30 replies to this topic

[TianZi]

The National Strength & Conditioning Association is one of the world's leading organizations performing & supporting research on strength conditioning issues. It advises governmental bodies and professional sports organizations, as well as devising fitness trainer certification programs.

http://www.nsca-lift.org/

If you spend sometime perusing the site, you can find links to some published NSCA studies on various issues (some of which are rather dense and technical for laymen such as myself, but well worth reading if the subject is of interest to you).

NSCA studies are frequently cited approvingly by US governmental bodies including the National Institute of Health.

FunkOdyssey asked me to provide a link to three NSCA position papers (condensing years of research into a format easily readable by laymen) I had handy, so here they are!

1. "Strength Training for Muscle Building"

http://www.nsca-lift..... Building.pdf

2. "Specificity"

[Covers different strength training programs for different goals: hypertrophy, muscular endurance, strength, power]

http://www.nsca-lift.....for Sport.pdf

3. "Single vs. Multiple Sets"

http://www.nsca-lift.....iple Sets.pdf

In my opinion, these three papers should be included in the Strength Training thread stickied at the top of this forum page, and probably deserve "top billing".

[niner]

Great papers. Thanks, TianZi. Looks like I'll be changing my workouts...

[Shepard]

To quote someone else:

Further complicating this matter is the sad fact that the academic exercise science community is also in the business of conventional wisdom. Biomechanics/kinesiology/exercise physiology/physical education has contented itself for many years with creatine studies and peer review of each other’s work. For example, Volume 20, number 4 of the NSCA’s Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research published a total of 42 papers, five (12%) of which list the editor-in-chief as a co-author, and 17 (40%) of which list associate editors (the ones doing the peer-reviewing) as authors, either singly or in groups. One associate editor is listed on five papers. Another associate editor has 11 of his 14 published papers (according to the National Library of Medicine’s catalog) published in the JSCR. The editor-in-chief has published 11 his past 25 authored or co-authored articles in this journal. This level of cronyism is not the norm for most reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, most of which are concerned less about the number of papers they publish and more about their quality and academic reputation.

Also, others that have access their journal have posted the following concluding remarks from articles:

From February 2008:

"No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface"

From December 2007:

"Research suggests that the squat, regardless of technique variation, produces minimal activity in hamstring muscles (long list of citation numbers). To ensure balanced leg training, it would be prudent to include hamstring-specific exercises, such as the leg curl and the stiff-leg deadlift, because they showed greater hamstring activity than the squat."

Now, both of these statements violate real-world observations. So, you've got to recognize the limitations of exercise studies.

[TianZi]

To quote someone else:

Further complicating this matter is the sad fact that the academic exercise science community is also in the business of conventional wisdom. Biomechanics/kinesiology/exercise physiology/physical education has contented itself for many years with creatine studies and peer review of each other's work. For example, Volume 20, number 4 of the NSCA's Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research published a total of 42 papers, five (12%) of which list the editor-in-chief as a co-author, and 17 (40%) of which list associate editors (the ones doing the peer-reviewing) as authors, either singly or in groups. One associate editor is listed on five papers. Another associate editor has 11 of his 14 published papers (according to the National Library of Medicine's catalog) published in the JSCR. The editor-in-chief has published 11 his past 25 authored or co-authored articles in this journal. This level of cronyism is not the norm for most reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, most of which are concerned less about the number of papers they publish and more about their quality and academic reputation.

Also, others that have access their journal have posted the following concluding remarks from articles:

From February 2008:

"No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface"

From December 2007:

"Research suggests that the squat, regardless of technique variation, produces minimal activity in hamstring muscles (long list of citation numbers). To ensure balanced leg training, it would be prudent to include hamstring-specific exercises, such as the leg curl and the stiff-leg deadlift, because they showed greater hamstring activity than the squat."

Now, both of these statements violate real-world observations. So, you've got to recognize the limitations of exercise studies.

The conclusions in the three position papers I linked are consistent with my extensive real world experiences lifting over a period of decades (for whatever that's worth), and most of the literature I've read from recognized fitness specialists. I don't know what body you consider more authoritative as regards strength conditioning.

If you've read the single set vs multiple set position paper linked above, you're aware of how the NSCA has taken a central role in debunking the "one set is as good for everyone as multiple sets" myth promulgated for decades by researchers and physicians who weren't fitness authorities, and who based their flawed conclusions on flawed testing methodology.This is a good example of how the NSCA translated weight room realities understood by all experienced lifters into research results widely accepted by academics (who may never have stepped into a weight room).

I can't speak to quotes posted by some other anonymous person that you then copied here which may or may not be accurate and for which we don't have context. The NSCA funds / sponsors hundreds of studies yearly, if not more. Some of these studies are quite small in scale, others quite large. The management of the NSCA may ultimately disagree with, or ignore results in, individual studies.

That's why the position papers make a better read, as they incorporate a meta-review of studies done under their auspices and by others around the world, over a period of years.

There may be some very valid criticisms that can and should be made regarding the NSCA as an organization--I don't know--but they can't fairly and logically be based on the quoted comments in your post.

Edited by TianZi, 28 April 2008 - 04:14 PM.

[Shepard]

I don't consider any body or group as the ultimate authority in strength training. I don't have any issues with the NSCA, I'm not a member. I posted the quote from a member of the NSCA, Mark Rippetoe. I have a high opinion of him, and think that almost everything he has said on the subject of strength and conditioning is right on the money and needed to be said. However, I don't agree with everything that he's said. He has a much higher opinion of Crossfit/Glassman than I do.

