In a nutshell, any study is only as good as the study parameters themselves, especially when it comes to data collection. Testing methods/strategies are decided on (room for error), data is collected (room for error), findings are interpreted (room for error), and study conclusions are reported (room for error). That's where the controversy comes into play: some studies will show one thing while other studies will show the opposite, both examining the same subject but with very different methodologies or specificity.
Thanks for the detailed reply....appreciate it.
Makes sense. Actually - as quick aside on this topic of ' study design ' - I've often wondered about this issue of ' study design ' in the context of how many grams of protein a gym rat needs to ' optimize ' muscle growth....perhaps another ' myth ' topic.
Going back quite a few years, Dr. Lemon suggested that intakes of over 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight may not be warranted by evidence he had looked at. You mention that Lemon and the ACSM etc. etc. seem to endorse this 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight as being ' optimal ' even today and guys who scarf down boatloads of protein every day dismiss this guideline ( usually as understated ) as bad or outdated science. It's funny how the HIIT studies - i.e Tabata and Tremblay - never seem to be subjected to the same degree of skepticism in forums like these as protein studies seem to.
I look forward to the day when they expand on the work of Dr. Lemon's and others with more robust studies that focus on different study parameters of ' data collection. testing methods/strategies ' - such as studying the various protein intakes of bodybuilders and gym rats over the long term to see if has any significant impact on muscle growth and to perhaps lessen the controversy a bit.
How any one individual then decides what studies are relevant and which studies were flawed will have a direct impact on whether you believe that different areas of muscle can be activated over others, or whether you believe that a muscle acts as one unique entity. Then there are issues, as you mentioned, of whether or not this might even make a difference in terms of strength and/or hypertrophy. The best example that comes to mind is the subject of the vastus medialis oblique (vmo), a specific bundle of fibers within the vastus medialis (longus) of your quads (the "teardrop" of the inner thigh)...this subject can have a significant impact on rehabilitation strategies in patellar tracking and chondromalacia treatment because it is these fibers that attach and have a direct line of pull on the patella itself. Some studies show preferential activation of the vmo at certain knee angles while others don't. Some show preferential activation at different degrees of foot positioning, while others show no difference. And this is a MAJOR area of interest, not a minor subject!
Sorry, but I'm afraid most of the anatomy / physio references went over my head.
Nonetheless, it
seems you are saying that whether the degree of activation of muscled fibers in given muscle changes or not - based on which exercise you use - is still open for debate ? Did I get that right ?
And , lets use major pec muscle as an example, even if exercise " X " activates 90% of the fibers in that pec muscle and exercise " Y " activates 80 % of the fibers ...the inferences pertaining to these differences as to whether or not these %'s make a difference in terms of strength and/or hypertrophy is another open question.
Perhaps I'm interpreting your comment too simply or incorrectly..let me know if I am.
I'd say that Bompa's work is still very relevant today...he really was the father of modern EMG...at the same time, however, new techniques of data collecting make his work the Gold standard that all other emg studies are compared to, but not necessarily the best at this point in every single case. Having said that, he still has contributed an enormous amount of data to the field, and our understanding of muscle physiology and biomechanics would be in the "dark ages" without his work...imo
btw - I'm not sure if Bompa is still there, but when he published some of his training books , he was a prof at a university about an hour from me , so I first heard about him when training some hockey players at his university.
I guess I've always wanted to simply get a handle on how an average gym rat might look at some of the EMG info Bompa published in his book and use it toward improving their routine in the gym. In other words, what is the ' real life ' gym application or relevance of Bompa's work to the average gym rat who is heading to the gym later today. Or put another way, what is the ' take away ' message gym rats should have from Bompa's work - I've never been clear on that.
For example, a gym rat might have a list of 8 chest exercises that in which Bompa shows various levels of muscle fiber stimulation - some with differences of only a couple of %. Does a gym rat really gain any sort of edge in cherry picking among these 8 exercises ?
Welcome your thoughts.
