# Dan ... "In the Right Now"

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by imported_etothepii, Aug 8, 2007.

1. ### LolSuper ModeratorStaff Member

<div>
(faz @ Sep. 06 2007,16:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">here is a point if we are talking about creating a stimulus in the right now,would that mean isos would be better than compounds,ie biceps dont get direct work from pull-ups but they do from curls so wouldnt curls create a better stimulus for the bicep muscle.
lat-raises delts,flyes pecs,etc.</div>
I don't buy all the 'direct work' malarkey. If your muscle is working then it's working. The range over which it works may be different and the load may vary differently over the range of motion for a particular exercise, but whether it's a compound or an iso it's down to the loads being used and the effective TUT with that load.

What would make a difference is if you are unable to produce the same amount of strain on the muscle tissue in, say, the biceps when chinning as you can with a biceps bb curl. Is that likely? There's always a load for each exercise where the strain produced on a particular muscle will be equal between a compound or an iso exercise (although the time under that strain will likely differ). However, it may be that for certain compounds the mechanical advantage could be particularly high and so in order to stress a specific muscle, like the biceps during a chin, you might need to use a significantly higher load in order to transfer enough strain onto the biceps; that's exactly what we normally do.

I haven't done the maths to show an example of this yet. It would be interesting to know how the tension on the biceps varies during a typical chinning movement. Perhaps someone knows a web link to a force/strain study on muscles for various exercises? Nice simulation project for someone to do in Wolfram's Mathematica.

2. ### mcraecNew Member

if someone posts EMG i will not be impressed

on the whole compounds vs iso thing you guys are talking about

check out Nwlifter's(ron) article over at Dan's forum

3. ### LolSuper ModeratorStaff Member

<div>
(codz3 @ Sep. 07 2007,08:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if someone posts EMG i will not be impressed

on the whole compounds vs iso thing you guys are talking about

check out Nwlifter's(ron) article over at Dan's forum</div>
Ron writes some great articles. Got a link to that?

4. ### mcraecNew Member

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Genetic Potential and Exercise Choice
By Ron Sowers

Being a natural trainer is the smartest and most rewarding choice a
lifter can make, the gains we make are REAL! We must though, pay close
attention to recovery. In doing so, an abbreviated program is most often
and wisely chosen. There are many programs available, all with
strong proponents to back them up. But just how brief should a program be? Some proponents claim you will only EVER need 3 or 4 basic exercises to completely transform your physique. EVERY muscle will develop to it's fullest!

I do completely concur that some of us do have such limited recovery
reserves that we must perform the absolute bare minimum in our programs.
The only thing I would like to put forth, is that some of these
programs, the ones which suggest only EVER using this small handful of
exercises, will leave many muscles lacking in development.

The training is based on the contention, that if we reach our maximum
strength on several core exercises, that we will also reach our genetic
limits of size in ALL muscles involved in those exercises. Note: This
article is not written to say we must include a large number of
exercises, or construct workouts peppered with isolation exercises, but,
it is to point out that we may not be able to reach our genetic limits
in size, in ALL muscle groups, if too few exercises are used in the
course of our training career.

If we fail to include at least some variance of exercises in routines,
even though we are &quot;using&quot; all, or most all of our muscles, my
contention is that some of these muscles may not be working to a hard
enough intensity to illicit the maximum growth response. For example,
some trainee's bone structure is such that the triceps are always the
first to fail in the bench press. Now if this trainee uses the bench
press as their ONLY pec/delt/triceps exercise, for most of their
exercise career, and their bone structure is such as I just described,
then, what will happen when the triceps reach their genetic
size/strength development? Progress on the bench ceases, and since no
poundage increases can be made, progress and size gains also cease for
the pecs and the delts. Even though, much growth potential may still be
available. Also, in this circumstance, since the triceps always were the
dominant muscle group, or weak link, in the bench, the pecs and delts
are most likely underdeveloped. This scenario would be even more evident
in leg development. The squat is usually, and almost always chosen as
THE quad building exercise. And it does deserve this reputation,
although, when the muscle or group that IS the weak link in the squat,
reaches it's limits, progress on the squat ceases, just as in the
example of the bench press, and growth is halted in all other muscles in
the thighs.

It has been scientifically proven that a larger muscle FIBER is also
stronger, and visa-versa. So it stands to reason that by stimulating a
muscle to grow stronger, it will also make it larger. I am sure that if
you could actually remove a muscle, for example, the vastus medialis,
from several different people, the largest muscle would be the
strongest. But this is where I believe the so called 'rub' is. We have
all experienced or witnessed the following: Person &quot;A&quot; is able to squat
500 pounds, but their quads appear smaller in size than the quads of
person &quot;B&quot;, who can only squat 350! Since we know &quot;A&quot; has the same
internal structure as &quot;B&quot;, ie. muscle fibers, connective tissue, etc. ,
the only explanation (besides neurological efficiency} is that the
quadriceps muscles of person &quot;B&quot; MUST be stronger, even though this
strength does not translate synergistically to the squat exercise.This
person might have included other forms of thigh training periodically,
or their particular joint leverages are such that their quads received a
higher workload when squatting. Person &quot;A&quot; might want to include leg
extensions to offset the size/strength imbalance. For example, the
function of the Vastus Medialis muscle, is to pull the patella towards
the inside of the leg, keeping the &quot;knee cap&quot; on track and assisting
with extension. This muscle only shows high activity in the last few
degrees of thigh extension. This means, a basic squat will not provide
complete stimulation for this muscle.