A couple of quotes from the first position paper:

"Approximately 8 to 10 exercises should be selected so that all the major muscle groups of the body are used."

"In order to gain one pound of muscle, an increased calorie balance of approximately 3,500 calories is needed."

The first is just a difference of opinion. You can hit the entire body in half that number of exercises, and I think it's preferable to use fewer exercises and more load, but that's me.

The second is just not accurate. They must be thinking of adipose tissue. Skeletal muscle is closer to 600.

The other two papers, I didn't see anything wrong with. It's pretty much standard stuff that was written by Siff and others long ago.

Edit: Don't take my posts as being negative. I just have issues with taking any organization as gospel. I think people should be able to see the big picture. I do appreciate you posting the links to the position papers.

Edited by shepard, 28 April 2008 - 04:33 PM.

[TianZi]

1. As far as the calorie thing goes, it seems roughly to hold true for many people, but not for all. It doesn't hold true for me, but I may be atypical.

2. "You can hit the entire body in half that number of exercises, and I think it's preferable to use fewer exercises and more load, but that's me."

Four or five exercises sufficient for optimal training of the entire body? No way. And my belief and experience is backed by the NSCA and many other prominent fitness specialists. NSCA's recommendation of at least 8 isn't enough to be optimal for an experienced lifter seeking full body hypertrophy.

The reason I strongly believe you're wrong is that even a slight variation in angle or form of resistance works a given muscle quite differently. There is some overlap in terms of gains when moving between exercises working the same muscle area, but it's far, far less than a 100% overlap. Read the NSCA papers and you'll find this explained with supporting studies cited (even to the extent of average percentage overlaps for exercises targetting the same muscle group). Or just experience it for yourself by trying an entirely new exercise for the chest, and comparing results with your typical routine.

Ex: There's a guy at my gym, Chris, who benches at least 445 pounds max--I've spotted him while he did a set of 3 at that weight with full range of motion. That's significantly more than I can do on the flat bench w/ a barbell. But on the incline bench dumbell press, he is only able to use 100's for 2 sets of 10 reps, and it's a struggle for him. I can do 3 or more sets of 10 with 105's. The reason for this is that he generally only does the flat barbell bench press for chest for 15 or more sets twice weekly; he only works 2 sets of dumb bell incline presses twice a month.

Given a choice between doing 16 sets of flat bench with a barbell, or 4 sets flat, 4 sets incline, 4 sets decline, and 4 sets flys, you will benefit much more with the mixed routine (provided you have attained a level of strength conditioning sufficient to handle that many sets).

If you can also work in cables, dumb bells, exercise balls, dual axis plate loaded machines, and some nautilus equipment (assuming you work the same muscle group twice a week), so much the better.

That's not to say you can't achieve impressive results just doing the flat bench w/ barbell for chest. But you'll achieve better results for chest as regards hypertrophy (not to mention strength, muscular endurance, power, etc.) with a varied work out. Again, this is backed by the NSCA, Men's Health, Men's Fitness, "The Governator" (Arnold), etc.

With that said, most people simply don't have time on a daily basis to do an ideal workout, and have to make the most of about 30 minutes. Personally, I spend 3 hours daily on the strength conditioning portion of my workout M, T, R, F, and about 2 hrs W & Sat. I'm fortunate to have the free time to do this.

Edited by TianZi, 29 April 2008 - 02:05 PM.

[Shepard]

As far as the calorie thing goes, it seems roughly to hold true for many people, but not for all. It doesn't hold true for me, but I may be atypical.

What does this mean? I was saying that they have adipose and skeletal muscle confused. The average energy content tossed out for adipose is 3500 Cal/lb. Skeletal muscle isn't as energy dense, it's ~600 Cal/lb.

The example you give is a good indication of what I'm talking about. You get better neural adaptation to a given exercise, if you focus on that exercise. Meaning, you'll be able to handle more weight. But, I'm not going to argue the point. Optimal training stuff has been argued for a long time and will continue to be argued.

[TianZi]

As far as the calorie thing goes, it seems roughly to hold true for many people, but not for all. It doesn't hold true for me, but I may be atypical.

What does this mean? I was saying that they have adipose and skeletal muscle confused. The average energy content tossed out for adipose is 3500 Cal/lb. Skeletal muscle isn't as energy dense, it's ~600 Cal/lb.

The example you give is a good indication of what I'm talking about. You get better neural adaptation to a given exercise, if you focus on that exercise. Meaning, you'll be able to handle more weight. But, I'm not going to argue the point. Optimal training stuff has been argued for a long time and will continue to be argued.

1. As far as precisely how many extra calories are required, I can't comment--frankly, I have no idea.

2. The neuromuscular component is discussed in one of the NSCA papers above. However, I believe this benefit is fairly quickly achieved and then levels off.

It isn't clear what precisely you mean by saying that 4 or 5 exercises for the entire body are "optimal." For what? For hypertrophy? For strength? Muscular endurance too? Power as well?

Even if you are only focusing on hypertrophy, where's your evidence? Has there ever been a Mr. Universe who did so little? Or who even did as little as the NSCA recommends as a minimum? Or do they tend to perform many more exercises at different angles of resistance?

If hypertrophy is the goal, hitting a muscle group at different angles should cause the muscle to shape differently than it would if only stressed at a single angle. Incline bench press should better shape the top of the pecs than the decline bench press, etc. A better example can be made using the triceps, which consists of three heads: "rolling" exercises predominantly work one head, "pressing" exercises another, etc. There is no one triceps exercise that will lead to optimal definition for all 3 heads of the triceps.

