# Tricep - Outer Head !!



## MCPaulyB (Aug 31, 2005)

I'm looking to find exercises that specifically target the outside head (not sure exactly what its name is).

Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## Yanick (Aug 31, 2005)

you can't isolate parts of a muscle. read the stickies on top of this section, there is one about upper/lower chest isolation and has a great post from a member of another forum about the issue.


----------



## MCPaulyB (Aug 31, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> you can't isolate parts of a muscle. read the stickies on top of this section, there is one about upper/lower chest isolation and has a great post from a member of another forum about the issue.



Certain exercises target certain parts of a muscle more.  True, in theory you cannnot totally isolate the outer head, but there have got to be exercises out there that target it.


----------



## buildingup (Aug 31, 2005)

no there isnt


----------



## Yanick (Aug 31, 2005)

disregard the post, i fucked it up


----------



## P-funk (Aug 31, 2005)

yup long head short head.


----------



## MCPaulyB (Aug 31, 2005)

So there are no exercises that will recruit more work from the outer head?


----------



## turbine5 (Aug 31, 2005)

MCPaulyB said:
			
		

> So there are no exercises that will recruit more work from the outer head?



tricep pushdowns with a wider grip (don't push down with your chest)...bench press with the palms facing your head (underhand grip)

good luck


----------



## HardTrainer (Aug 31, 2005)

Take the incline bench for example, it dosnt recruit more upper pec muscle at all, your whole muscle contracts as a whole or it donst contract at all, all the incline does is switch the balance to place more stress on the delt and less on the pec (in simplisty its inbetween a seated shoulder press and a flat bench press)

Thats the only thing you can hope for when changing grip placements, angles etc, i.e. the hammer curl places more stress on the forearm and less on the bicep... it dosnt hit the bicep any different!

The same with tricep push downs and reverse press downs, all the reverse one does is give you fingers/forearm muscle extra work as you have to grip it or it will pull out of your hands, it dosnt contract the tricep in a different way.


----------



## MCPaulyB (Aug 31, 2005)

turbine5 said:
			
		

> bench press with the palms facing your head (underhand grip)
> 
> good luck


----------



## turbine5 (Aug 31, 2005)

MCPaulyB said:
			
		

>



get set like a regular bench press, but instead of using an overhand grip like normal, reverse your grip....grip the bar underhand like a chinup.....try it with lower weight than you would use on a reguar bench press...its a little awkward....


----------



## MCPaulyB (Aug 31, 2005)

Gotcha now...


----------



## buildingup (Aug 31, 2005)




----------



## GFR (Aug 31, 2005)

HardTrainer said:
			
		

> *Take the incline bench for example, it dosnt recruit more upper pec muscle at all,* your whole muscle contracts as a whole or it donst contract at all, all the incline does is switch the balance to place more stress on the delt and less on the pec (in simplisty its inbetween a seated shoulder press and a flat bench press)
> 
> Thats the only thing you can hope for when changing grip placements, angles etc, i.e. the hammer curl places more stress on the forearm and less on the bicep... it dosnt hit the bicep any different!
> 
> The same with tricep push downs and reverse press downs, all the reverse one does is give you fingers/forearm muscle extra work as you have to grip it or it will pull out of your hands, it dosnt contract the tricep in a different way.


I have to disagree with that.......
Now lets not argue this for 50 posts just do this and then tell me I'm wrong.
Next chest workout do something different....do incline DB press 6 sets of 6-10 reps.
then a few incline flys if you want and thats it......now is your chest sore at the top , middle or bottom?????

Then next workout do the same except decline db press.


----------



## turbine5 (Aug 31, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with that.......
> Now lets not argue this for 50 posts just do this and then tell me I'm wrong.
> Next chest workout do something different....do incline DB press 6 sets of 6-10 reps.
> then a few incline flys if you want and thats it......now is your chest sore at the top , middle or bottom?????
> ...



The gym I go to has many people who are starting to weight lift, but do not really take it seriously or know how to do it properly.  A lot of these guys do tons of decline bench...I think because its easier than flat? I don't know....but if you look at these guys, you can see that it is possible to work upper/lower pecs at different intensities depending on angle because they look like they are developing breasts....just my two cents anyways...


----------



## TheCurse (Aug 31, 2005)

you definately can emphasize one head over the other kids.
 it has to do with the position of your humerus relative to your torso.
 no you cant 'isolate' any one of them, but you can definately change how the workload is distrubuted throughout the three heads.

 to work the lateral head best you want to keep your upper arm down at your side or close to it.
 press downs mostly, although CGBP hammers the medial head hard too.


----------



## Yanick (Aug 31, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> you definately can emphasize one head over the other kids.
> it has to do with the position of your humerus relative to your torso.
> no you cant 'isolate' any one of them, but you can definately change how the workload is distrubuted throughout the three heads.



you have your opinion, we have our science   

i just don't see how you can say the position of the humerus relative to the torso (thats an action of the shoulder joint) will effect the recruitment of the triceps (thats an action of the elbow joint).

shoulders flexed, like in overhead DB extension for example - triceps are still extending the arm

shoulders extended, like in a press down for example - triceps are still extending the arm

your body doesn't say, 'oh shit my shoulders are flexed i need more medial tricep work. all your triceps extend your elbow, no way around it.

however if you extend your elbow and your shoulder simultaneously, like in a pullover/laying tricep extension hybrid type exercise, the long head will assist in extending your shoulder, but once the elbow extension comes into play all of your triceps are working. its basic kinesiology guys, if you don't believe go buy a text book and look it up, i'm not making this shit up and its not something i read in FLEX.


----------



## Purdue Power (Aug 31, 2005)

I do cable pushdowns with a rope to hit my outer heads.  Be sure to curl your hands outwards at the bottom of the reps to get a full extention and full contraction.  I can definately feel it hitting the outer heads more.  I don't care what the many previous posts have been saying...I know what I am feeling and know what progress I am seeing.


----------



## TheCurse (Aug 31, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> you have your opinion, we have our science
> 
> i just don't see how you can say the position of the humerus relative to the torso (thats an action of the shoulder joint) will effect the recruitment of the triceps (thats an action of the elbow joint).
> 
> ...


 the long head of the triceps is actually attached to the scapula braintrust, while the other two start on the humerus. elevating your arm puts the long head on a stretch, eliciting a stronger contraction. how many anatomy classes you taken? ive taken several.  ive also developed the long head of my triceps to a far greater extent than most people using my findings.

 the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 31, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> the long head of the triceps is actually attached to the scapula braintrust, while the other two start on the humerus. elevating your arm puts the long head on a stretch, eliciting a stronger contraction. how many anatomy classes you taken? ive taken several.  ive also developed the long head of my triceps to a far greater extent than most people using my findings.
> 
> the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.




looking at his arguments I don't think he is denying that the long head of the tricep is activated to a greater extent when your humerus goes into flexion.


