compound or isolated exercises?

M

mellon

New Member
As far as I understand it, compound excercises are said to be better because they provide more muscle load per CNS fatigue than isolated exercises.

Here I am confused.

If i perform a squat, my quads and hamstrings are loaded, and my CNS is being fatigued by the use of both muscle groups. If I break up the squat into hamstring curls, and quad extentions - both muscle groups are loaded just as much as a squat. Shouldnt my total CNS fatigue of these two excercises be equal to the CNS fatigue induced by the squat?

Where does the difference lie?
Thanks for any input

-David
 
My hammies are often sore after squats, but perhaps that wasn't the best example. Consider instead bench press - which works chest and triceps. That could be broken down into flies, and tricep ext.
 
David: Here's my thought on the matter (not very scientific though I'm afraid):

CNS fatigue can be managed whether you are doing a heavy compound or a lighter isolation. You can still push to failure on both. It may be that you feel less tired after the isolation but the fact is that if you train to failure it will take your CNS longer to get back into shape for another all out effort in that same exercise. By stopping short of failure you are able to manage your fatigue and volume better.

Doing compounds invariably means that you will be able to use heavier loads through a more natural range of motion. This works well with HST as you can then get better weight progression. Doing a compound takes less time than doing multiple isos so it's more time efficient too. Also, compounds tend to hit a whole pile of muscles that might play only a very small role in an iso exercise (like thigh adductors and abductors when squatting). This, of course, is where free-weight exercises add that little something extra to their machine counterparts.
 
I'm not sure about this so I'll phrase it as a question - am I right in thinking that when muscles work together the combined load that can be handled is greater than by adding together the load that each muscle can handle if worked in isolation?
 
How much weight do you use for flies? How much for bench? Seems a no brainer. Of the two, bench should be your core exercise for chest and flies only a supporting exercise. I'd be surprised if you didn't bench around ten times the amount of weight you would use for flies.
 
Mellon, combine the isolation exercises you used to "break apart" the compound, and that wouldn't probably even be half the weight. So simply put, compounds are better because they are more effective due to the greater weights.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Where does the difference lie?</div>
It lies on the fact that you can bench or squat about a hundred times what you can do with isolations. If your compounds are just as heavy as your isolations, then you are weak and pathetic.

Stop thinking about that &quot;muscle load per CNS fatigue&quot; crud. That'll get you to pencil-neck nerd city scienceville, but not to getting big muscles.

-The Real Deal
 
I AM a nerd, living in scienceville... AND I have big muscles. But thanks for your &quot;opinion&quot; Real Deal.
 
RD obviously is uneducated. &quot;nerd&quot; - oh come on. If anything, science IS the way forward. Only through science can we understand how muscles really work and then build a routine around that knowledge so that we're able to get the greatest gains in the shortest possible time - oh, hold on, damn. My bad guys, we already have that is HST! But its still a road that has to be travelled as new information leads us to be better informed.

HST is about the appliance of science (sorry if I just stole a trademark tag line). Its by no means complete, as science evolves so will HST. But Real Deals whole &quot;thats how I was taught/thats how its done&quot; ignorant and closed minded approach only slows us down.

If you want to critisise constuctively then please do - its through this that mankind progesses. But empty critisism without and substantiation of argument is pointless and serves no purpose.

Oh cool, spongebob squarepants is on!
laugh.gif
 
Talking of microtauma, macronutrients and their proper ratios, why frequency is necessary for satellite cell proliferation - these things are VALID talking points. And yes, this &quot;uneducated&quot; person understands those.

But &quot;muscle load per CNS&quot;? That's getting a little carried away with science.

-The Real Deal
 
Guys

Here's Bryans take on it from teh Faq-e-book:

From point 28.2. Simple technique to avoid failure

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">5) Fatigue is not the muscle’s way of indicating that a stimulus for growth has occurred. A growth stimulus can be created without taking a set to failure, and at other times, even taking a set to failure fails to produce an adequate growth stimulus.

We have no direct way of knowing how successful we have been at creating a growth stimulus from workout to workout.

Direct measurements require a laboratory setting and painful biopsies. The only way to really gauge is to look at what has previously been done to the tissue (i.e. how much weight, how much volume, what level of conditioning are we working with).

By continuing to increase the duration and/or amplitude of tension/stretch/load, we can be reasonably sure we are creating an adequate growth stimulus (assuming diet is in order).

“Within reason”, it is the total number of reps performed of a given movement during a single exercise bout that is important, not how many are performed each set. You can blame two prominent exercise researchers and their infatuation with minuscule fluctuations in hormone levels for any confusion on this point.

I’m not sure if that clears anything up or not. But it should help to see why the number of reps per set is less important than the overall progression of critical training variables (i.e. load, volume, frequency, diet) over time.

HST's method of using submaximal weights at the beginning of the cycle is based on the fact that the effectiveness of a given load to stimulate growth is dependant on the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied.

This is a very important concept for natural lifters. It is also based on the need to maintain the health (injury free) of the tissues.</div>

So much for science then? Go figure...
biggrin.gif
 
No one asked about managing fatigue or whatever.

The absurd question was about &quot;muscle load per CNS fatigue&quot;, which is getting too scientific for the sake of it, without any effect on training.

Compounds are the best because they hit more in shorter time, and they hit a lot harder. 1 set of compounds versus one set of isolations, geez, is that too hard to figure out? Of course not.

-The Real Deal
 
<div>
(Real_Deal @ Jul. 10 2006,15:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No one asked about managing fatigue or whatever.

The absurd question was about &quot;muscle load per CNS fatigue&quot;, which is getting too scientific for the sake of it, without any effect on training.

Compounds are the best because they hit more in shorter time, and they hit a lot harder. 1 set of compounds versus one set of isolations, geez, is that too hard to figure out? Of course not.

-The Real Deal</div>
isnt that what the guys have just said &quot;nobhead&quot;
mad.gif

mellon you can think about it this way.
we dont do isolated movements in the real world so why train that way
cool.gif
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top