[Shepard]

2. The neuromuscular component is discussed in one of the NSCA papers above. However, I believe this benefit is fairly quickly achieved and then levels off.

You do get the bulk of the strength benefits quickly, but it's not an off or on type thing. Neural adaptations continue, but progress slows.

It isn't clear what precisely you mean by saying that 4 or 5 exercises for the entire body are "optimal." For what? For hypertrophy? For strength? Muscular endurance too? Power as well?

Their quote:

"Approximately 8 to 10 exercises should be selected so that all the major muscle groups of the body are used."

I said that you don't need that many exercises to hit all the major muscle groups. Back Squat. Bench. Clean & Press/Jerk, Farmer's Walks, Chins. That's pretty much the whole body.

Even if you are only focusing on hypertrophy, where's your evidence? Has there ever been a Mr. Universe who did so little? Or who even did as little as the NSCA recommends as a minimum? Or do they tend to perform many more exercises at different angles of resistance?

I couldn't tell you what most pros did to get there. I can tell you that a ton of drugs makes training fairly irrelevant. Look at Arnold's junk in The Education of a Bodybuilder. Certain people do well swith that kind of volume. A lot don't. I think the vast majority would do well with heavy training, though. It's how the body is designed to operate.

If hypertrophy is the goal, hitting a muscle group at different angles should cause the muscle to shape differently than it would if only stressed at a single angle. Incline bench press should better shape the top of the pecs than the decline bench press, etc. A better example can be made using the triceps, which consists of three heads: "rolling" exercises predominantly work one head, "pressing" exercises another, etc. There is no one triceps exercise that will lead to optimal definition for all 3 heads of the triceps.

Regarding incline vs. flat...of course you're going to get a better look. You're bringing the shoulders into the mix and you're increasing range of motion (and thus, work). I'm not going to get into shaping body parts, because that's a lot of bro-logic. A muscle operates the same way, no matter what angle you hit it from. There is only one way for it to contract. There are things like this throughout bodybuilding...expand the rib cage, peak the bicep, bring up the lower chest. I find it much more likely that people far from their genetic equilibrium began exercising and all of a sudden, things happened. They attributed it to the particular exercise instead of their genes.

[TianZi]

2. The neuromuscular component is discussed in one of the NSCA papers above. However, I believe this benefit is fairly quickly achieved and then levels off.

You do get the bulk of the strength benefits quickly, but it's not an off or on type thing. Neural adaptations continue, but progress slows.

It isn't clear what precisely you mean by saying that 4 or 5 exercises for the entire body are "optimal." For what? For hypertrophy? For strength? Muscular endurance too? Power as well?

Their quote:

"Approximately 8 to 10 exercises should be selected so that all the major muscle groups of the body are used."

I said that you don't need that many exercises to hit all the major muscle groups. Back Squat. Bench. Clean & Press/Jerk, Farmer's Walks, Chins. That's pretty much the whole body.

Even if you are only focusing on hypertrophy, where's your evidence? Has there ever been a Mr. Universe who did so little? Or who even did as little as the NSCA recommends as a minimum? Or do they tend to perform many more exercises at different angles of resistance?

I couldn't tell you what most pros did to get there. I can tell you that a ton of drugs makes training fairly irrelevant. Look at Arnold's junk in The Education of a Bodybuilder. Certain people do well swith that kind of volume. A lot don't. I think the vast majority would do well with heavy training, though. It's how the body is designed to operate.

If hypertrophy is the goal, hitting a muscle group at different angles should cause the muscle to shape differently than it would if only stressed at a single angle. Incline bench press should better shape the top of the pecs than the decline bench press, etc. A better example can be made using the triceps, which consists of three heads: "rolling" exercises predominantly work one head, "pressing" exercises another, etc. There is no one triceps exercise that will lead to optimal definition for all 3 heads of the triceps.

Regarding incline vs. flat...of course you're going to get a better look. You're bringing the shoulders into the mix and you're increasing range of motion (and thus, work). I'm not going to get into shaping body parts, because that's a lot of bro-logic. A muscle operates the same way, no matter what angle you hit it from. There is only one way for it to contract. There are things like this throughout bodybuilding...expand the rib cage, peak the bicep, bring up the lower chest. I find it much more likely that people far from their genetic equilibrium began exercising and all of a sudden, things happened. They attributed it to the particular exercise instead of their genes.

"Bro-logic." And your evidence for these claims is what, exactly? Your personal expert opinion? Apparently Men's Health, Men's Fitness, the NSCA, et. al., and all their sports medicine physicians and kinesiologists on staff, all suffer from bro-logic! And isn't that term kind of offensively racist, by the way?

There are numerous specific studies by the NSCA showing greater strength, hypertrophy etc. gains by working the same muscle group at different angles of resistance. But apparently, all of this research by folks with PhD's in relevant areas--which you don't have one of-- is contaminated by "bro-logic" and should be summarily disregarded. We should also disregard what the world's most successful bodybuilders do in the real world, because they also suffer from "bro-logic", and really, it isn't hard work to achieve their level of musculature, it's just a result of genetics combined with drugs (???).

Again, and just to make it simple, do you really believe that there is a single triceps exercise that will develop each of the three heads of the triceps as well as multiple exercises that target the different heads individually?

[Shepard]

I'm tired of trying to debating anything with you. Your argument begins and ends with what others have said.

[TianZi]

I'm tired of trying to debating anything with you. Your argument begins and ends with what others have said.

