# "EMG RATINGS"  OF BEST EXERCISES



## Tough Old Man (Sep 10, 2004)

Here is a link found by a gentleman on another forum, *http://www.gk22.com/articles/1_iemg.shtml*. I ask that you look at it. After studying it I would like to here from the experienced bodybuilders. If you where to start a new training program, Lets say using two different exercises for each body part, Would you take the two from the top of the list in that body part category and use them?


----------



## Lord Denning (Sep 11, 2004)

I only took a quick look at the link...and well when deciding which exercises you want to include in your routine you need to think about variation as well as the degree of stimulation of the muscle you are working. For example for pecs, it would IMO not be helpful if you did decline dd press as well as decline barbell press since this will stimulate the same area of the pecs, albeit one exercise would stimulate more muscle fibres than the other (dd and barbell respectively).
Instead do decline dd press and maybe incline dd press (working more of the upper region of the pecs). To conclude, it is useful to consider EMG rating, but to solely rely on them when building a routine would not allow you to exploit your full potential for building muscle.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 11, 2004)

Lord Denning said:
			
		

> For example for pecs, it would IMO not be helpful if you did decline dd press as well as decline barbell press since this will stimulate the same area of the pecs, albeit one exercise would stimulate more muscle fibres than the other (dd and barbell respectively).
> Instead do decline dd press and maybe incline dd press (working more of the upper region of the pecs).



uh oh!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Sep 11, 2004)




----------



## P-funk (Sep 11, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> uh oh!




yan's first post in how many months??  LMAO.....God bless him.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 11, 2004)

^ ha ha


----------



## Yanick (Sep 11, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> yan's first post in how many months??  LMAO.....God bless him.



and every time i'm making a comeback you're there to make fun of me!


----------



## P-funk (Sep 11, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> and every time i'm making a comeback you're there to make fun of me!




someones got to do it and you wont listen to your borther so he gave me the right to woop your ass.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 11, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> someones got to do it and you wont listen to your borther so he gave me the right to woop your ass.


 


And, to make this thread slight informative lets just say that no one should ever make a program that is solely based on EMG ratings.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 11, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> And, to make this thread slight informative lets just say that no one should ever make a program that is solely based on EMG ratings.




Also, to add to that I always wonder when they do an EMG test what kind of load they are using.  More importantly what kind of intensity they are using in relation to the testes (hehe...I know i am immature) 1RM.  If the load is to light I think that some muscles are less resposive to others, than if they were testing at something like 95-100% of the 1RM, which would show a greater amount of muscle activation.


----------



## pmech (Sep 11, 2004)

Lets go back to the more important part of Lord Dennings statement




			
				Lord Denning said:
			
		

> For example for pecs, it would IMO not be helpful if you did decline dd press as well as decline barbell press since this will stimulate the same area of the pecs, albeit one exercise would stimulate more muscle fibres than the other (dd and barbell respectively).
> Instead do decline dd press and maybe incline dd press (working more of the upper region of the pecs).


----------



## Lord Denning (Sep 11, 2004)




----------



## Mudge (Sep 11, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Also, to add to that I always wonder when they do an EMG test what kind of load they are using.  More importantly what kind of intensity they are using in relation to the testes (hehe...I know i am immature) 1RM.  If the load is to light I think that some muscles are less resposive to others, than if they were testing at something like 95-100% of the 1RM, which would show a greater amount of muscle activation.



Good point, because dont they say often that only 10% or so of fibers are activated much of the time? Much of training seems to be CNS related, not just muscle itself, training the body to become forced to use more fibers during the training. Since we see what people are capable of in FORCED situations (tipping a helicoptor off a loved one etc).


----------



## pmech (Sep 11, 2004)

Lord Denning, nothing it was another thread that got of control.


----------



## gopro (Sep 13, 2004)

GP is a believer in the merits of EMG studies. No, they are not the Holy Grail of training, but they offer valuable and applicable insights.


----------



## pumpthatiron (Sep 13, 2004)

should i use this to set up a routine?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 13, 2004)

I want someone to get an understanding of how an EMG works and then apply it to these "articles." And then come back and reply whether or not you think they hold much merit.


