The Training Support Column MkII

[TrueOutlaw]

rocky does ur pain hurt the entire time you lift the arm or does it hurt as you lift it then subside after you get it to a certain point

 

[tim290280]

Mind muscle connection is real;

J Mot Behav. 2004 Dec;36(4):450-9.
EMG activity as a function of the performer's focus of attention.Vance J, Wulf G, Tollner T, McNevin N, Mercer J.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-3034, USA.

In previous studies of attentional focus effects, investigators have measured performance outcome. Here, however, the authors used electromyography (EMG) to determine whether difference between external and internal foci would also be manifested at the neuromuscular level. In 2 experiments, participants (N=11, Experiment 1; N=12, Experiment 2) performed biceps curls while focusing on the movements of the curl bar (external focus) or on their arms (internal focus). In Experiment 1, movements were performed faster under external than under internal focus conditions. Also, integrated EMG (iEMG) activity was reduced when performers adopted an external focus. In Experiment 2, movement time was controlled through the use of a metronome, and iEMG activity was again reduced under external focus conditions. Those findings are in line with the constrained action hypothesis (G. Wulf, N. McNevin, & C. H. Shea, 2001), according to which an external focus promotes the use of more automatic control processes.

 

[Rocky]

^^Dun dun duuuuun!!!!

Now what is JornT gonna say?!

 

[tim290280]

^^Dun dun duuuuun!!!!

Now what is JornT gonna say?!

Alot of BBers will say "Duh!" to this one. THey've always known this, but having actual objective data is completely different from what someone thinks they feel.

Hopefully Jorn will have looked harder than I did to find this one, and will have something really cool to add.

 

[tim290280]

I've been asked a few times about strength standards and what is acceptable and goals to aim for. Also this puts some of the posts on other pages that sound bogus into perspective.
Got this from Wikipedia by the way.

Strength Standards for Men (in pounds)

Body Weight Full Squat Bench Press Deadlift Standing Press Barbell Curl
----------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------------- ------------
105-120 ...... 310 ..... 260 ..... 360 ..... 170 ..... 70
121-135 ...... 340 ..... 285 ..... 390 ..... 190 ..... 85
136-155 ...... 370 ..... 310 ..... 420 ..... 210 ..... 105
156-170 ...... 400 ..... 335 ..... 450 ..... 230 ..... 120
171-185 ...... 430 ..... 360 ..... 480 ..... 250 ..... 135
186-205 ...... 460 ..... 385 ..... 510 ..... 265 ..... 155
206-225 ...... 490 ..... 410 ..... 540 ..... 275 ..... 175
226-245 ...... 520 ..... 430 ..... 570 ..... 285 ..... 195
246-Plus ...... 550 ..... 440 ..... 600 ..... 295 ..... 205

These are for a one-rep maximum for an advanced bodybuilder.

Beginner's goal should be 60 percent of each standard lift for one-rep maximum.

Intermediate's goal should be 80-85 percent of each standard lift for one-rep
maximum.

Women have 56 percent of the strength of a man in their upper torso.
Women have 72 percent of the strength of a man in their lower torso.
Women should take the 56 (upper) or 72 (lower) percentage followed by the
60 (beginner), 80-85 (intermediate), or 100 (advanced) percentage.

 

[jornT]

Alot of BBers will say "Duh!" to this one. THey've always known this, but having actual objective data is completely different from what someone thinks they feel.

Hopefully Jorn will have looked harder than I did to find this one, and will have something really cool to add.

It's not cool, but logic:

Didn't read the fulltext, but probably both groops used the same weight. With that gay mind muscle connection stuff, you you lift less total weight, hence you are comparing two things which isn't the issue.

If they compare two 1 RM bench presses, one max effort attempt and one appemt with the highest weight (which would probably be a shitload less) that could be completed with focus on the muscle contracting, I'm pretty sure the max effort would SMASH the mmc one.

I don't post to help others anymore, this one was just to so Rocky didn't think he was right and I was wrong. But even that doesn't matter to me anymore, so don't expect any help from me anymore.

:io:

 

[tim290280]

Have your PWO shake before you workout;

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.

Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR.