Of course it does. That is because I don't claim to be an expert authority on the subject. Objectively speaking, you aren't either, as is apparent from your profile. You have made broad, sweeping claims in this thread without citing supporting evidence from experts in the field. I can only assume you are unable to do so. I also strive not to use offensive labels to describe those who disagree with me, such as you have by dismissing my counter-arguments as founded only in "bro-logic".

A problem with your belief that a single type of exercise is sufficient to elicit optimal hypertrophy or strength gains within a given muscle group is that it conflicts with my understanding of the current consensus within the scientific community on this subject. Variation not only in volume/frequency/intensity, but also in exercise type for the same muscle group, has been shown in repeated studies to produce greater hypertrophy and strength gains for a given muscle group than a static exercise regimen, which you apparently favor.

Although you haven't made this explicit, you seem only concerned with training for increased muscle mass rather than training for increased strength or some other goal, so I'll try to limit discussion accordingly. There seems a key implicit assumption in your reasoning that changes in a particular skeletal muscle resulting from hypertrophy (or hyperplasia, which we haven't discussed) will be uniform throughout all fibers of that muscle regardless of the angle or type of resistance applied to that muscle. For this reason, you believe that no great hypertrophy gains will be realized through performing the bench press, or any other exercise for a particular muscle, at different angles; per your reasoning, there is therefore no possible greater hypertrophy benefit to performing both the incline bench press and flat bench press as opposed to the flat bench press alone.

But apparently this key assumption of yours isn't correct:

"... Studies have confirmed the existence of neuromuscular compartments (Wilson, 2003, An Unmatched Analysis of the Elbow Joint). One compartment is a "portion" of a muscle which is supplied by a particular nerve branch. This compartment contains, in many cases, motor units with distinct functions. Further, the number of muscle fibers in a neuromuscular compartment varies. Van Zuylen et al.(1988) explains by stating that, "Most muscles are not activated homogeneously; instead the population of motor units of muscles can be subdivided into several subpopulations (79)." These scientists further state that: "Inhomogeneous activation of the population of motor units in a muscle is a general finding and is not restricted to some multifunctional muscles (79)." The term inhomogeneous refers to differing activation. That is, all muscle fibers are not recruited for one task in a single muscle; rather, differing tasks can call a specific portion of a muscle into play. Van Zuylen et al.(1988) confirms the complexity of the issue by stating: "On the other hand, motor units in muscles are not necessarily activated if their mechanical action contributes to a prescribed torque. For example, there are motor units in the medlial biceps that are activated during flexion torques, but not during supination torques."

...


"In support of such protocols Segal (1992) wanted to see if the clear electrophysiological evidence that the human biceps brachii muscle is organized into functional neuromuscular compartments had an anatomical basis ... Here is a summary of their findings:

"The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was an anatomical basis for these compartments. Dissection of the biceps revealed both architectural and nerve branching pattern compartmentalization within the muscle. Although the biceps brachii is grossly subdivided into long and short heads, these heads are further subdivided into roughly parallel architectural compartments. Moreover, these architectural compartments usually receive a private nerve branch, thus supporting the notion that the human biceps brachii has neuromuscular compartments."

Brown (1993) conducted a study which was rightfully named, "Further evidence of functional differentiation within biceps brachii" They studied whether supination during various phases of flexion could activate different portions of the muscle. It was found that when the elbow joint was fully extended (or actually when extended below 90 degrees), that the long head of the biceps was more activated than the short head during supination movements, and the short head was more activated when the elbow was flexed past 120 degrees of flexion than the long head.

...
Romeny, van der Gon, and Gielen (1988) ... studied the long head of the biceps. In doing so, it was revealed that motor units in the lateral aspect of the muscle were specialized for flexion of the elbow joint, motor units located medially were activated for supination of the forearm, and motor units located in the center of the head were specialized for both movements superimposed on one another. ..."

List of studies cited for the above article, only portions of which I have copied here, are as follows:

1. Antonio, Jose (2000). Nonuniform Response of Skeletal Muscle to Heavy Resistance Training: Can Bodybuilders Induce Regional Muscle Hypertrophy? The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 102–113.

2. Windhorst, U., Hamm, T.M., & Stuart, D.G. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 629-682

3. van Zuylen EJ, Gielen CC, Denier van der Gon JJ Coordination and inhomogeneous activation of human arm muscles during isometric torques. J Neurophysiol. 1988 Nov;60(5):1523-48

4. Segal RL Neuromuscular compartments in the human biceps brachii muscle. Neurosci Lett. 1992 Jun 8;140(1):98-102.

5. English AW, Letbetter WD Anatomy and innervation patterns of cat lateral gastrocnemius and plantaris muscles Am J Anat. 1982 May;164(1):67-77.

6. Brown JM, Solomon C, Paton M Further evidence of functional differentiation within biceps brachii Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 Jul-Aug;33(5):301-9

7. Herrmann U, Flanders M. Directional tuning of single motor units J Neurosci. 1998 Oct 15;18(20):8402-16.

8. Weeks OI, English AW. Compartmentalization of the cat lateral gastrocnemius motor nucleus. J Comp Neurol. 1985 May 8;235(2):255-67.

9. Willett GM, Hyde JE, Uhrlaub MB, Wendel CL, Karst GM. 2001. Relative activity of abdominal muscles during commonly prescribed strengthening exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Nov;15(4):480-5.

The original article from which the above was copied is located here:

http://www.abcbodybu...uebuilding2.htm

I don't know if the author of the article possesses any professional or academic credentials making him an independent authority on the subject (I doubt it); however, his quotations and citations seem accurate, and it is sufficient to me that he is apparently parroting the conclusions reached by persons who are recognized experts.