----------



## gopro (Sep 13, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> I want someone to get an understanding of how an EMG works and then apply it to these "articles." And then come back and reply whether or not you think they hold much merit.



And I want you to make room for ANYTHING outdside of Westside training and the opinions of the few "experts" that you believe in. You just may be THE most narrow thinking "well-educated" person I have ever come across in the iron game.


----------



## pumpthatiron (Sep 13, 2004)

what's westside training?


----------



## Mudge (Sep 13, 2004)

http://www.westside-barbell.com


----------



## camarosuper6 (Sep 13, 2004)

When you train in California. 

LOL



Oh man.. I crack myself up.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 13, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> And I want you to make room for ANYTHING outdside of Westside training and the opinions of the few "experts" that you believe in. You just may be THE most narrow thinking "well-educated" person I have ever come across in the iron game.



What does anything in this thread have to do with Westside and/or what "trainers" I trust? This is about EMG and the faith people put in a test they don't even begin to understand.

This is simple science. I challenged people to learn what an EMG is and what is happening when an EMG is being done. Then combine that information with what we know about muscles and how they contract and how those contractions are based on electrical signals sent from the brain.

Then I want someone to explain how an EMG is anywhere near useful in the capacity these articles are talking about.


----------



## gopro (Sep 13, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> What does anything in this thread have to do with Westside and/or what "trainers" I trust? This is about EMG and the faith people put in a test they don't even begin to understand.
> 
> This is simple science. I challenged people to learn what an EMG is and what is happening when an EMG is being done. Then combine that information with what we know about muscles and how they contract and how those contractions are based on electrical signals sent from the brain.
> 
> Then I want someone to explain how an EMG is anywhere near useful in the capacity these articles are talking about.



I know what you said, and I know what the point (your point) of you saying it was. Its your roundabout method of saying that EMG studies have no merit in training, are useless, and have no applications to training. You are also trying to drive the point home that you cannot isolate portions of a muscle.

My point is that you believe only what you have been taught by a few individuals, in addition to the studies that YOU believe in, and the textbooks that YOU believe have merit.

I know exactly how EMG studies are done, and yes, I believe they are applicable to how we can isolate portions of some muscles.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 13, 2004)

> I know exactly how EMG studies are done, and yes, I believe they are applicable to how we can isolate portions of some muscles.



OK. How?

Someone please speak to HOW. How can a small, isolated, electrical signal, intended to locate spasms prove anything in the realm of what your brain is able to do via its electrical signals to the muscle?

I mean, we haven't even gone into receptors yet, I just want to know how.


----------



## pumpthatiron (Sep 13, 2004)

ya saturday fever, you're a rook... tell em GP


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 13, 2004)

I'd ask you to explain, but you OBVIOUSLY don't know.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 13, 2004)

> ya saturday fever, you're a rook... tell em GP



whats this supposed to mean. ya know for all the GP ass kissing that goes on people could actually do some research for themselves and form a real opinion thats reputable instead of hiding behind what others say, regurgitating their words to pathetic levels. I have respect for Both GP and SF, and I not not commenting on who's right or wrong, but if you are gonna comment, have some ground to do it from. comments like this or foolish. He is obviously not a rook, and you obvisouly are so show some fuccin respect..


----------



## ikam (Sep 13, 2004)

pwned


----------



## gopro (Sep 14, 2004)

pumpthatiron said:
			
		

> ya saturday fever, you're a rook... tell em GP



Well thanks pump, but even I will admit that SNF is NO rook. Has he been in this field for about 20 years like me? No...but he is very well educated and has plenty of experience training himself, with some very nice accomplishments.


----------



## gopro (Sep 14, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> OK. How?
> 
> Someone please speak to HOW. How can a small, isolated, electrical signal, intended to locate spasms prove anything in the realm of what your brain is able to do via its electrical signals to the muscle?
> 
> I mean, we haven't even gone into receptors yet, I just want to know how.



In a proper EMG test, like when testing to see what portions of a muscle are "working hardest" during a particular exercise, more than one needle is inserted into the muscle. Many needles are inserted in different portions of a muscle so as to get a larger picture of what is happening (measured through electrical activity and displayed on an oscilloscope).