The present study was designed to determine whether consumption of an oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement (EAC) before exercise results in a greater anabolic response than supplementation after resistance exercise. Six healthy human subjects participated in two trials in random order, PRE (EAC consumed immediately before exercise), and POST (EAC consumed immediately after exercise). A primed, continuous infusion of L-[ring-(2)H(5)]phenylalanine, femoral arteriovenous catheterization, and muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis were used to determine phenylalanine concentrations, enrichments, and net uptake across the leg. Blood and muscle phenylalanine concentrations were increased by approximately 130% after drink consumption in both trials. Amino acid delivery to the leg was increased during exercise and remained elevated for the 2 h after exercise in both trials. Delivery of amino acids (amino acid concentration times blood flow) was significantly greater in PRE than in POST during the exercise bout and in the 1st h after exercise (P < 0.05). Total net phenylalanine uptake across the leg was greater (P = 0.0002) during PRE (209 +/- 42 mg) than during POST (81 +/- 19). Phenylalanine disappearance rate, an indicator of muscle protein synthesis from blood amino acids, increased after EAC consumption in both trials. These results indicate that the response of net muscle protein synthesis to consumption of an EAC solution immediately before resistance exercise is greater than that when the solution is consumed after exercise, primarily because of an increase in muscle protein synthesis as a result of increased delivery of amino acids to the leg.

 

[philosopher]

It proves again the importance of a pre workout shake/meal.

 

[tim290280]

From CWU's thread

Tim why do flys cane the hell out of my chest?
I can only talk from personal experience but when benching my shoulders will go then I move into a fly which I feel all the way in the chest and then cable cross overs which definately cane the whole area.

Dunno but flys "feel" like they stimulate more fibers too me

They cane the hell out of your chest because you have already fatigued your chest. If your shoulders are going first in bench (I'm having this problem at the moment too) then you aren't actively recruiting the chest to perform the majority of the work.

Now remember that flys and presses use the same muscles (excl triceps, and synergists). This means that any fly is loading the same fibers that you use when pressing, but performing a slightly different movement with a lesser weight. The only reason/s you may "feel" the chest working more is due to poor chest recruitment during presses, or accumulated fatigue from the exercises for chest you have already performed.

I'm not saying that flyes don't work, nor that they don't stress the pecs. What I am saying is that they are using lower loading through a compromising motion. If you need to compromise your joints, feel free to do them. If you feel the need for a lighter exercise, feel free to do them. But this means that the press when done properly is far more effective and should have all of your energy not part of.

One way to try and recruit pecs more on presses is to 'squeeze' the bar together as you press. This is effectively triggering the pecs to fire maximally (by switching the load emphasis from triceps/delt to pec/delt).

So are you saying that, Flyes, Pec-Dec and/or Cable Cross-Overs should be omitted from all chest routines.

Yes. You don't need to do some isolation of the chest (as isolation doesn't exist) when you have already taxed the muscles involved with better exercises like presses. This need to do flyes and the like comes back to our obsession with split routines where we perform endless sets for 'one' muscle group. The reality is that your energy would be better spent performing more important exercises.

What is your source for this information, surely not any bodybuilder in history.

No my sources are the EMG studies that have been performed on exercises. When you read the entirity of the studies you realise that the basis of your routine (presses) is all that is really needed to stimulate the pec muscles. One study called flyes "suitable only as accessory exercises" due to the ineffective muscle activation, relatively low muscle peak force (I.e. the weight used wasn't really pushing the muscles to produce peak force/contract hard) and contraindicted shoulder movement. So why bother?!

In lamens terms, I thought Isolating the muscle was part of the whole idea. Keep the muscle in work and under stress to create growth.
I myself find them a very important and part of a routine when looking for the something extra in quality beef.

Isolating the muscle just doesn't occur in any real sense. Muscles work as groups to lift a load. Emphasis can be placed upon different groups (pecs more than tris, etc) and you can create better recruitment patterns (I posted an abstract about mind muscle in my training thread). This isn't to say that flyes don't have a place in a program, as they could aid in improving recruitment patterns for presses. I don't like leg ext's either but I do use them as a warmup to improve my VMO recruitment for sqats (etc). But to use them as a post fatigue "isolation" exercise is pointless. Either the muscles have been worked or they haven't when you performed your presses. If they haven't been worked properly then this is an issue with the way you train that a pissy accessory exercise just won't fix.