I do have to say that all of the above evidence for neuromuscular partitioning and compartmentalization doesn't conclusively make my case that there is a definite additional hypertrophy benefit from performing specifically, for example, both the incline and flat bench press. That would require knowledge of what the specific neuromuscular compartments are within a given muscle, and what task / angle / type of resistance is required to elicit the maximal hypertrophy response from each.

(As a final footnote that doesn't neatly fit above, studies have shown that the greatest hypertrophy benefits result from working a particular muscle at not just one, but varying intensities, i.e., not only in the 10-12 rep range, but also 4-6, and 12-15. The apparent reason for this is that different types of muscle fibers are recruited to different degrees at different instensities; for example, approximately 1/3 of the fibers in a given muscle ("Type II-B", I believe) are under recruited except at very high intensities--the 5-rep-to-exhaustion range. However, it does seem that if you only perform sets at a given rep / intensity range, the best for hypertrophy is 10-12, due probably to the greater GH released at that range than at other ranges.)

[Shepard]

Just to make my position clear to others:

The term muscle is used a lot above, but muscle should be distinguished from muscle group.
I'm all for various "angled" exercises, but not for the reasons TianZi has mentioned.
I never stated that's it's optimal to limit training to five exercises. I do think you should focus on around five and build the rest off of them, though.
"Bro-logic" is a phrase used to describe ideas cooked up by bodybuilders who have never read a textbook. They call each other "bro" often. Hence, the "bro-logic".

[TianZi]

Just to make my position clear to others:

The term muscle is used a lot above, but muscle should be distinguished from muscle group.
I'm all for various "angled" exercises, but not for the reasons TianZi has mentioned.
I never stated that's it's optimal to limit training to five exercises. I do think you should focus on around five and build the rest off of them, though.
"Bro-logic" is a phrase used to describe ideas cooked up by bodybuilders who have never read a textbook. They call each other "bro" often. Hence, the "bro-logic".

You contemptuously dismissed as "bro-logic" the hypothesis that stressing a muscle at different angles provides greater hypertrophy / strength benefits, yet the studies I referenced in my last post provide strong evidence that the "bro's", which I guess includes me, were on to something. If we were to discuss law and the practice thereof, I would strive never to "talk down" to you and imply that you personally had never "cracked a textbook", as people cannot be experts in everything, or even especially knowledgeable about more than a limited number of subjects.

Your assumption that one exercise is sufficient for optimal hypertrophy of each muscle, or group of muscles for a multi-joint exercise, is evidently incorrect in light of said evidence of neuromuscular compartmentalization, which you have ignored in your latest post.

[Shepard]

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm talking about hypertrophy. For what I'm talking about, hypertrophy is a side-effect, not a goal.

Other than that, I don't think you're understand what I'm saying, or what you've quoted. If you've got something specific to ask me to back up, I'll try. But, if you're not willing to step back and think about how the body evolved to operate, I can't do anything for you. I would recommend picking up this book. I don't have that edition, but it should be even better than the older ones.

[TianZi]

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm talking about hypertrophy. For what I'm talking about, hypertrophy is a side-effect, not a goal.

Other than that, I don't think you're understand what I'm saying, or what you've quoted. If you've got something specific to ask me to back up, I'll try. But, if you're not willing to step back and think about how the body evolved to operate, I can't do anything for you. I would recommend picking up this book. I don't have that edition, but it should be even better than the older ones.

1. Actually, you never mentioned in this thread what training goal was being best served by 4 or 5 exercises for the entire body, despite my asking a couple of times. I guessed hypertrophy since you've discussed your experiences with GVT in other threads; isn't that your regimen?

2. The implications of neuromuscular compartmentalization seem very simple as regards the issue we've debated here. Even a 'bro" such as myself can comprehend them.

You can't stress all fibers in a given muscle (or at least those muscles with neuromuscular compartments like the ones described in the examples) using a single exercise. As shown in the quoted text in the above post, certain fibers in specified muscles, such as the biceps in the examples above, are only recruited when stressed at certain angles / directions. Muscle fibers that aren't recruited in an exercise won't adapt to stress by growing stronger or bigger (or dividing to create new fibers through hyperplasia). Nonuniform hypertrophy may result.

So it doesn't seem I need to ask you anything about it. If you'd like to explain why the conclusions in the studies quoted above do not contradict your earlier posts here, and in what essential way my understanding of them is flawed, please do so.

The purpose of these posts isn't to have a pissing match. It should be educating ourselves and others. This can best be done by avoiding stating ultimate conclusions without support and/or splitting hairs over usage of technical jargon. Inflammatory generalizations also aren't helpful.

[Shepard]

If you'd like to explain why the conclusions in the studies quoted above do not contradict your earlier posts here, and in what essential way my understanding of them is flawed, please do so.

You're trying to apply an idea about muscle activation within a group at angles within the natural ROM of that group to the idea that hitting an individual muscle at various angles will lead to better hypertrophy. The pectoralis major is what is responsible for the shape of the chest. It only knows one way to fire.

Edit: After rereading everything, I think I see where we're talking past each other. I'm not sure the best way to correct it. Imagine an Olympic press. This is engaging the arms at their full ROM and engages a large chunk of muscle. Move the weight down and you begin shortening the ROM of the bar. What you're talking about above with biceps would be similar to a board press. You change the range of motion within the movement to target what you want, but that doesn't mean you're not getting activation in a full-ROM movement. You just bypass weak points.