An EMG can test firing characteristics of motor neurons and motor units, including analysis of motor unit action potentials (muaps). Its a little more complex than simply "locating muscle spasms."

Like I said, while EMG is not the "end all be all" of successful workout programming, it certainly provides a picture of what is going on within muscles during various exercises. Anyone that does not buy into the notion that portions of a muscle can be isolated with certain exercises, grips, and/or angles will dismiss EMG studies entirely, but for those of you that know better, EMG studies provide a valuable tool to utilize when putting together an individualized training program.


----------



## MTN WARRIOR (Sep 14, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> And I want you to make room for ANYTHING outdside of Westside training and the opinions of the few "experts" that you believe in. You just may be THE most narrow thinking "well-educated" person I have ever come across in the iron game.



AGREED GP.


----------



## MTN WARRIOR (Sep 14, 2004)

Ok SF, dispute with GP now.  Now here is a Super Moderator saying you are wrong about non-isolation capabilites.  Again, you prove something for ONCE!  Thanks GP, this non-rook, but non-smart, probably low-paid trainer to old ladie, will not listen to anyone ever.  He is just so much smarter than everyone he thinks but all he does he say everyone is wrong and he can proved it, which he never does.  And I do not have the specific experience the GP has 20 years of bbing and training, but I have been in the Army for over 20 years responsible to train soldiers to be in top physical condition.  This is a condition which is way beyond the condition of bbers (no disrespect to anyone), but this is hardcore, carry your buddy for two miles on your back while being shot and your ruck is on your back also after fighting for hours on end.  Its carrying 150 lbs on your back for hours on end just to get to the fight and then fighting hand to hand in the dark.  So I think I know a little about training people to be in phenomonal shape.  SF, go back to Boca Vista and train Mr and Mrs Seinfeld.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 14, 2004)

You're really too funny. The title "Super Moderator", frankly holds no water with me. Present quality information, and that I respect. And if you have anything to add, other than "YEAH GP! I CAN'T THINK FOR MYSELF SO I'LL RIDE YOUR BANDWAGON!", I'll gladly listen. But you don't. And if you've been in the army for 20 years, you're at least 38. So quit speaking with the maturity and mental abilities of a teenager.

Now then, maybe I'm not smart. Maybe it's a total fluke that a guy with my build has increased his lifts over 400 pounds in 2 years while maintaining the same weight. I guess it's possible. You'd prove yourself naive, again, if you believed that. But I'm not out to prove myself to you. My background in science, quite frankly, owns yours.

And what, exactly, does training guys by having them carry people and shooting at them have to do with weightlifting? YOU should stop and let the real experts debate the subject, you're just making a fool of yourself.

Amazing that someone such as yourself has no idea what origin and insertion points mean.


----------



## ikam (Sep 14, 2004)

pwned.......ouch


----------



## P-funk (Sep 14, 2004)

> Maybe it's a total fluke that a guy with my build has increased his lifts over 400 pounds in 2 years while maintaining the same weight.



No, it isn't a total fluke.  Strength and size aren't related.


----------



## gopro (Sep 14, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> No, it isn't a total fluke.  Strength and size aren't related.



I think SNF would disagree with that statement!


----------



## gopro (Sep 14, 2004)

MTN WARRIOR said:
			
		

> Ok SF, dispute with GP now.  Now here is a Super Moderator saying you are wrong about non-isolation capabilites.  Again, you prove something for ONCE!  Thanks GP, this non-rook, but non-smart, probably low-paid trainer to old ladie, will not listen to anyone ever.  He is just so much smarter than everyone he thinks but all he does he say everyone is wrong and he can proved it, which he never does.  And I do not have the specific experience the GP has 20 years of bbing and training, but I have been in the Army for over 20 years responsible to train soldiers to be in top physical condition.  This is a condition which is way beyond the condition of bbers (no disrespect to anyone), but this is hardcore, carry your buddy for two miles on your back while being shot and your ruck is on your back also after fighting for hours on end.  Its carrying 150 lbs on your back for hours on end just to get to the fight and then fighting hand to hand in the dark.  So I think I know a little about training people to be in phenomonal shape.  SF, go back to Boca Vista and train Mr and Mrs Seinfeld.