I'm attacking some of the dogma of training here I know. "But chest day is bench, then inclines, then declines, then flyes". Well the studies have shown that all those exercises use exactly the same muscles (the only real difference is in delt and tri involvment). So performing multiple chest exercises in a session isn't really productive. If those exercises were spread out over several sessions then we are getting somewhere (as while there isn't any difference in the three angles of presses they do emphasise sternal or clavical portions and delt and tri involvment differently and have merit when performed seperately). But if you were to base a chest workout on flyes, you'd probably all agree that the just don't have the loading potential to really work the chest without a press first.

Stay tuned for an article soon on this.........

 

[Ironslave]

Have your PWO shake before you workout;

I commented on this over at the other board, it's moot. Both groups fasted overnight. One group exercised totally fasted, had a shake after. The other werent fasted, because of the shake. Moral of the story, don't weight train fasted.

Studies where nutrient timing is tested, the methodology needs to be seen.

 

[Ironslave]

And Tim is right, flies blow

 

[tim290280]

I commented on this over at the other board, it's moot. Both groups fasted overnight. One group exercised totally fasted, had a shake after. The other werent fasted, because of the shake. Moral of the story, don't weight train fasted.

Studies where nutrient timing is tested, the methodology needs to be seen.

The one time I skimmed the methods section........ I should stick to training!
I only really had a good read of the abstract and discussion. If that's the case then thats a huge flaw that should have been at least an issue to follow up with the groups tested with all meals similar except those around the workout.

Once again the reason science is so often seen as saying one thing then disproving it. A lot of the problems is the limited scope each experiment takes.

 

[PUMBA]

And Tim is right, flies blow

I see what you guys are saying. If anything, for me I like the flyes and cross-overs more so to give my tri's a break before the next muscle group, as I will train either Tri's or Shoulders on the same day as Chest so as not to work the Tri's three times a week.

 

[Ironslave]

Problem with flies, obviously the loading isnt sufficient, and biomechanically it leaves little room to progress compared with heavy bench. You could do a few sets at the end if you insisted, i just don't see the need.

 

[Chesticles]

Hey tim, what's your thoughts on the push/pull program?

 

[PUMBA]

Problem with flies, obviously the loading isnt sufficient, and biomechanically it leaves little room to progress compared with heavy bench. You could do a few sets at the end if you insisted, i just don't see the need.

As i said just an alternative to give the Tri's a break before advancing to the next muscle group mainly. But to be honest I get a good pump out of them,and that is part of the goal, so i will be keepin em, the old "if ain't broke" theory I guess.

 

[tim290280]

Hey tim, what's your thoughts on the push/pull program?

That depends on how you do it. If you do it so that you are essentially doing a whole body routine, or an upper/lower style program then it can work well. Other wise the benefits of the program (balance around joints, thinking about antagonist movements) are lost. An example is when people do push/pull/legs, as they effectively neglecting their legs the same treatment that the upper body is recieving.

So as long as all muscles are thought of in a push/pull program they are pretty good.

 

[tim290280]

As i said just an alternative to give the Tri's a break before advancing to the next muscle group mainly. But to be honest I get a good pump out of them,and that is part of the goal, so i will be keepin em, the old "if ain't broke" theory I guess.

I'm just trying to get the knowledge out amoungst people. What they do with it is their prerogative. I just hope that it is seen for the good advice it is, and not just ignored because it is different from what is already being done.

 

[tim290280]

Interesting debate that has started about inner and outer chest on T-nation between some posters and Christian Thibaudeau, about an article he wrote on chest specialisation.
Original Poster;

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 response form Christian;

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?

another post he made;

I suggest that you read the review by Kawakami (2005) available in pdf format at:



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.''

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

All the things I have read support the original post that training inner and outer chest is a load of crap. I'll get the papers he is referencing and have a read (although I am snowed under with my own work at the moment). Anyone else read anything to support CT's arguments?

 

[Line]

All the things I have read support the original post that training inner and outer chest is a load of crap.

As have I. He does raise interesting notions regarding the continuity of muscle fibers and stress being placed on different areas of a muscle group. However, I'd like to see some more studies showing a significant improvement in hypertrophy in that area and if it can be targeted for said results, because I'm skeptical. As for "muscles not growing uniformily," I wouldn't be suprised if the inconsistancy of one individual's fibers in a muscle group that he spoke of has more to do with this than specific training itself.