----------



## TheCurse (Aug 31, 2005)

i dont care P i still want to eat his children.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 31, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> i dont care P i still want to eat his children.




I hear children are great for the outer head of the tricep as well.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 31, 2005)

Everyone keeps using the old "I feel it in muscle/head ____ so it must be getting worked to a greater extent" jive to back up their statements concerning isolating parts of a muscle or heads of a muscle group that cannot be isolated from their brethren.  For some reason I think science wins when that is the only counter-argument.  

You see, there is this phenomenon called proprioception.  Because certain heads of a muscle group, or even portions of a single muscle, are stretched to a different degree depending on the movement in question, the mind tends to create a reaction via the nervous system to make the lifter aware of that fact.  That doesn't mean that the portion of the muscle or the head in question is under a greater amount of tension, will hypertrophy more, is suffering a greater amount of microtrauma, etc.


----------



## GFR (Aug 31, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.



I have to agree with this......science is great but I think it is more than incomplete when debating if inclines work the upper chest differanntly than declines, or triceps for that matter.

So I have to rely on both *science ( and the tiny amout of research done on how specific exercises hit certain muscles  *  and *experiance*.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> the long head of the triceps is actually attached to the scapula braintrust, while the other two start on the humerus. elevating your arm puts the long head on a stretch, eliciting a stronger contraction. how many anatomy classes you taken? ive taken several.  ive also developed the long head of my triceps to a far greater extent than most people using my findings.





			
				Yanick said:
			
		

> the exception of course must be mentioned. the long head of the tri's crosses both the elbow and shoulder joint and assists in shoulder extension so you can get a better contraction in the long head by bringing your elbow back more in stuff like kickbacks and similar movements. but that is still not targeting or isolating or w/e that specific head.





			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.



not a bodybuilder so i'm not really impressive looking, just decently big  still don't see how that would make me wrong and you right though. and no i'm not talking shit really, just trying to dispel myths, i'm not trying to change your mind but i'm trying to open others' minds as there are many newbies on here that will think they need to hit the triceps with 7 different exercises to make sure all the heads will be stimulated, i've been there so i know.


----------



## MyK (Sep 1, 2005)

Purdue Power said:
			
		

> I do cable pushdowns with a rope to hit my outer heads.  Be sure to curl your hands outwards at the bottom of the reps to get a full extention and full contraction.  I can definately feel it hitting the outer heads more.  I don't care what the many previous posts have been saying...I know what I am feeling and know what progress I am seeing.



I agree with this, and for you guys to come back and say your wrong because "science" says so, dont give me that shit.

I have a science degree, and I know all about experimental design, "proprioception", and expectancy theory....blah blah blah. BUT, I also know how much bullshit science there is out there so taking science out of the discussion....

now, Im not saying that you can isolate certain heads, but I do believe that you can focus on one. That is why I do cable pushdowns at the end of my tricep workout. it really hits the outer head, i KNOW IT DOES!


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

I want an outer head.


----------



## Tough Old Man (Sep 1, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I want an outer head.


And I want to get some head!





Tough


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

Tough Old Man said:
			
		

> And I want to get some head!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




are you asking me or telling me?


----------



## MCPaulyB (Sep 1, 2005)

Why couldn't someone just give me some exercises and tell me that they work the our head...


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 1, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with that.......
> Now lets not argue this for 50 posts just do this and then tell me I'm wrong.
> Next chest workout do something different....do incline DB press 6 sets of 6-10 reps.
> then a few incline flys if you want and thats it......now is your chest sore at the top , middle or bottom?????
> ...



I might try this, but then I think why bother as I must be a lucky one and have an excellent upper chest by doing just flat bench.... genetics huh!


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.



Ronnie coleman, Arnold schwarzenegger, Flex Wheeler, Markus Rhul (I could go on and on) would own any of your results on any muscle group, does that mean we should all believe what come out their mouth also? because if you do you will be a fucking mess of contradicted bullshit. 

BTW arnold made his calves grow by bombing them with 100`s of sets and marked every set he did on the gym wall with an "X"...after a while it started to resemble a huge army comming to crush all his enemies in the gym   ..... 

Arnold achieved good calves you can too by doing the same calf routine   .. "the proof is in the pudding" (as some one says   ) and Arnold owns you all so  LISTEN TO HIM i know you can do it


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

another skinny dude tellin me whats up.

 keep tryin kid you'll get somewhere one day.


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> another skinny dude tellin me whats up.
> 
> keep tryin kid you'll get somewhere one day.



Well you know about me dont you, like my age, weight and  height etc..   

One thing that is more funny then some skinny dude tellin you whats up is grown men debating and arguing like frustrated 15 year olds.  

Any noobies here welcome to IM   

(p.s. about the frustrated 15 year old bit.. you sure you ran your PCT for long enough   )


----------



## buildingup (Sep 1, 2005)

heres the solution, hardtrainer and curse your both cocks!


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

more internet shit talking.  show me the muscle to back up your claims.  oh yea you cant.
 thats all i do, back up the advice i give with the fact that i have done it myself for years and seen the desired results.  sure ive read lots of books, articles, talked to pro and amatuer weightlifters about what they do.  but what i have experienced myself is all i can truely know.

 i know you keyboard jockeys like to throw so called facts around like its a contest, but ill take the advice of a warrior who has sweated and bled in the trenches for years over your little kid wanna be whinings everytime.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

> talked to pro and amatuer weightlifters about what they do.



BB'ers are not weightlifters.  Weightlifters are people that compete in the sport of weightlifting (aka olympic liftering).  for some reason America is the only country that messes up that terminology.  I am not arguing though.  All I am saying is don't group real athletes in with people that do nothing athletic at all.


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 1, 2005)

Science is more about speculation, and experimentation, than it is about the real world. Look it took science millenniums to agree the earth was not flat, then it was a dumb sailor that proved it.

Einstein was a smart man, he figured out the theory of relativity, but had to have someone to lead him to the corner store, and back. Otherwise he would get lost. Then he gave us the A-bomb = SMART!!.

If it wasn't for science the air we breath, might not be killing us. Darwin was a stupid fucker!, he probably did descend from a monkey.

I could keep this up for hours. But for everyone else sake I won't. 

The bottom line is, science don't know SHIT!!.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

i hate to resort to this kind of stuff, but seeing as the best counter-argument i'm recieving is something that i stated in the beginning of the thread and the second best is "show me your pics" i have no choice.



