Weight Training Myths

Two more myths that I found from a site

I have to workout for hours a day.
These workout routines lead to over training; the body cannot recover sufficiently between workouts for real muscular growth to occur. These routines will only work for steroid users. Workouts should last 45 minutes maximum.

Too old to start lifting weights.
Studies reported in Science News showed that people in their seventies and eighties who began a weight training program showed significant gains in muscle size and strength. Some of the participants in the study who could scarcely walk before the program began could walk easily after the program.
 
I provide a link to support my position (right or wrong) and you present nothing. That in it self speaks volumes........................

you presented an article with some random guy saying you can shape muscles, that random guy had no agruments for it, no scientific data to back it up, nothing, he just said it. Its as if i would say elephants can fly.
the only way you can "shape" a muscle is to use different exercises that emphasize different heads of the muscle.

heres an article that supports the shaping of muslce:
TESTOSTERONE NATION - Made to Order Muscle

See Street workout, this article actually has some refferences, instead of just a random guy saying something. Wasnt that hard to find either.
 
.the sternal head gets less activation during an incline bench, which gives the illusion that incline works the upper chest more. If a person stuck solely to flat bench, and had a clone who stuck solely to incline, the flat bencher would have bigger pectoral muscles overall, but the incline bencher would have more equal development because the clavicular and sternal would grow at a closer rate.

Both parts are joined by the same tendon to the upper arm. A tendon can take only tension, no compression or shear (sideways) force, so the upper arm can only be moved by the pec in the one direction that tendon is facing.
 
Any exercise which works the pectorals will work the entire length of the muscle, because the muscle's origin is the sternum and the insertion point is the humerus. There is no point in between which the muscle can anchor to, so any tension generated will pull the entire length of the fiber.

sorry to bump in but i think street has a point :)

Im not sure what the whole shaping thing is about unless someone wants to define it. But Since the Pecs, sorry buzz but the insertion is also on the clavicle medially, which consists of two different directed fibres, allows different exercises to focus more on a particular one.

And by the way im not saying you can isolate it either. Try this with your arm out straight, with your hand over the table push down, this causes the lower pecs to be visibly palpated. Now the same thing but with your hand under the table and push up, keeping your arm straught again, notice the different palpations?
 
Last edited:
you presented an article with some random guy saying you can shape muscles, that random guy had no agruments for it, no scientific data to back it up, nothing, he just said it. Its as if i would say elephants can fly.
the only way you can "shape" a muscle is to use different exercises that emphasize different heads of the muscle.

This is exactly what I am saying. Of course a muscle can't be shaped like a piece of clay, but different fiber of a muscle can be isolated and accented more than others, i.e. making the top of the chest bigger than the bottom. I have personally done this and watched others follow my lead doing it also. Thank you for being mature and posting a link though, but with what you just said we are saying the same thing just in different ways.
 
i dont know if the chest has different heads, i was thinking like the triceps has 3 heads. You can shape your quad, because its really sevral different muscles..

and if you can isolate different muscle fibers to grow, i wouldnt really count it as shaping, since you dont know which part of your muscle the fibers are, its random. So you can say "ill do high reps and that part will grow" so its not shaping, its just growing and no one knows how their muscle will grow.
 
i dont know if the chest has different heads, i was thinking like the triceps has 3 heads. You can shape your quad, because its really sevral different muscles..
The clavicular head ("upper chest"), the sternal or sternocostal head, and some anatomists (I agree) consider a 3rd seperation, the abdominal head ("lower chest"). Because they take origins at different positions on the sternum, different arm positioning will cause different neuromuscular activation and firing order...in fact, the muscle can oppose itself in movement slightly depending on the arm position: the clavicular head contributes to arm flexion (think front dumbbell raises) and the abdominal head can contribute slightly to arm extension (think pullovers). Although muscles like the triceps and quads also have different heads, "isolating" one part (of course, this doesn't really happen, but you can certainly favor one area of another) is more difficult and not without controversy in the literature (EMG studies).
 
The clavicular head ("upper chest"), the sternal or sternocostal head, and some anatomists (I agree) consider a 3rd seperation, the abdominal head ("lower chest"). Because they take origins at different positions on the sternum, different arm positioning will cause different neuromuscular activation and firing order...in fact, the muscle can oppose itself in movement slightly depending on the arm position: the clavicular head contributes to arm flexion (think front dumbbell raises) and the abdominal head can contribute slightly to arm extension (think pullovers). Although muscles like the triceps and quads also have different heads, "isolating" one part (of course, this doesn't really happen, but you can certainly favor one area of another) is more difficult and not without controversy in the literature (EMG studies).

Curious.

Is the ' controversy ' limited to the EMG studies themselves ( Bompa ? ) and might it be centered around the questions of whether enhanced muscle fiber recruitment means enhanced hypertrophy, or enhanced recruitment muscle fiber recruitment means enhanced strength - what is the ' controversy ' exactly ?