While I TRULY enjoy your enthusiasm and of course your support and belief in me, I think you are being too hard on SNF. He IS a smart guy, but in my opinion is a bit narrow minded in his beliefs. He is what is known as "BY THE BOOK," in his approach, and that is not always a good thing. But SNF has a sh%t load of solid knowledge to share, but more on the side of strength and power training than bodybuilding IMO. Even though I have butted heads with SNF on more than one occassion, and I view him as narrow minded, I am a big enough person to see and admit he is an intelligent fellow with alot to offer.

Now, you are a pissa WARRIOR, and I hope to see you posting more. You are enthusiastic and can probably share alot of knowledge on the type of training it takes to get soldiers ready for battle!

One more thing...there is nothing wrong with training Seinfelds, as when I lived in NY, I trained Jerry's sister for several years, as well as his brother in law, and Jerry himself a couple of times! That was fun!


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 15, 2004)

We (this site) need to squash the SF vs. GoPro mentality.

We disagree. We are both men though. I think some of his ideas are ludicrous, and likewise he feels the same way about some of my ideas. We can have our debates. We can sit here and argue back and forth.

The real goal, and I think gopro will agree, is that when the debate simmers, people are more knowledgable. Whether you agree with me or gopro, folks need to walk away with ideas. Walk away with a goal. Walk away with the thought that you are going to read Dr. Siff. Walk away with the thought you are going to read Poliquin.

I don't think we have ever said the other knows nothing or the other is clueless. I certainly hope I've never said as much. We can argue and, as men, walk away at the end and disagree but realize our ideas are not the only ideas. 

If any of us had the last answer, we would be perfect. We aren't. I would never say I am. I have had my ass handed to me in debates and I had no shame in admitting I had been shown the way. It's only through the debates, and the arguments, that we become more knowledgable.


----------



## gopro (Sep 15, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> We (this site) need to squash the SF vs. GoPro mentality.
> 
> I think some of his ideas are ludicrous



And of course, by ludicrous, you mean genius


----------



## pmech (Sep 15, 2004)

HAHAHA. Thats the difference between two guys debating their thoughts and knowledge and varying scientific studies, and resorting to name calling or "all caps". I for one, as someone who is trying to obsorb as much information as possible, would prefer to leave all the teenage behavior out of the debates on these subjects. 

Maybe, just maybe I have the answer.... never mind, I don't know nuttin. 
But, Steven Knows All


----------



## MTN WARRIOR (Sep 15, 2004)

1.  I apologize for the all caps.
2.  I apologize for the insults
3.  I apologize for any lack of knowledge.
4.  I won't apologize for my opinion.
5.  You know nothing about me or what I know, so please stop quoting me or my knowledge (or in your opinion, lack of knowledge).
6.  My point about training soldiers, was that real training starts where science ends.
7.  We disagree. YOu stick with your op, I will stick with mine.
8.  You were just as much a dick as I was, but I will stand up and apologize the board.  My bad for being rude and not further the discussion properly.
9.  I am here to learn and help where I can.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 15, 2004)

> My point about training soldiers, was that real training starts where science ends.



please elaborate on what this is supposed to mean..?


----------



## Yanick (Sep 15, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> please elaborate on what this is supposed to mean..?



i had the same thought run through my head when i read that, however i decided to leave it alone.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 15, 2004)

yeah, your probably smarter than I am for that! lol. i should learn to exercise self control when dealing with know it alls dammit..


----------



## gopro (Sep 15, 2004)

gr81 said:
			
		

> please elaborate on what this is supposed to mean..?



I believe what the man is trying to say is that when it comes to training soldiers you have to throw out the "textbooks" and get nasty! Forget overtraining...forget only training for an hour...forget perfect form...forget training each muscle group once or twice per week...forget focusing on just one thing at a time (power or endurance)...forget rest between sets...