			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> i dont care P i still want to eat his children.



closest you can come to eating my kids is if i bust in your mouth and as much as you'd like that i don't flow that way. now go try on some speedo's, make sure they show those glute striations or your man-whore won't get turned on.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

Sam40 said:
			
		

> Science is more about speculation, and experimentation, than it is about the real world. Look it took science millenniums to agree the earth was not flat, then it was a dumb sailor that proved it.
> 
> Einstein was a smart man, he figured out the theory of relativity, but had to have someone to lead him to the corner store, and back. Otherwise he would get lost. Then he gave us the A-bomb = SMART!!.
> 
> ...



yea you're right who needs science, lets just listen to Ronnie Coleman and we'll all be hyooge.


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 1, 2005)

No you don't necessarily have to listen to Ronnie Colman, some of us don't want to be huge just healthy.  But if you won't to be huge, he has the credentials to prove it.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 1, 2005)

my outer head hurts! just shut the fuck up all yall, the guy asking isnt gunna get big neway!


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

Sam40 said:
			
		

> No you don't necessarily have to listen to Ronnie Colman, some of us don't want to be huge just healthy.  But if you won't to be huge, he has the credentials to prove it.



He has the credentials to prove it!!!?? Have you ever heard that guy talk?!


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

last point on here. Who would you rather listen to about training advice?

Option 1

Option 2 - Guy all the way on the left


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

to the original poster:

Welcome to IM.  As you can see you asked a question that is a bit of a "touchy subject".  The debate goes on and probably will continue to go on about the issue of "isolating" specific muscles.


While the true answer to your question remains to be unseen as those that rely strictly on science say it is not so and those that rely specifically on what the feel will tell you it can be done one thing can be certain.  If you want your triceps to get bigger, as big as they genetically can get, it is important to use variety as much as possible in your workout to prevent your body from adapting to anyone approach.  I would recomment picking two exercises and doing them for 2-3 weeks.  Then pick another two different exercises and work with them.  Be sure yo change around the variables to freshen up the program.  Variables such as rest interval, rep tempo and intensity (load) are some of the things that you can use.

good luck.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

well, ill let yanick and all you lil guys resort to these non-related insults.

 but answer me this.  why are there three heads to the tricep if one will do?
 if it simply works one way, on or off, why not just have one muscle preforming the lever and hinge action?

 cmon, bust out the PhD and tell us.

 or just go ahead with the insults.  lil guys


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 1, 2005)

In the end your genetics, is who you have to listen to. Some of us got it, others don't.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> or just go ahead with the insults.  lil guys


 You do know that yanick is 5'8 210 (I think yanick is who i was thinking of) pounds and hard trainer is over 200 right? Both have posted pictures.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> well, ill let yanick and all you lil guys resort to these non-related insults.
> 
> but answer me this.  why are there three heads to the tricep if one will do?
> if it simply works one way, on or off, why not just have one muscle preforming the lever and hinge action?
> ...



firstly, i didn't start with the insults i just continued with em cause i'm low on sleep and stressed out the past couple of days.

i'm surprised to actually hear an argument from you, i thought the next post i was gonna see was some other witty insults and requests for pictures. i'm very surprised, a good surprised.

as far as why the tricep has three heads, no one can ever answer that question. that is like asking why is the earth the third planet from the sun? if you're religious g-d put three heads on the back of our arm, if your into evolution maybe the tricep has to do more work than the bicep so we evolved to have three heads there because extending your arm is more important and thus we require more muscle there to do more work or w/e. don't know if you follow my logic on what i just said, but that is the best i can do with 3hrs of sleep.

now answer me this question. How do you move the workload over to the other heads of the tricep (excluding the long head and shoulder extension etc etc we've been over this). are we agreed on the fact that the triceps extend the elbow, and thats all they do?*


*it should be noted that the triceps apparently also assist in supination and pronation or the wrist.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> well, ill let yanick and all you lil guys resort to these non-related insults.
> 
> but answer me this.  why are there three heads to the tricep if one will do?
> if it simply works one way, on or off, why not just have one muscle preforming the lever and hinge action?
> ...




Don't know exactly why.  Probably just has to do with evoluition.  This is how we evolved.  Also, an injury to one head doesn't mean that your arm is useless since all three heads share a similiar attachment you can still functin to a certain degree for a time beinging.  Again, just speculating.  But I would assume it is just evolution.

So, is it safe to assume that because you asked the question you know the answer??

thanks,
lil guy.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

again, all i can say, is what i know.
 no i hateschool i dont know anything about anyone except that they always argue with my results. and cant show me any of their own.
 were talking triceps here.  were talking long head development.  studies, what you got. i am my study.  not a week or month, years.  i put my hypothesis into action and lo and behold it held true.  im going to stand behind what i believe.

 oh and calling people little ihateschool? i beleive yanick was the one that said he wanted to put his dick in my mouth. i might feel strongly about my practices but i can still maintain a certain level of maturity.  plus i thought everyone had heard the mike tyson quote and would know it was for laughs.  i really dont care.  
 i still stand by my methods.  

 last point:
 people ask me about my triceps and arms all the time.  several people in my gym, with the standard lateral tricep development but virtually no long head development like most people have, using advice i gave when asked, are now (months later) showing much fatter tricep long heads.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> again, all i can say, is what i know.
> no i hateschool i dont know anything about anyone except that they always argue with my results. and cant show me any of their own.
> were talking triceps here.  were talking long head development.  studies, what you got. i am my study.  not a week or month, years.  i put my hypothesis into action and lo and behold it held true.  im going to stand behind what i believe.
> 
> ...





but what you've got is genetics.

My legs are big.  They always have been big.  my calves are huge!  they always have been huge.  People ask me what I do for my calves.  I say "I don't do anything for them.  I don't train them directly."  I am my own study.  Nobody in my gym trains calves because I don't train calves and I have big calves so my results speak volumes.

See my point?

Shane Hamman at 15yrs old walked into the gym at school to train for football and squated 500lbs, his first time in the gym!!  Genetics!!  he can't say....well, for the past four years I have been doing speed work on mondays and suspended good mornings on thursday.  He just had it.

You have great triceps.  You worked hard to make them better.  they look awesome.  But, just because you simply have them doesn't make you an authority on how they work biomechanically.

Just like I have big legs.  Fuck!  I train legs 4 times a week!  That is all I train right now pretty much.  But, it doesn't mean that I know what I am doing.  my legs are just big.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> again, all i can say, is what i know.
> no i hateschool i dont know anything about anyone except that they always argue with my results. and cant show me any of their own.
> were talking triceps here.  were talking long head development.  studies, what you got. i am my study.  not a week or month, years.  i put my hypothesis into action and lo and behold it held true.  im going to stand behind what i believe.



wow thats great, now to actually test you hypothesis you would need to have 2 seperate realities with one of you in each of those realities, doing the same exact stuff everyday except the only thing you would change is how you train your triceps. if after, hell even 8 weeks, the results are the same you're wrong, but if after 8 weeks you are able to noticeably bring up one head while maintaining or w/e the others your right...do you see the flaw in empirical evidence? you can't compare yourself to others, you can only compare yourself to yourself (and within the same time period really) and since you can't go back in time and do only CGBP's for your tri's to see the difference in development your point is moot.