Edited by shepard, 01 May 2008 - 12:52 AM.

[TianZi]

If you'd like to explain why the conclusions in the studies quoted above do not contradict your earlier posts here, and in what essential way my understanding of them is flawed, please do so.

You're trying to apply an idea about muscle activation within a group at angles within the natural ROM of that group to the idea that hitting an individual muscle at various angles will lead to better hypertrophy. The pectoralis major is what is responsible for the shape of the chest. It only knows one way to fire.

Edit: After rereading everything, I think I see where we're talking past each other. I'm not sure the best way to correct it. Imagine an Olympic press. This is engaging the arms at their full ROM and engages a large chunk of muscle. Move the weight down and you begin shortening the ROM of the bar. What you're talking about above with biceps would be similar to a board press. You change the range of motion within the movement to target what you want, but that doesn't mean you're not getting activation in a full-ROM movement. You just bypass weak points.

I did say that the research I'd quoted didn't show anything specific about any muscles except the ones specifically mentioned in those quotes, although one such conclusion was that such results were "generally applicable" to all muscles.

The pectoralis major was not a muscle mentioned specifically in any of the quoted conclusions from studies I posted. However, if most / all muscles have neuromuscular compartments, with individual muscle fibers in each muscle associated with certain neuromuscular compartments but not others, it seems reasonable to conclude that the pectoralis major does as well, meaning that your statement that "[the pectoralis major] only knows one way to fire" may very well be wrong. That statement certainly isn't true for any of the muscles named in the quoted studies--that's the whole point of those studies!

I think your point was that despite the existence of these neuromuscular compartments regulating muscle fiber activation within a muscle on a "task" specific basis, any weightlifting exercise that stresses a given muscle, performed in a full range of motion (concentric and eccentric, the "positive"and "negative" movements ), will nonetheless stress all of the task-specific muscle fibers in that muscle. I think that conclusion, as applied to each muscle, is not supported by this research--it seems an unsupported leap of faith.

With that said, it could be that the incline bench press and standard flat bench press (performed to a full range of motion) recruit muscle fibers correlating to identical neuromuscular compartments of the pectoralis major muscle--I don't know--in which case you'd ultimately be right that there is no added benefit in performing both exercises in terms of portions of pectoralis major muscle subject to hypertrophy. However, until we can view some studies specifically mapping the neuromuscular compartments in the pectoralis major and how they in turn are activated by different "tasks", it seems reasonable to conclude that we have a greater chance of stressing all muscle fibers in that muscle through doing more than a single exercise that targets it.

At the very least, those studies show that for specific muscles, a single exercise is unlikely to stress all muscle fibers in that muscle, and your recommendation of a single exercise for that body part would also not be ideal, assuming unlimited training time. With that said, many people have very limited training time, and may only have enough time per session to perform one exercise per muscle.

Edited by TianZi, 01 May 2008 - 08:22 AM.

[TianZi]

"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."

That's the conclusion from this study:

"Nonuniform Response of Skeletal Muscle to Heavy Resistance Training: Can Bodybuilders Induce Regional Muscle Hypertrophy?"

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 102–113.

Shephard, you must concede that this conclusion does not support the argument you have made (to put it mildly), which was:

"I'm not going to get into shaping body parts, because that's a lot of bro-logic. A muscle operates the same way, no matter what angle you hit it from. There is only one way for it to contract."

Edited by TianZi, 01 May 2008 - 09:33 AM.

[ajnast4r]

on staff, all suffer from bro-logic! And isn't that term kind of offensively racist, by the way?

[Shepard]

Shephard, you must concede that this conclusion does not support the argument you have made (to put it mildly), which was:

I don't even know where this topic has gone or what we're debating now. While I think I'm still having trouble getting you to understand what I'm trying to say, I can never discount the possibility that I'm an idiot.

[TianZi]

Shephard, you must concede that this conclusion does not support the argument you have made (to put it mildly), which was:

I don't even know where this topic has gone or what we're debating now. While I think I'm still having trouble getting you to understand what I'm trying to say, I can never discount the possibility that I'm an idiot.

If you agree with the following quoted statement, we have no further debate:

"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."

Do you agree with that statement in its entirety, or not?

Edited by TianZi, 02 May 2008 - 05:58 AM.

[Shepard]

Can you get the full texts from those articles published in the NSCA's journal?

I want to see if muscle vs. muscle group is differentiated and if loading is considered.

And, I'll agree with this statement if you add "group" to the end:

"No single exercise can maximize the hypertrophic response of all regions of a particular muscle."

My original statement was that you can hit all the major muscle groups in the body with five exercises or so. I still hold that to be true, provided loading is sufficient. I'm not talking about bodybuilding, and I wouldn't apply this statement to that type of training.

Edited by shepard, 02 May 2008 - 02:01 PM.

[TianZi]

Can you get the full texts from those articles published in the NSCA's journal?

I want to see if muscle vs. muscle group is differentiated and if loading is considered.

And, I'll agree with this statement if you add "group" to the end:

"No single exercise can maximize the hypertrophic response of all regions of a particular muscle."

My original statement was that you can hit all the major muscle groups in the body with five exercises or so. I still hold that to be true, provided loading is sufficient. I'm not talking about bodybuilding, and I wouldn't apply this statement to that type of training.

Thanks for the post. Judging from the abstract, the author of that study isn't talking about muscle groups, but individual muscles.

Now as regards getting the full text of that study, and other NSCA studies, I wish I could. I haven't been a student for a long time, so I can't simply visit the university library. I am considering getting an NSCA membership that would allow me to review the full text of articles such as this. Right now, I can only review the online abstract for this and other NSCA studies. This is unfortunate, as previously (1+ year ago) the full text of a number of NSCA studies was available to the public.