...there is a difference between training in a gym to build muscle and training people for survival under any and all circumstances. He is building machines, not people.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 15, 2004)

granted training for combat is very different than training for bodybuilding/powerlifting, however i refuse to believe that science takes a backseat in training for the military.  If anything i think that military training is probably the most scientific training out there (seeing how technologically speaking the military is often a decade or two ahead of where us ordinary folk are).


----------



## gopro (Sep 15, 2004)

Yanick said:
			
		

> granted training for combat is very different than training for bodybuilding/powerlifting, however i refuse to believe that science takes a backseat in training for the military.  If anything i think that military training is probably the most scientific training out there (seeing how technologically speaking the military is often a decade or two ahead of where us ordinary folk are).



Yes, I agree, but I don't think MTN meant what he said literally, just in the sense that he has to throw away many of the "traditional" rules of the weightroom when it comes to training soldiers.


----------



## gr81 (Sep 15, 2004)

> I believe what the man is trying to say is that when it comes to training soldiers you have to throw out the "textbooks" and get nasty! Forget overtraining...forget only training for an hour...forget perfect form...forget training each muscle group once or twice per week...forget focusing on just one thing at a time (power or endurance)...forget rest between sets...



I see and obviously agree with that, but that implies that he doesn't get nasty in his regular WOs..lol. seriously thou, the difference between the two is night and day, its not even a fair comparison. First off the goals of each training program are completely different. I just don't see what that has to do with anything, especially EMG ratings? its like he's trying to imply that the rest of us don't really bust our ass b/c we aren't involved in that type of training.. btw science still plays a roll, specificity is required no matter what the goal is, even if the science is too break the mold and go crazy as was implied. oh well, his statement was not clear, thats why I asked for an elaboration. peace


----------



## Saturday Fever (Sep 15, 2004)

Let's distinguish right now. I can take an "average Joe" and in two years I can make him a viable force in the realm of powerlifting. gopro can surely do the same in the world of bodybuildng.

Can I take a guy and make him a top class athlete in a specific sport? Altogether different. I believe I can. I've been speaking with members of this site about helping them to that end. But I'll admit right now that spot specific training (or combat specific training) is not my forte. But to say that is where science ends is wrong. It's all still based on science, simply a different application of science.

Good posting here by all since the trash talking has settled.


----------



## pmech (Sep 16, 2004)

Agreed,  to all


----------



## Tank316 (Sep 16, 2004)

i smell a group hug coming on!!!!


----------



## gopro (Sep 16, 2004)

Tank316 said:
			
		

> i smell a group hug coming on!!!!



You are a group.


----------



## MTN WARRIOR (Sep 16, 2004)

No trash coming from here anymore.  I do not mean that bbers or anyone doesn't bust their nuts working out by any means.  There is science to EVERYTHING we do.  And their is less science in the military physical fitness training strategy than you would think.  Although the general premises are still there, because of "muscle specificity and muscle memory", training is significantly different and sometimes ruthless.  Some of it also just plan "gut check" based.  Because we are not looking to be bbers, doesnt fit with what we do, we train very different.  ie (monthly 12 mile road marches with rucks), puking pullups, indian runs, rucksack runs, buddy carry runs, PT in the hottest or coldest conditions, PT with full gear to include body armor.  So the science and technology go out the window (somewhat) to be replaced by a "train like you fight" methodology.  Simple fact that doing squats til you puke wont help you carry a ruck for 12-miles consistently.  Whereas going on 12-mile road marches will help you get better at them.  So you may see small soldiers who can "squat" large soldiers, but cant do 135 in the gym.  So, I believe, and I am not a kiniesiologist (cant even spell without spell check), that training is drastically different and "non-scientific".  That make sense, or do you smell what I'm cooking?


----------



## Arnold (Sep 16, 2004)

I spent some time in the Army, and they are way behind in regards to physical fitness, meaning they follow old school thinking, they really need to do some updating on training methods IMO. 

The PT test is a 2 mile run, number of sit-ups and push-ups that can be performed in 2 minutes. I really think they can achieve better physical fitness and conditioning as well as measure it with better methods than that personally.


----------