			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> oh and calling people little ihateschool? i beleive yanick was the one that said he wanted to put his dick in my mouth. i might feel strongly about my practices but i can still maintain a certain level of maturity.  plus i thought everyone had heard the mike tyson quote and would know it was for laughs.  i really dont care.
> i still stand by my methods.



i insulted you in 1 post after being insulted repeatedly. i'm sorry i didn't have use a condescending tone and call you little, i'm just more direct with insults and don't try and mask them with BS. And no i never heard that Tyson quote.



			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> last point:
> people ask me about my triceps and arms all the time.  several people in my gym, with the standard lateral tricep development but virtually no long head development like most people have, using advice i gave when asked, are now (months later) showing much fatter tricep long heads.



it is clear that you have no ability to counter any of my arguments. i answered your question to the best of my ability and have given counter-arguments too every argument you through at me, all i have heard from you is "i have big triceps" and "you are small"


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

well you must not read too well. i posted i created a hypothesis, tested it, and it held true. tested it on other subjects. and it proved true. the best knowledge is learned through hard work and experience.

 and p, i started at 155 pounds with no arm at all.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> well you must not read too well. i posted i created a hypothesis, tested it, and it held true. tested it on other subjects. and it proved true. the best knowledge is learned through hard work and experience.
> 
> and p, i started at 155 pounds with no arm at all.



go read my post above, its impossible to have a control group was my whole point. how old are you if you don't mind?


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

6'1, 30 yrs old.  started lifting at 25, looked very stick like.  recently found a pic from 2000 im gonna scan and post.
 alright yanick, i dont like argueing really, can we just agree to disagree?


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 1, 2005)

Arnold has a fantastic bicep but take a look at him when he was 13 and his bicep looks like nothing as his bicep got bigger you noticed the genetic determind shape much easier.

Take a guy with 14 inch arms build them to 18`s with all the angles you can think of.

Now strip him back down to 14`s then build them to 18`s again but with basic compound exercises only and his arms will look no different as before.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> 6'1, 30 yrs old.  started lifting at 25, looked very stick like.  recently found a pic from 2000 im gonna scan and post.
> alright yanick, i dont like argueing really, can we just agree to disagree?



congrats on your gains bro, i'm sure you worked hard for em.

like i said before, i wasn't really trying to change your mind (well maybe a little) but it was more for the newbie who will eventually find this thread and think he needs all these exercises to have a good tri workout. lots of big words out there used by so called 'gurus' and when your new and don't know anything it seems impressive so you blindly follow them, but then hopefully you learn to question and question and question some more. there are only a handful of people on this forum that i would just trust when they brought up something to me that i haven't heard/read/researched, and they earned that respect not by being big but by showing that they are critical thinkers and not just people who memorize a couple of big words.

w/e, i digress.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 1, 2005)

Okay, TheCurse, can you please layout your testing methods for me?  I am interested to hear about this study of yours.  You are claiming that you have tested your hypothesis on others.  Tell me what variables were held constant and what variables were not; tell me how many people were involved in your study; tell me the background information of the people in your study; etc.  I'm not trying to be a smartass.  If you have a real repeatable scientific method in action here, I would be interested to get more information.

Furthermore, when you completed this study, what was the method you used to verify your results?  Did you make sure that the outer head grew appreciably more than the other two heads?


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

do pressdowns, your gonna emphasize the lateral head of the triceps to a greater degree than the long head.
 do overhead dumbell presses and skullcrushers and you will emphasize the long head more.

 where are your studies oh keyboard jockeys.  like i said, i did it, helped others do it.  no i dont keep peoples stats, gimme a break.  i know the workout master cowpimp who doesnt look like he works out has all the right answers so what am i thinking getting results for me and others from my methods.

 so you are saying 'i read this so there!'
 i probably read all the same shit and more
 i guess i just think about things for myself, dont just always take what im spoon fed.


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 1, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Okay, TheCurse, can you please layout your testing methods for me?  I am interested to hear about this study of yours.  You are claiming that you have tested your hypothesis on others.  Tell me what variables were held constant and what variables were not; tell me how many people were involved in your study; tell me the background information of the people in your study; etc.  I'm not trying to be a smartass.  If you have a real repeatable scientific method in action here, I would be interested to get more information.
> 
> Furthermore, when you completed this study, what was the method you used to verify your results?  Did you make sure that the outer head grew appreciably more than the other two heads?



i see your point here, but if you think that empirical work in fitness/medicine/health fields are any more rigorous, your are kidding yourself.  You really have to question their studies thoroughly...the experiment set up, the actual statistical analysis, diagnostics....tends to leave a lot to be desired....


----------



## Vieope (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> ...





			
				Yanick said:
			
		

> ....





			
				P-funk said:
			
		

> ...



_So is your face. _


----------



## P-funk (Sep 1, 2005)

Curse...I was making a point. Even though you started at 155 (I started at 120 by the way!) you genetically have arms that respond well to training....much like my calves or legs (I wish it were my arms like yours!!).  My point was just that anecdotal proof is only good enough when it applies to you and you only.  For example, when I diet I diet a certain way.  There are many books and approaches on dieting and people tell me that I should try this this way or that way etc...I can't argue with them and say that my way is better just because it is!  It is better....for me....tried and true, that is what I go with.  Doesn't mean it will work for you, yan, or cowpimp.  The anecdotal evidence I provide on my diet is only as good as the paper it is written on (or the computer screen it is read on).  It is good for me.  Like I said, tried and true.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 1, 2005)

umm, i got to 205 before running one cycle of SD, which netted me 10 more pounds which i have already lost foreman.  thats all my prohormone/aas experience. the picture of my tricep in my avatar is all natural me at about 204.
 and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods.  i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?


----------



## GFR (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> umm, i got to 205 before running one cycle of SD, which netted me 10 more pounds which i have already lost foreman.  thats all my prohormone/aas experience. *the picture of my tricep in my avatar is all natural me at about 204.*   and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods.  i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?


My bad I toought you juiced. You look great for a natural athlete.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> do pressdowns, your gonna emphasize the lateral head of the triceps to a greater degree than the long head.
> do overhead dumbell presses and skullcrushers and you will emphasize the long head more.



Oh, yeah, when you put it that way...  Science is definitely proven wrong...




> where are your studies oh keyboard jockeys.  like i said, i did it, helped others do it.  no i dont keep peoples stats, gimme a break.  i know the workout master cowpimp who doesnt look like he works out has all the right answers so what am i thinking getting results for me and others from my methods.