A membership would allow me, for example, to see what specific muscles were examined in this study, what neuromuscular regions were identified in each of those muscles, and what particular exercises were identified that stressed muscle fibers in each such region. This in turn would allow me to be certain I was incorporating sufficient exercises for that muscle to fully stress all fibers in it (I might cut some exercises, and add others).

I'd also be able to follow up on the 18 or so published articles which cited this one (well, at least the NSCA ones), and make sure they didn't challenge its findings. As far as I can see from the online abstracts, the later studies which cited this one did not challenge it, and some built upon its findings.

If I do get a membership, I'll review the full text of this article and summarize the important portions of it in this thread.

Edited by TianZi, 13 May 2008 - 09:00 AM.

[porthose]

Shephard, you must concede that this conclusion does not support the argument you have made (to put it mildly), which was:

I don't even know where this topic has gone or what we're debating now. While I think I'm still having trouble getting you to understand what I'm trying to say, I can never discount the possibility that I'm an idiot.

If you agree with the following quoted statement, we have no further debate:

"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."

Do you agree with that statement in its entirety, or not?

to my mind, i think the statement above is weird to say the least. i can imagine someone performing dumbbell front raises and then working every angle from the front to the side in the horizontal plane in order to 'maximally' hit the deltoid. weird when in reality if you want strong deltoids the simple standing military press done correctly will induce growth and more importantly strength.

but then again the above statement only relates to bodybuilders who are the type of people looking for hypertrophy. and hypertrophy only works when a muscle is trained to failure and this of course doesn't mean that the muscle is strong. look to shepards other post where he presented some figures on sets and reps and %RMS for strength, power, hypertrophy and endurance.

my goal has always been about strength and athletic ability and this can only be achieved by utilising the olympic lifts period and a few other ecletic style lifts hehehe.

[TianZi]

Shephard, you must concede that this conclusion does not support the argument you have made (to put it mildly), which was:

I don't even know where this topic has gone or what we're debating now. While I think I'm still having trouble getting you to understand what I'm trying to say, I can never discount the possibility that I'm an idiot.

If you agree with the following quoted statement, we have no further debate:

"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."

Do you agree with that statement in its entirety, or not?

to my mind, i think the statement above is weird to say the least. i can imagine someone performing dumbbell front raises and then working every angle from the front to the side in the horizontal plane in order to 'maximally' hit the deltoid. weird when in reality if you want strong deltoids the simple standing military press done correctly will induce growth and more importantly strength.

but then again the above statement only relates to bodybuilders who are the type of people looking for hypertrophy. and hypertrophy only works when a muscle is trained to failure and this of course doesn't mean that the muscle is strong. look to shepards other post where he presented some figures on sets and reps and %RMS for strength, power, hypertrophy and endurance.

my goal has always been about strength and athletic ability and this can only be achieved by utilising the olympic lifts period and a few other ecletic style lifts hehehe.

Performing different exercises that target the same muscle isn't beneficial only as regards hypertrophy, but also as regards functional strength.

As far as functional strength in your shoulders goes, you'll see the most benefit from doing the standard 45 lb. barbell military press when doing ... the standard 45 lb. barbell military press. However, you will see a good overlap when performing other motions requiring shoulder strength which require the same basic motion (a press straight upwards using both hands).

But as regards a side raise, doing dumbbell fly's, etc. will help much more than the military press. The same holds true for your other muscles--a particular weight room exercise boosts functional strength most for real world tasks that most closely mimic that exercise. It's for this reason that major league baseball players striving to improve batting power now perform the "woodman's chop" 2-hand cable exercise with the pulley at shoulder level, while pro golfers should get the best benefit from doing the same exercise but with the pulley at ground level.

But the majority of people don't have the interest or time to train each and every muscle to the optimal extent for strength and hypertrophy gains, so a much more limited regimen incorporating a few multi-joint exercises might be best for the average person (with a few months of prior strength training under his/her belt). However, weightlifting exercises such as those performed in the Olympics are quite dangerous in the long term unless performed with perfect form every time, and with great caution as regards the weight used.

Further, ensuring balanced development of all of your muscles by doing a wide variety of exercises may provide the best protection against injuries that can occur due to imbalanced development (a typical cause of shoulder and back injuries for those who only perform the bench press, with the risk increasing as the weight used increases and as the gap grows in relative strength between muscles, to name but one example).

Edited by TianZi, 16 May 2008 - 09:41 AM.

[porthose]

Tianzi, there is no mystery to functional strength. functional strength is all about how much weight you can lift off the ground, how much weight you can raise over head and how far you can carry it. that's really it.

you have confused the difference between targeting a muscle with different exercises which implies different angles (as in bodybuilding) to what it takes to actually develop functional strength.

and to make the claim that olympic lifting is dangerous is ludicrous to say the least. in fact, the opposite is true and beginners SHOULD start their training with those exercises. they will develop (there's the operative word again) functional strength, agility, flexibility, explosive power and a terrific fusion of the body and mind. they will NOT develop an imbalance in muscle groups because when training in these lifts, the concept of muscle groups ceases to exist because the body is used as one piece, not a collection of body parts. and in fact, if you quiz those that do train all the different exercises/angles of a muscle group, don't be too surprised to learn that most have had or are suffering an injury usually FROM imballances caused by this type of training and in addition, training to failure.

