertrophy of an entire muscle, athletes (particularly bodybuilders) are justified in incorporating various exercises that purportedly stimulate growth in a regional-specific manner.''
http://www.shobix.co.jp/.../4/20050199.pdf
I present evidence that training can lead to changes in muscle architecture, pennation angle, fiber length and also that hypertrophy is not uniform throughout the whole muscle being trained.
A recent study by Keijo H?kkinen, Arto Pakarinen, William J. Kraemer, Arja H?kkinen, Heli Valkeinen, and Markku Alen (2001) mention that:
''It is also important to point out that it has been shown in younger adults that training-induced muscle hypertrophy (measured by use of MRI) can be nonuniform along the belly of the muscle.''
Meaning that it is possible to stimulate more growth in certain portion of a muscle.
Also see a study by Jose Antonio (2000) which states the following:
''Skeletal muscle is a heterogeneous tissue that exhibits numerous inter- and intramuscular differences (i.e., architecture, fiber composition, and muscle function). An individual muscle cannot be simplistically described as a compilation of muscle fibers that span from origin to insertion. In fact, there are unique differences within a single muscle and within single muscle fibers with respect to fiber size and protein composition. Electromyographic data indicate that there is selective recruitment of different regions of a muscle that can be altered, depending on the type of exercise performed. Longitudinal resistance-training studies also demonstrate that individual muscles as well as groups of synergist muscles adapt in a regional-specific manner. The author speculates that no single exercise can maximize the hypertrophic response of all regions of a particular muscle. Thus, for maximal hypertrophy of an entire muscle, athletes (particularly bodybuilders) are justified in incorporating various exercises that purportedly stimulate growth in a regional-specific manner.''
Comment