I'm just going on established kinesiology facts.  That is, the function of the three heads of the triceps is to extend your elbow.  If the elbow is being extended, then all three heads are being worked.  The only exceptions being, as previously stated by Yanick, the assistance of the long head in hybrid movements when your shoulder is externally rotated and you are try to adduct or extend your shoulder.

You are the one who claims to have created a hypothesis and tested it out that flies in the face of this.  Yes, the kind of information I asked for does matter, because otherwise you may have a very high margin of error, as I suspect you do.

You always come back to the fact that you're bigger than the people you argue with.  That doesn't mean anything.  If I wanted to be bigger right now, then I could be.  I haven't been eating to gain weight for at least 6 months now, only to gain strength, which I have done successfully.  Mass gain isn't my primary goal, and it never has been.  Not to mention you have been training for quite a bit longer than I have.




> so you are saying 'i read this so there!'
> i probably read all the same shit and more
> i guess i just think about things for myself, dont just always take what im spoon fed.



That's fine.  I just want to understand how you accurately determined the conclusion you have come to.

Basically, for you to be correct in this matter one of two things has to be occuring:  kinesiology lacks sufficient information about the function of the various heads of the triceps; or, there is a mechanism, that is yet undiscovered by anyone but yourself, that allows the long head of your tricep to hypertrophy to a different degree than the other heads of your tricep based on the training stimuli provided.  

Which one is it, and can you give me more information on your empirical evidence?  Simply saying "it worked for me because I'm bigger than you" is not going to fly, because you may just have a tricep with a genetically gifted long head.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 1, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods.  i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?



You say that, but did you actually measure the difference in growth rates between all the heads...


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> and as i have stated several times, other people have had success with my methods.  i guess they all just happen to have some magic tricep long head superiority genetics?




yes, and other people have had success with my methods of training legs.  Anyone can and will improve if you show them something totally different then they are used to.  but, that doesn't prove the outerhead theroy.

anyway, I guess my point was missed and this is no longer a discussion as much as it is a headache so i am bowing out.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 2, 2005)

im kinda confused now too p, plus im talking long head not lateral head you numbskull!

 and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
 yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> im kinda confused now too p, plus im talking long head not lateral head you numbskull!
> 
> and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
> yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.


     
cowpoop = owned!


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
> yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.



It's not a thinly veiled attack.  You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis.  You just keep dodging my questions.  They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read.  Stop trying to get personal.  I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form.  You are getting defensive for no reason here...

Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me?  I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years.  I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.

Here is the bottom line.  Science says one thing, and you say another.  However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion.  At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered.  So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Here is the bottom line.  Science says one thing, and you say another.  However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion.  At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered.  So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?



CP, forget it bro. don't you know he has big arms so he's right about everything!

Fuck questioning and researching, we just need to get big arms to know what we're talking about.

Lo and behold, i've always idolized Mel Siff, but TheCurse has opened my eyes. He was a skinny bastard so he couldn't possibly know anything about training, i'm gonna go burn my copy of Supertraining and Fact and Fallacies of Fitness and re-subscribe to Muscle and Fitness because Ronnie can barely put together a cohesive sentence but he has 20+ inch arms so he must be right!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> It's not a thinly veiled attack.  You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis.  You just keep dodging my questions.  They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read.  Stop trying to get personal.  I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form.  You are getting defensive for no reason here...
> 
> Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me?  I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years.  I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.
> 
> Here is the bottom line.  Science says one thing,*Really??? please show us all the scientific studies on lying triceps extensions vs reverse grip triceps extensions and how each exercise develops the muscle differently or exactly the same.*  and you say another.  However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion.  At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered.  So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?


Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> CP, forget it bro. don't you know he has big arms so he's right about everything!
> 
> Fuck questioning and researching, we just need to get big arms to know what we're talking about.
> 
> Lo and behold, i've always idolized Mel Siff, but TheCurse has opened my eyes. He was a skinny bastard so he couldn't possibly know anything about training, i'm gonna go burn my copy of Supertraining and Fact and Fallacies of Fitness and re-subscribe to Muscle and Fitness because Ronnie can barely put together a cohesive sentence but he has 20+ inch arms so he must be right!




Haha.  I love sarcasm.  Maybe I spat out a little sarcasm and that's what he was calling an attack from me...  Anyway, that was great for a laugh Yanick.  Thanks.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.



The proof is that all 3 of the heads of the tricep contract when you extend your elbow...


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> The proof is that all 3 of the heads of the tricep contract when you extend your elbow...


Thats not the question here......now please show us the studies proving your *"opinion*".


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Thats not the question here......now please show us the studies proving your *"opinion*".



The poster's original question was an attempt to find exercises that "specifically target" the outer head of the tricep.  Except in the causes already mentioned (When assisting shoulder adduction/extension), that isn't possible because all of the heads of the tricep contract together during elbow extension.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Please share with us all the scientific proof that defines exactly how each exercise effects the muscle.



unfortunately that is way too insignificant of an issue for scientists to actually study.

BUT, yes there always is a but , established scientific facts prove you guys completely wrong.



			
				Gray's Anatomy said:
			
		

> Actions.—*The Triceps brachii is the great extensor muscle of the forearm, and is the direct antagonist of the Biceps brachii and Brachialis.* When the arm is extended, the long head of the muscle may assist the Teres major and Latissimus dorsi in drawing the humerus backward and in adducting it to the thorax. The long head supports the under part of the shoulder-joint. The Subanconæus draws up the synovial membrane of the elbow-joint during extension of the forearm.



gotten from here


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> The poster's original question was an attempt to find exercises that "specifically target" the outer head of the tricep.  Except in the causes already mentioned (When assisting shoulder adduction/extension), that isn't possible because all of the heads of the tricep contract together during elbow extension.


Still no answer.........................again give us the studies to support your opinion.

You might read this.......take notice of the  Origins.  



*origin:*
          lateral head:   superior 1/2 of post. lat. surface of humerus;
          long head:     infraglenoid tuberosity of scapula;
          medial head:
              - inferior 2/3 on posterior surface of the humerus, beginning at the spiral groove;
              - medial head surrounds the radial nerve in the spiral groove;

- insertion: supraposterior surface of the olecranon process of the ulna
                        and deep fascia of the forearm;
- action: extends forearm at the elbow. Longe head aids in adduction and
                  extension of the arm at the shoulder;
origin:
          lateral head:   superior 1/2 of post. lat. surface of humerus;
          long head:     infraglenoid tuberosity of scapula;
          medial head:
              - inferior 2/3 on posterior surface of the humerus, beginning at the spiral groove;
              - medial head surrounds the radial nerve in the spiral groove;

- insertion: supraposterior surface of the olecranon process of the ulna
                        and deep fascia of the forearm;
- action: extends forearm at the elbow. Longe head aids in adduction and
                  extension of the arm at the shoulder;


http://www.rad.washington.edu/atlas/tricepsbrachii.html
Origin Long head: infraglenoid tubercle of scapula
Lateral head: posterior surface of humerus, superior to radial groove
Medial head: posterior surface of humerus, inferior to radial groove  
Insertion Proximal end of olecranon process of ulna and fascia of forearm  
Action Chief extensor of forearm; long head steadies head of abducted humerus  
Innervation Radial nerve (C6, C7 and C8)  
Arterial
Supply Branches of deep brachial artery  


The medical illustrations contained in this online atlas are copyrighted © 1997 by the University of Washington. They may not be utilized, reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the University of Washington.