the worst thing to have happened to the iron game is the development of bodybuilding and statements like those above from the NSCA clearly target bodybuilding, as in 'this is superior training'. like i said previously bodybuilding or working a muscle group with different exercises/angles results in a different look to one who is looking to develop functional strength. the two simply don't jell.

and quoting Shepard in another thread, the American Weight Lifting team stopped winning simply because they dropped the big athletic type lifts from their syllabus. what a shame...

you should read several books on the subject of athletic type lifting or olympic lifting like Tommy Komo or Patrick O'Shea or visit the following sites below. you should even look into Pavel Tsatsouline's books and DVDs on the development of strength. might open your eyes a little....

www.mikemahler.com
www.fullkontact.com
www.cbass.com
www.strongerman.com

[TianZi]

"Functional strength" refers to the ability to perform activities requiring the exertion of strength outside a controlled environment (such as a weightroom); different people have different functional strength requirements depending on the type of tasks they regularly must perform. And different tasks require developing strength for that task in different ways.

I do agree that performing Olympic style lifts can be a very effective way to develop strength. But they should only be performed by experienced lifters who have been taught to do the exercises with perfect form.

Olympic style lifts like the "clean and jerk" are among the most dangerous lifts a beginner can perform (especially the ending "jerk"), if performed with a weight that challenges the lifter.

Here's a link to a video showing what can happen when the clean and jerk is performed less than perfectly (knee injury, in this case):



Proper technique for the lift is not simple, and each stage of the lift is a power move that must be performed very quickly. If performed with less than perfect technique with a "heavy" weight, the risk of injury is very high. It's very difficult to even spot a person doing this, unlike other free weight exercises like the bench press or military press. Nautilus machines are at the opposite end of the spectrum, as far as safety is concerned.

If you think that's a "ludicrous" opinion, that's fine. I'm certainly in good company, since the mainstream fitness literature aimed at the "average guy" shares this view.

I watched my father, an experienced lifter, rupture a disk in his back demonstrating the clean and jerk when I was a child; it took him literally years to recover. I think it's dangerous to recommend these type of exercises as suitable for novice lifters.

I'm curious as to the amount you personally can clean and jerk, your age and how long you've been doing this type of lift, and if you have a video you'd like to post showing you doing this.

As regards my prior post, I have simply related how many professional trainers today train professional athletes for their sport. They have these athletes perform strength exercises that most closely mimic the motions they will use in their particular sport, which is the best way to develop functional strength that improves their athletic performance outside the weight room. That's why, e.g., pro golfers who do weight train are more likely to do a low-to-high cable woodchop than a clean and jerk.

You mentioned something about the "American weight lifting team" doing poorly these days because they have dropped Olympic lifts "from their syllabus". I assume you are referring to the American team of weight lifting professionals who compete in international weight lifting competitions such as the Olympics, and who perform lifts at these competitions such as the "clean and jerk". Of course these individuals incorporate as part of their training the precise lift in practice they need to perform in competitions; if you are implying otherwise, I think you may be confused. But more to the point, I'm not sure what relevance this has to our discussion, since presumably no one using this forum participates in such competitions. For us, weight training is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

(P.S.: I checked every website you linked in your post, and each simply represents the views of the individual person owning that website (which aren't even easy to find without first wading through a sea of products they are trying to sell). I think we have a fundamental disagreement about how to judge the value of source material. I regard as more more reliable the views of the NSCA and other similar organizations than subjective personal opinions posted on random websites.)

Edited by TianZi, 20 May 2008 - 05:58 AM.

[Shepard]

Here's a link to a video showing what can happen when the clean and jerk is performed less than perfectly (knee injury, in this case):

This is not a clean and jerk. It's a snatch attempt. You can find similar videos of people dropping weight on their necks in the bench press, falling forward with weight on their necks in the squat, etc. The truth is that a lot of people are not very bright these days, and that translates to the weight room. The Olympic lifts were the only options in the days before power racks and such, and many people got strong without hurting themselves.

You mentioned something about the "American weight lifting team" doing poorly these days because they have dropped Olympic lifts "from their syllabus".

He was quoting me from another thread. As a sport, weightlifting = Olympic lifting, as opposed to powerlifting or bodybuilding. The term has just been used often enough that "weight lifting" now equals anything in a gym. And by strength lifts, I was talking about things like the low-bar back squat and deadlift, as opposed to the power lifts or quick lifts...which would be the competition lifts.

Edited by shepard, 20 May 2008 - 05:01 PM.

[TianZi]

[/quote]

This is not a clean and jerk. It's a snatch attempt. You can find similar videos of people dropping weight on their necks in the bench press, falling forward with weight on their necks in the squat, etc. The truth is that a lot of people are not very bright these days, and that translates to the weight room. The Olympic lifts were the only options in the days before power racks and such, and many people got strong without hurting themselves.


[/quote]

Quite right! Typo. I'm constantly typing one thing while meaning another these days. May need to increase my dose of vinpocetine and gingko; sad. Just caught myself saying "love-lived mice" rather than "long-lived mice" in a different thread. Brain seems to be shutting down at 39 years of age.

Anyway, both the snatch and clean-and-jerk are fairly dangerous lifts that aren't appropriate for the novice lifter. As far as I'm concerned, the seated free weight military press with a 45 lb. barbell (itself much safer than either of said Olympic lifts) is already too dangerous with a weight that challenges me ( 225 lbs. for 10, or 250 for 5) unless I have a good spotter--a shift of a few inches in the wrong direction and my shoulder is toast, once again. That's why I train with a partner, but that wouldn't help with the Olympic lifts.