New Buliking Program

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fausto. I am not sure that I understand your comment about prefering to work your body &quot;whole body type fashion each time and not so much with splits.&quot; My workouts are meant to be whole body each time and working out 4 times per week. However, there is a mix of two different exercises within those 4 workouts because I still believe in the old fashion notion of mixing it up somewhat. Probably something akin to teaching old dogs new tricks or something. </div>

I meant that your workout compared to mine has a lot more change to it, mine is more constant without much changing which can be boring for some!

Currently I am doing a 5x/week Faustonian cycle (he, he, he...) Colby dubed it, not me! Which is a 3 x week compound with:

Deadlifts (alternated with Squats)
Flat B/B benchpress (shoulder cannot accomodate incline now)
Chins (underhand close grip) alternated with Seated Cable Rows (Low pulley)
Military press
Abs (personal choice)

and isos on Tuesday/Thursday

Tabata on cycle ( 4 minutes on stat cycle)
Incline Lateral Raises
Incline Curls (D/B)
Cable tricep extension (flat)

The only difference being that I am trying for 30 reps throughout, hopefully I'll make it, it will be a lot during 5's but I want to give it a go!
 
I hope I am being clear.

What I thought was interesting is that we know that bench press activates the entire pecs just like other chest exercises. For example Flys or incline chest.

So in essence when we choose any of those exercises we are hitting the entire chest.

Now of course we are not taking into account load in this simple example b/c we know to use the most load we can which normally equals a compound movement.

So here is were &quot;if I am understanding Dan correctly&quot; I thought things got really cool.

By changing up exercises periodically as O&amp;G does he doesn't nessisarly work the pec region any more or less b/c most likely his exercises he choses hits the entire region however my choosing a different exercise he make hits some fibers in a different way or stimulate them more than normal....hence &quot;I am thinking in theory here&quot; Could equal more growth?

I am a little old school like O&amp;G and I to switch things up b/c of the boredom and over crowded gym factor.

Plus its seems my body adapts to an exercise really quick.

Again I could misquoting Dan and not understanding this correctlY?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Sep. 05 2006,22:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ Sep. 05 2006,10:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if your bulking wouldnt it be better to have 3 large meals,as 6 smaller ones would speed up your metabolism more..plus i would rather have three proper mansize meals
biggrin.gif
</div>
Of course 6-8 meals will speed up your metabolism more than 3 a day. But basically, unless virtually ALL the trainers and BB'ers out here are wrong, then you can go into catabolism easier on 3 meals for one thing, and secondly, if you're bulking, gaining fat is the enemy. Therefore, the faster metabolism is going to burn fat, allowing you to eat more, gain more. (beef)
Better to be a grazer than a gulper IMO.</div>
Nearly all research ive read on it says meal frequency has no effect on metabolism or the Thermic effect of food though it may help people control their appetite more. A few studys comparing muscle loss also showed very little difference.
 
JonnyH


Yeh I thought that was agreed on but I agree with quad and prefer to eat gradually throught the day, its a marathon not a sprint!

As for the whole muscle recruitment question, it seems to me that it wouldnt really make a noticeable difference since a heavy weight for flat bench recruits like 95% of pectoral fibres anyway?

But I see the point of wanting to change up, my current routine is like clockwork and I plan on extending the cycle with the same weight for like 3 or 4 weeks when the weight gets heavy enough! And they say variety is the spice of life
biggrin.gif
 
Not to be contradictory but EMG chart shows this:

Pectoralis Major

Decline Dumbbell Bench Press 93%
Decline Bench Press (Olympic Bar) 89%
Push-ups Between Benches 88%
Flat Dumbbell Bench Press 87%
Flat Bench Press(Olympic Bar) 85%
Flat Dumbbell Flys 84%

Pectoralis Minor
Incline Dumbbell Bench Press 91%
Incline Bench Press (Olympic Bar) 85%
Incline Dumbbell Flys 83%
Incline Bench Press (Smith Machine) 81%
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Sep. 05 2006,19:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I recently sent dan and email talking about working the &quot;abs&quot; from different angles.