*This is only Anatomy.................we are debating Physiology here*.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> unfortunately that is way too insignificant of an issue for scientists to actually study. *That is an opinion.....................not interested in your opinion....facts please.*
> 
> BUT, yes there always is a but , established scientific facts prove you guys completely wrong.*Please post them.......I'm still waiting as are many others.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You might read this.......take knotice of the  Origins.
> *http://www.rad.washington.edu/atlas/tricepsbrachii.html
> Origin Long head: infraglenoid tubercle of scapula
> Lateral head: posterior surface of humerus, superior to radial groove
> ...



oh my god its like banging your fuckin head against the wall.

that proves my whole point.

they are even innervated by the same nerve.

they all share one insertion point on the ulna and two of the heads originate on the back of the humerus while one (the long head as stated a million times already) originates on the scapula. now explain to me how many different ways you can extend your elbow, and how each of those recruits each head of the triceps either exclusively or moreso than the others, and forget about the long head being recruited to assist in shoulder extension etc etc.

and another thing. show us your studies smart guy, that state that you CAN isolate, or move the workload over to one head vs the others. How is this achieved, how can you contract (conc, iso, ecc) one head more than the others? show me one piece of evidence, besides i have big arms, that supports your claim.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

do me a favor, don't respond to me inside the quote. its just makes it easier for me to quote you later on.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> oh my god its like banging your fuckin head against the wall.
> 
> that proves my whole point.
> 
> ...


All you did was post the same Anatomy info that I did....
Now show me some scientific studies to prove your opinion.
And I didnt say you can "isolate."

*Again because you cant seem to read.....this is also and to a larger part a Physiology issue.*


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Still no answer.........................again give us the studies to support your opinion.



I was talking basic textbook kinesiology here.  Yanick scrounged up a link though.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I was talking basic textbook kinesiology here.  Yanick scrounged up a link though.


Yes a link about Anatomy only......
Please post some scientific studies supporting your opinions 



*post 72 by cowpimp*
It's not a thinly veiled attack. You are refusing to give any more detail on your tested hypothesis. You just keep dodging my questions. They are valid questions, and questions that I would seek the answer to in any study that I read. Stop trying to get personal. I have not attacked you in any way, shape, or form. You are getting defensive for no reason here...

Also, I want to understand how, even if my goal was pure mass, you expect me to reach the state of someone who has been training more than twice as long as me? I have gained almost 30 pounds of muscle in the past 2 years. I think that rate of muscular gain is definitely respectable.

Here is the bottom line. *Science says one thing, and you say another. However, you claim to have proof to support your opinion. At the same time, you refuse to present this proof with sufficient detail to be considered*. So, explain to me why anyone should believe what you're saying without further information, which is what I have been trying to extrapolate from you in this thread?



*I am just asking of you the same thing you are asking of thecurse*


----------



## swordfish (Sep 2, 2005)

cowpimp, p-funk, thecurse, foreman rules, and whoever the hell is is talking about this, including the person who posted, all of you guys chill, who cares about the outer head, your not competing, just worry about getting your ARMS GETTING BIG, hit cg, skull-crushers, dips, overhead ext, pushdowns. just pick a couple and hit it hard and heavy, 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps for 2 or 3 exercises. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE OUTER HEAD. QUIT OVERANALYZING EACH DAMN MUSCLE FIBER. just keep lifting and hitting it hard with the basics!  

and if you want to worry too much about a muscle, worry about your thighs and your back, much much bigger.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> All you did was post the same Anatomy info that I did....
> Now show me some scientific studies to prove your opinion.
> And I didnt say you can "isolate."
> 
> *Again because you cant seem to read.....this is also and to a larger part a Physiology issue.*



its actually a kinesiology issue, but that is semantics. we can extrapolate from anatomy, physiology and kinesiology that one head cannot be worked moreso than the others, it is not necessary to study it but if you have a couple of hundred grand and a lab i'm sure you'll find someone willing to do a valid study on it, but that guy won't have big arms so he'll just be wrong.

*ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (k-ns-l-j, -z-)
n. 
The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans. 
The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement. *

*Main Entry: anat·o·my
Pronunciation: &-'nat-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -mies
1 : a branch of morphology that deals with the structure of organisms —compare PHYSIOLOGY 1 
2 : a treatise on anatomic science or art 
3 : the art of separating the parts of an organism in order to ascertain their position, relations, structure, and function : DISSECTION 
4 : structural makeup especially of an organism or any of its parts *

*phys·i·ol·o·gy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fz-l-j)
n. 
The biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts. 
All the functions of a living organism or any of its parts.*

listen bottom line is you dodge every single question i throw at you and return with retarded questions like show me your studies. its is obviously out of my control what kind of studies are being performed out there in the world so its not fault that there aren't any studies that prove my point however there are also no studies that prove your point so its a double edged sword you see?

which brings me back to basic kinesiology and anatomy.

i will post up some basic, undeniable scientific facts which can be found in any text.

1. muscles work by contracting across a joint and bringing the insertion and origin closer together thereby moving the bones that make up that joint.
2. a muscle can only contract, that is all it does.
3. the elbow is a hinge joint and can only move in one degree/plane of motion.
4. the actions of the elbow are flexion and extension.
5. the triceps extend the elbow (and assist in some shoulder/wrist actions)
6. no matter where your humerus is in space (abducted, flexed, extended, ripped off from the body etc), the action of the triceps is still extension.

now tell me which one of these scientific facts you disagree with and we can go from there.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> cowpimp, p-funk, thecurse, foreman rules, and whoever the hell is is talking about this, including the person who posted, all of you guys chill, who cares about the outer head, your not competing, just worry about getting your ARMS GETTING BIG, hit cg, skull-crushers, dips, overhead ext, pushdowns. just pick a couple and hit it hard and heavy, 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps for 2 or 3 exercises. WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE OUTER HEAD. QUIT OVERANALYZING EACH DAMN MUSCLE FIBER. just keep lifting and hitting it hard with the basics!
> 
> and if you want to worry too much about a muscle, worry about your thighs and your back, much much bigger.



dunno bout the rest of these guys but i'm having a blast!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> its actually a kinesiology issue, but that is semantics*Yes it is....and that is no way to prove a point....plus Kinesiology is a branch of Physiology...so your splitting hairs here  * . we can extrapolate from anatomy, physiology and kinesiology that one head cannot be worked moreso than the others, it is not necessary to study it but if you have a couple of hundred grand and a lab i'm sure you'll find someone willing to do a valid study on it, but that guy won't have big arms *When did I bring up arm size?????....nice try buddy*  so he'll just be wrong.
> 
> *ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (k-ns-l-j, -z-)
> n.
> ...