Another example of how this can easily be visualized is as this:
Imagine that your biceps insertion tendon is fixed in such a way that
you require huge poundages in the curl exercise to reach failure at 10
lat/bicep exercise. What will happen, is while performing the exercise,
your lats will experience the brunt of the work since your biceps have
such a huge mechanical leverage advantage. Years later, when the lats
reach their genetic limits, your progress in the chin will come to a
halt. At this point though, your biceps still have MUCH potential for
growth remaining, which will never actualize if a specific exercise for
the biceps is not chosen.

Conclusion

Basic exercises should always be the framework of our routines. Even
though we can build a great deal of size and strength with programs
including only, Squats, Dips and Deadlifts, (for example} performed 4-8
times a month, it may be wise to periodically cycle between exercises
and include more compound movements and a few well chosen isolation exercises
</div>

5. ### Joe.MuscleActive Member

^^^Makes sense to me!

6. ### dkm1987New Member

<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 06 2007,21:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ Sep. 06 2007,16:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">here is a point if we are talking about creating a stimulus in the right now,would that mean isos would be better than compounds,ie biceps dont get direct work from pull-ups but they do from curls so wouldnt curls create a better stimulus for the bicep muscle.
lat-raises delts,flyes pecs,etc.</div>
I don't buy all the 'direct work' malarkey. If your muscle is working then it's working. The range over which it works may be different and the load may vary differently over the range of motion for a particular exercise, but whether it's a compound or an iso it's down to the loads being used and the effective TUT with that load.

What would make a difference is if you are unable to produce the same amount of strain on the muscle tissue in, say, the biceps when chinning as you can with a biceps bb curl. Is that likely? There's always a load for each exercise where the strain produced on a particular muscle will be equal between a compound or an iso exercise (although the time under that strain will likely differ). However, it may be that for certain compounds the mechanical advantage could be particularly high and so in order to stress a specific muscle, like the biceps during a chin, you might need to use a significantly higher load in order to transfer enough strain onto the biceps; that's exactly what we normally do.

I haven't done the maths to show an example of this yet. It would be interesting to know how the tension on the biceps varies during a typical chinning movement. Perhaps someone knows a web link to a force/strain study on muscles for various exercises? Nice simulation project for someone to do in Wolfram's Mathematica.</div>

7. ### dkm1987New Member

<div>
(codz3 @ Sep. 07 2007,03:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if someone posts EMG i will not be impressed

on the whole compounds vs iso thing you guys are talking about

check out Nwlifter's(ron) article over at Dan's forum</div>
Well don't rule out EMG completely, it has it's uses.

8. ### FaustoHST Expert

Good posts both Ron and Lol.

One has to be open minded about this issues! After all if you've been in the game for a while you'll know that an abreviated program is the way to go...but there may be a need for an iso here and there so as to complete the package.

As Ron rightly puts it...&quot;This article is not written to say we must include a large number of exercises, or construct workouts peppered with isolation exercises, but, it is to point out that we may not be able to reach our genetic limits in size, in ALL muscle groups, if too few exercises are used in the course of our training career. &quot;

9. ### mikeynovSuper ModeratorStaff Member

Well, isolation type stuff isn't necessary to &quot;build the foundation,&quot; as it were.

That said, I see a bit much of the HIT/Hardgainer mindset on display the past page or so. The reality is that if you want to maximize your muscular size, you will wind up using &quot;isolation&quot; type movements at some point.

10. ### FaustoHST Expert

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, isolation type stuff isn't necessary to &quot;build the foundation,&quot; as it were.</div>

Exactly! That sums it up, so if your &quot;building&quot; is way past the foundation phase, this becomes the necessary &quot;tuning&quot;, so to say!

11. ### the_dark_masterNew Member

By that same analogy - some of us may need to revisit the ol' foundations for some underpinning... (due to settlement!?)

12. ### RUSSMember

<div>
(mikeynov @ Sep. 10 2007,04:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, isolation type stuff isn't necessary to &quot;build the foundation,&quot; as it were.

That said, I see a bit much of the HIT/Hardgainer mindset on display the past page or so.  The reality is that if you want to maximize your muscular size, you will wind up using &quot;isolation&quot; type movements at some point.</div>
I agree , and find it interesting that you reference hard gainer , I've always thought of &quot;simplify and win&quot; as HST meets Hardgainer. I'm not a &quot;jedi&quot; myself but I don't discard HIT and its various offspring out of hand , wade through the crap and there is some real gold in there IMHO.