WE know the abs are all one muscle so there is no lower or upper.

His reponse was right on say that yes you can't isolate upper or lower...however he said different exercises may recruit some other fibers. &quot;I hope I am explaining this correctlys&quot;.</div>
Joe, to be clear, I did not say you can preferentially recruit &quot;fibers&quot;, I said differing exercises recruit differing &quot;muscles&quot;. Big difference.

JoeM asked <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And lastly…this one I have addressed before and you have answered it and I was trying to explain this to a personal trainer.

But the ABS are one muscle group you can’t train the lower no more than the upper however why is it when I do leg raises you feel it more there?

That’s the part I had a hard time explaining to the trainer?...which is why I wonder is theory sometimes not often….but sometime maybe accurate over science?

Thanks for the debate in advance!</div>

I replied <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's because most Personal have no clue on what they are talking about when it comes to anatomy and therefore do not understand that the abs (IE the eight pack), called the Rectus Abdominus is one continuous muscle. They mistakenly believe that it is several muscles because of the ligaments that cover it and cause it to appear as separated muscles. Now since we already know that most human muscle is singly innervated, i.e. 1 single endplate per fiber, there is no way the abdominus can be activated in portions. Yet the second thing they do not understand is that the there are other muscles involved in trunk movement besides the abdominus. So when one uses other exercises, such as leg lowering or raising, you recruit other muscles which may not otherwise be involved in trunk flexion IE during the crunch.

There really is no debate to this, only misinformation.</div>



This was one of &quot;my&quot; problems with Johnstons J-Reps, Zone training or whatever he's calling it. Because in what I've read he made statements to the effect that changing ROM changes which part of the fiber is active. Since most human muscle is singly innervated you can not activate only a portion of the fiber, it's either on or off over it's entire length. Changing ROM or angle does not change this. What does change is the MU recruited, but all the fibers in the MU will still fully contract. Now since most human muscle runs the entire length of the muscle (from origin to insertion) and if it is in the recruited MU then the entire length of the fiber will contract. If this didn't happen in this manner what would occur is over stretching of sarcomeres that are not active, because those that were active would severely pull those that weren't, causing excessive damage.
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Sep. 06 2006,06:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not to be contradictory but EMG chart shows this:

Pectoralis Major

Decline Dumbbell Bench Press        93%
Decline Bench Press (Olympic Bar)   89%
Push-ups Between Benches        88%
Flat Dumbbell Bench Press        87%
Flat Bench Press(Olympic Bar)        85%
Flat Dumbbell Flys                        84%

Pectoralis Minor
Incline Dumbbell Bench Press         91%
Incline Bench Press (Olympic Bar)     85%
Incline Dumbbell Flys         83%
Incline Bench Press (Smith Machine) 81%</div>
Just be cautious with this.

When they looked at EMG for specific movements and muscle activated they didn't look at other muscle for the same movement. In other words, what were the synergists doing?

IE, for example was the pec minor active during the Decline DB bench press or vice versa, was the pec major active during the Incline DB bench press?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Sep. 06 2006,03:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ Sep. 05 2006,10:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if your bulking wouldnt it be better to have 3 large meals,as 6 smaller ones would speed up your metabolism more..plus i would rather have three proper mansize meals
biggrin.gif
</div>
Of course 6-8 meals will speed up your metabolism more than 3 a day. But basically, unless virtually ALL the trainers and BB'ers out here are wrong, then you can go into catabolism easier on 3 meals for one thing, and secondly, if you're bulking, gaining fat is the enemy. Therefore, the faster metabolism is going to burn fat, allowing you to eat more, gain more. (beef)
Better to be a grazer than a gulper IMO.</div>
quad although i agree about 6 meals speeding up the metabolism from what i have read it is very minimal.
and i beleive that what you eat over a 24hr period is more important than when you eat it.
as long as you get in what you need.
it can take up to 6hrs for the gut to release food so i doubt the catobolic bit.
the human body is a lot more efficiant than we give it credit for.
 