Posting definitions and taking pot shots at me just proves you have no idea what certain exercises do to the triceps muscle.

All you have to say is that its your opinion.....but instead you 2 just keep asking for proof ( when we said from our first posts it was just our opinions from experience)....and yet you 2 still have shown 0 proof to support your opinions.

We are all familiar with Anatomy here but that is not the issue......


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

okay, i have no proof obviously because none exists (if there was definitive proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion). all we can do is extrapolate from the basic sciences that moving the workload from one head over to another is impossible.

very true, you never mentioned anything about arms i'm still bitter about yesterday lol.

so, since we both agree there is no definitive proof either way the only thing we can do is present current knowns and use logic to extrapolate a conclusion. the undeniable facts i have posted up above, but you skirt the whole issue. i have explained how i extrapolated my conclusion from known scientific facts, now i'm asking you to do 1 of two things. either prove that my conclusion is flawed in some way...that my interpretation of the facts is wrong or present your own conclusion and explain how you came to it in a logical manner.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> okay, i have no proof obviously because none exists (if there was definitive proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion). all we can do is extrapolate from the basic sciences that moving the workload from one head over to another is impossible.
> 
> very true, you never mentioned anything about arms i'm still bitter about yesterday lol.
> 
> so, since we both agree there is no definitive proof either way the only thing we can do is present current knowns and use logic to extrapolate a conclusion. the undeniable facts i have posted up above, but you skirt the whole issue.*Really??? how do I do that???....I said it was my "opinion" and you 2 began the attack on those who didn't share your beliefs.*  i have explained how i extrapolated my conclusion from known scientific facts, *Not really, all you did was copy some Anatomy terms....and interpret them as you felt necessary* now i'm asking you to do 1 of two things. either prove that my conclusion is flawed in some way...that my interpretation of the facts is wrong or present your own conclusion and explain how you came to it in a logical manner.



I said it before and I will say it again...*From experience over years of training I have found that you can to some small degree target certain areas of certain muscles.*


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes a link about Anatomy only......
> Please post some scientific studies supporting your opinions
> 
> 
> ...



Okay fine.  The reason I asked him for proof is because he is talking about a study he performed himself.  I am only presenting widely accepted information on what the function of the triceps are; I'm talking kinesiology 101 stuff here.  Either way, I will provide you with link listing the aforementioned function, in addition to the link provided by Yanick:

http://www.fitstep.com/Advanced/Anatomy/Triceps.htm


> The primary function of the Tricep is to extend the elbow (straightening the arm).
> 
> The secondary function of the Tricep is fulfilled only by the Long head of the muscle, which is the bring the arm down towards the body (adduction). The Tricep shares this function with the Latissimus Dorsi.




http://www.sonoma.edu/users/b/boda/kin350/anatomy.htm - This is a study guide from Sonoma State University.


> Triceps Brachii- elbow extension concentric, elbow flexion eccentric
> 
> Exer: tricep curls, bench press




http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/triceps_brachii


> - action: extends forearm at the elbow. Longe head aids in adduction and extension of the arm at the shoulder;




http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/TricepsBrachii.html


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> im kinda confused now too p, plus im talking long head not lateral head you numbskull!
> 
> and to super cowpimp, look man, i know you got all this superior training knowledge and like to throw around those two dollar words, but looking at what your superior knowledge has produced in you, i dont want any part of it. i believe my goals are different. your aggresive thinly veiled attacks are irritating to say the least when i come across them in so many threads.
> yep, ill say it again. i want size and strength. if you look like guys i know who dont even lift, i dont want to follow your program. no matter how many books you've read.




actually, I am not talking about any head of the tricep!! LOL.  I agree about the long head if you are asking me about that.  However, I was just giving my 2 cents about anecdotal evidence as it applies to training different people. I was not ever really arguing with you or anyone as a matter of fact.  I was just brining up points.

sorry to confuse,
"still" lil guy


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Posting definitions and taking pot shots at me just proves you have no idea what certain exercises do to the triceps muscle.
> 
> All you have to say is that its your opinion.....but instead you 2 just keep asking for proof ( when we said from our first posts it was just our opinions from experience)....and yet you 2 still have shown 0 proof to support your opinions.
> 
> We are all familiar with Anatomy here but that is not the issue......



I asked for more detail about your evidence based on experience.  I said you already had proof, I just wanted more detail about it.  

For example, how did you measure the growth of the long head in the tricep relative to the other heads?  Or is it simply that when you look in the mirror you are pretty sure it increased in size at a rate that surpassed the rest of the heads?  If that is the case, then just say so.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Okay fine.  The reason I asked him for proof is because he is talking about a study he performed himself.  I am only presenting widely accepted information on what the function of the triceps are; I'm talking kinesiology 101 stuff here.  Either way, I will provide you with link listing the aforementioned function, in addition to the link provided by Yanick:
> 
> http://www.fitstep.com/Advanced/Anatomy/Triceps.htm
> *This is just anatomy that I have already posted and in no way proves your opinion.*
> ...


*Thats 4 anatomy reviews....please come up with some valid studies to prove your point.*


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *Thats 4 anatomy reviews....please come up with some valid studies to prove your point.*



All I'm trying to say is that elbow extension causes all 3 heads to contract, no matter how you position the rest of your body.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> All I'm trying to say is that elbow extension causes all 3 heads to contract, no matter how you position the rest of your body.


and my penis causes all three of your mums to cum!!!!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> All I'm trying to say is that elbow extension causes all 3 heads to contract, no matter how you position the rest of your body.



Actually this is what you are saying and said.

*origonally posted by Cowpimp*You see, there is this phenomenon called proprioception. Because certain heads of a muscle group, or even portions of a single muscle, are stretched to a different degree depending on the movement in question, the mind tends to create a reaction via the nervous system to make the lifter aware of that fact. That doesn't mean that the portion of the muscle or the head in question is under a greater amount of tension, will hypertrophy more, is suffering a greater amount of microtrauma, etc.