I recall seeing some of the EMG readings by exercise that Bompa did some years ago and noticed ( in most cases ) his EMG readings didn't vary all that much. So, I often wondered to what extent his work was seen as relevant to the average gym rat who is deciding which chest exercise gives him the best ' bang for the buck ' as it where.

As the years have gone by, does this EMG work he did still seem to be of a any value in the literature in your view ?

Welcome your thoughts.
 
Curious.

Is the ' controversy ' limited to the EMG studies themselves ( Bompa ? ) and might it be centered around the questions of whether enhanced muscle fiber recruitment means enhanced hypertrophy, or enhanced recruitment muscle fiber recruitment means enhanced strength - what is the ' controversy ' exactly ?

I recall seeing some of the EMG readings by exercise that Bompa did some years ago and noticed ( in most cases ) his EMG readings didn't vary all that much. So, I often wondered to what extent his work was seen as relevant to the average gym rat who is deciding which chest exercise gives him the best ' bang for the buck ' as it where.

As the years have gone by, does this EMG work he did still seem to be of a any value in the literature in your view ?

Welcome your thoughts.

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. 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!

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
 
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. :confused:

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.
 
Last edited:
from bryan haycock

Using EMG to determine how effective an exercise is

EMG reflects the level of "electrical" activation of the muscle. As such it is a good indicator of how hard a muscle is contracting. However, it isn't perfect. Having done EMG research myself while in school (Ex phys labs) I know that there are inherent weaknesses to the methods. Nevertheless, if you want to know how much electrical activity is going on in a muscle (or at least a certain part of that muscle), EMG is the best we've got.

In a very real sense, EMG is a result of voluntary effort. So, the harder you try to contract the muscle, the greater EMG activity you will see, regardless of how heavy it is. This brings in a great deal of between-subject, and between-trial error in measurements.

EMG is also greatly affected by practice or coordination. A person who is not well practiced at a given exercise will often display erratic EMG read outs.

Fatigue also changes EMG readouts. The more fatigue there is, the greater the EMG amplitude.

Keep in mind as well that during eccentric contractions, EMG amplitude goes down significantly, yet at the same time, the eccentric portion of an exercise presents a greater stimulus for growth than the concentric portion.

EMG as a tool specifically relating to bodybuilding (muscle growth) is not an accurate indicator of the efficacy of a given exercise to induce growth. The efficacy of any exercise is determined by the load, the duration, and the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied.

For the lats, the load is limited by your strength level and degree of stretch during loading. The duration is limited by your “strength-endurance”, and time in the stretched position. The condition of the muscle is determined by what you have done with your lats in the last 6 weeks or so.

So, speaking in general (i.e. simplified) and acute (i.e. one training session) terms, the heavier any lat exercise becomes, the more effective it will become. The more volume you do at that weight, the more effective that session will be. The greater the stretch experienced by the lat and the longer you hold it, the more effective that exercise will be. And finally, the longer its been since you trained your lats, the more effective that session will be.

On a personal note, nothing has been as effective as the weighted eccentric chins/pull-ups at the end of an HST cycle for putting on real thickness on my lats.

- Bryan
 
from bryan haycock

Who the heck is " bryan haycock "

Please provide a ' link ' showing where you copied all that text from.

Now what about your view on EMG.

In your view - 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 ?
 
Last edited:
Who the heck is " bryan haycock "

Please provide a ' link ' showing where you copied all that text from.

Now what about your view on EMG.

In your view - 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 ?
Who the heck is " bryan haycock "


Please provide a ' link ' showing where you copied all that text from.
hypertrophy-specific.com

Now what about your view on EMG.
basicly i agree with this part,EMG as a tool specifically relating to bodybuilding (muscle growth) is not an accurate indicator of the efficacy of a given exercise to induce growth. The efficacy of any exercise is determined by the load, the duration, and the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied.
 
Who the heck is " bryan hay**** "
About the Author: Bryan Hay****, MS

Please provide a ' link ' showing where you copied all that text from.
hypertrophy-specific.com

Now what about YOUR VIEW on EMG.


basicly i agree with this part,

EMG as a tool specifically relating to bodybuilding (muscle growth) is not an accurate indicator of the efficacy of a given exercise to induce growth.

The efficacy of any exercise is determined by the load, the duration, and the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied.

These are simply the exact same quotes from the Brian article.......

" EMG as a tool specifically relating to bodybuilding (muscle growth) is not an accurate indicator of the efficacy of a given exercise to induce growth.

" The efficacy of any exercise is determined by the load, the duration, and the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied "​

...if you have no unique view of your own, at least put other peoples views that you use - verbatim - in " quotes ". :rolleyes:
 
wrangle
...if you have no unique view of your own, at least put other peoples views that you use - verbatim - in " quotes ".

i dont know what your problem with me is, but before you get on your high horse read what i wrote correctly and you will see it said "this is the part i agree with" if its worded well why would i need to write it any other way unique or not.
 
Myth
Weight lifting stunts growth

Unless you do squats or deadlfts horribly incorrectly, this is false.
 
Back
Top