<div>
(JonnyH @ Sep. 06 2006,03:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nearly all research ive read on it says meal frequency has no effect on metabolism or the Thermic effect of food though it may help people control their appetite more. A few studys comparing muscle loss also showed very little difference.</div>
Yeah, it has a neglible effect. Personally, I just eat however much I need to in order to reach my calorie goals. Maybe that's 3-4 meals today, maybe tomorrow it will be 8 meals.

And hey, I thought we had already established long ago that virtually all trainers and bbers are wrong. That's why they all are doing bodypart splits, hitting each bodypart only once a week.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good trainer. They exist, but they are rare. And for every big guy who body-part splits have worked for, there are a handful of tiny guys who stayed small on those splits.


I wouldn't worry about catabolism while bulking. Even if you were getting all your food in just three meals, your stomach is going to rarely be empty. As long as you don't get really dumb and start eating one huge meal a day, then you should be fine.
 
agree tot ...the other thing is when i have my 3 meals a day,i have fat,protein,carbs, in them all, i would find that hard to do in 6 or 8 meals a day,
so i might miss out on something,
also planing out 6 meals a day everyday can get very anal
rock.gif

this is a good read.
http://www.t-nation.com/readTop....1025241
 
I'll stand corrected. I hadn't seen any new studies referred on that, and as I said; IMO...
Maybe I shouldn't worry about that missed meal so much. But I thought it was proven that when overeating with huge meals (yes, bulking is overeating itself) that you would not be able to burn it, as more of it would be deposited as fat? I'll guess that it would depend on partitioning at the time of digestion, but I'm no genius here.
 
with larger less frequent meals you have more time inbetween to use it up.
if you have a meal and it has not had time to digest, and then you add another i would think that would more likely be stored as fat.
 
I have not seen any studies that compares BMR with differing meal quantities. However, my intuuition tells me Quad has made good points. To take it to the extreme, intuitively I would think 4 to 6 meals is better at reducing fat accumulation than 1 giant meal per day, given that the total calories per day are the same. Can anyone point me to credible studies that show otherwise? I would personally prefer to have to eat only 3 times per day.
 
Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism.

Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD.

Department of Human Biology, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.


And another:

Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. Links
Meal frequency and energy balance.

* Bellisle F,
* McDevitt R,
* Prentice AM.

INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
 
I still don't think eating all your food in just one meal would be a good idea though. Not that you would do that. Just saying. The rule I go by is just however meals gets me to my goal...
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Sep. 06 2006,08:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">WE know the abs are all one muscle so there is no lower or upper...Now since we already know that most human muscle is singly innervated, i.e. 1 single endplate per fiber, there is no way the abdominus can be activated in portions.</div>
There's two different discussions going on in this thread, one about activation of MUs and another about diet. I'm just responding to the MU one.

Dan I don't want to argue with a moderator of this board, but I believe the abdominals have two nerve inputs, upper and lower, the upper being for spinal flexion and the other being posterior pelvic tilt. Don't know if anyone's done pilates, but this is what creates the &quot;C shape&quot; of the abs, the upper body moving towards the pelvis, and the pelvis tilting towards the upperbody, with the bend in the middle. I believe there are also seperate innerverations for the upper and lower pec, the upper being for purely horiztontal adduction, and the other for being horizontal action at a slight angle (like when doing dips). The way you can tell is can you consciously flex or move each &quot;muscle&quot; seperately, ie. you can tilt your pelvis without your spine/upper body moving, and you can technically ab crunch without tilting the pelvis and you can flex your upper and lower pecs seperately (though the muscles work together in all real life actions) . Put you hand on your pec and try it, you can flex the upper and the lower seperately with the other staying relaxed.
 
Back
Top