*We agree on basic anatomy only.*


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I said it before and I will say it again...*From experience over years of training I have found that you can to some small degree target certain areas of certain muscles.*



how did you come to this conclusion is my whole point.

my other point with TC was that this whole "years of experience" thing is impossible to verify, because you have no control group to measure your findings against.

to state it differently, say you needed to bring up your lateral head in the triceps and you spent 8 months doing it. at the end of the 8 months it appears that you have brought up your lateral head moreso than the other two. you need a control group (essentially another 'you') that didn't use your specific method of training (the lateral head) and instead only used CGBP for tri's and its absoblutely clear that his lateral head did not hypertrophy moreso than the other two. that is the only way to verify that the different training produced results which are different from any other form of training.

do you get my point now?

and saying anatomy doesn't matter is pure bullshit. for instance, the delts have 3 heads, each with a seperate function on the humerus and from that we can extrapolate the conclusion that front raises will work the anterior delt concentrically while recruiting the post. delt eccentrically to decelerate the load. we don't need studies to prove this, its basic scientific fact. we are just applying those same principles to the triceps and its very clear that all they do is extend the elbow, not matter if your laying down, holding your arms overhead or next to your sides.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

buildingup said:
			
		

> and my penis causes all three of your mums to cum!!!!



stop being a fucktard. if you don't have anything useful to say, stop wasting space on this thread.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> stop being a fucktard. if you don't have anything useful to say, stop wasting space on this thread.


suck my balls faggot! stop arguing ur stupid point and get ur 100lbs ass in the gym!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I asked for more detail about your evidence based on experience.  I said you already had proof, I just wanted more detail about it.
> 
> For example, how did you measure the growth of the long head in the tricep relative to the other heads?  Or is it simply that when you look in the mirror you are pretty sure it increased in size at a rate that surpassed the rest of the heads?  If that is the case, then just say so.


You are confusing me with theCurse here......I never said I had proof....
If you read my last 8 or 9 posts you would see that I said it was my opinion only.
*this is you talking to theCurse........I think you have us confused......I never did any study or test on this idea with others* 

*origonally posted by Cowpimp*
Okay, TheCurse, can you please layout your testing methods for me? I am interested to hear about this study of yours. You are claiming that you have tested your hypothesis on others. Tell me what variables were held constant and what variables were not; tell me how many people were involved in your study; tell me the background information of the people in your study; etc. I'm not trying to be a smartass. If you have a real repeatable scientific method in action here, I would be interested to get more information.

Furthermore, when you completed this study, what was the method you used to verify your results? Did you make sure that the outer head grew appreciably more than the other two heads?


----------



## largepkg (Sep 2, 2005)

Hey P, AKA:lil guy <---  

I only have one thing to say. You're a riot!


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

buildingup said:
			
		

> suck my balls faggot! stop arguing ur stupid point and get ur 100lbs ass in the gym!



your asking me, a guy, to suck your balls and then calling _me_ a faggot?


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

yep! i meant the sucking of my balls figuratively and your 100lbs ass literally!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> how did you come to this conclusion is my whole point.
> *Well I answered that question but will answer it again.......by training for a long time I have certain opinions on exercise.*
> 
> my other point with TC was that this whole "years of experience" thing is impossible to verify, because you have no control group to measure your findings against.*I didn't realize  that opinions needed documented proof*
> ...



We just disagree, I said from the start it was just my opinion and you 2 said it was scientific fact. So you can try to tell me my opinion is wrong but to do so you need to prove your point with actual science that applys to this discussion. Anatomy lessons are a good start but you really need much more that that.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

here are the first couple of posts that you and TC posted up, show me where you are saying that that is your opinion. You guys tried arguing science and got owned, so now you are trying to go back and say "oh i said its my opinion, you have you prove your point" well sorry bud it doesn't work that way.



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with that.......
> Now lets not argue this for 50 posts just do this and then tell me I'm wrong.
> Next chest workout do something different....do incline DB press 6 sets of 6-10 reps.
> then a few incline flys if you want and thats it......now is your chest sore at the top , middle or bottom?????
> ...






			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> you definately can emphasize one head over the other kids.
> it has to do with the position of your humerus relative to your torso.
> no you cant 'isolate' any one of them, but you can definately change how the workload is distrubuted throughout the three heads.
> 
> ...






			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> the long head of the triceps is actually attached to the scapula braintrust, while the other two start on the humerus. elevating your arm puts the long head on a stretch, eliciting a stronger contraction. how many anatomy classes you taken? ive taken several.  ive also developed the long head of my triceps to a far greater extent than most people using my findings.
> 
> the proof is in the results. lets see your triceps yanick.  oh yea its just another internet shit talker.






			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have to agree with this......science is great but I think it is more than incomplete when debating if inclines work the upper chest differanntly than declines, or triceps for that matter.
> 
> So I have to rely on both *science ( and the tiny amout of research done on how specific exercises hit certain muscles  *  and *experiance*.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> here are the first couple of posts that you and TC posted up, show me where you are saying that that is your opinion. *First of all I never said it was a scientific fact....but you did and you failed miserably to prove your point......now go read post 90....I say there that it is my "opinion," just to clear things up for you 2.* You guys tried arguing science and got owned*Actually we were stating our opinions and you two fools started a fight.......claiming science proves us wrong.......yet you never went beyond a high school anatomy lesson......sorry bro but you are " owned."*  , so now you are trying to go back and say "oh i said its my opinion, you have you prove your point" well sorry bud it doesn't work that way.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Actually this is what you are saying and said.
> 
> *origonally posted by Cowpimp*You see, there is this phenomenon called proprioception. Because certain heads of a muscle group, or even portions of a single muscle, are stretched to a different degree depending on the movement in question, the mind tends to create a reaction via the nervous system to make the lifter aware of that fact. That doesn't mean that the portion of the muscle or the head in question is under a greater amount of tension, will hypertrophy more, is suffering a greater amount of microtrauma, etc.
> 
> ...



You found the one post out of my 20 in this thread that doesn't have to do with the function of triceps.  All that statement was doing is aid in disproving the "I feel it in _____ muscle" explanation as proof that you can isolate a specific head of a tricep.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You found the one post out of my 20 in this thread that doesn't have to do with the function of triceps.  All that statement was doing is aid in disproving the "I feel it in _____ muscle" explanation as proof that you can isolate a specific head of a tricep.


So you are retracting this  comment?

This clearly shows your talking about more than just the "Anatomy of the triceps."


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

Let's start fresh here.  The original poster said the following:



> I'm looking to find exercises that specifically target the outside head (not sure exactly what its name is).
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions?




Okay.  So, he is looking for an exercise that "specifically targets" the outer head of the tricep.  Now, let's look at the basic functions of the tricep:

Extend the elbow
Assist in shoulder abduction/extension (Outer head)

So, the answer is no.  You can't activate the outer head without activating other muscles, which is what I'm interpreting "specifically target" as meaning.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> So you are retracting this  comment?
> 
> This clearly shows your talking about more than just the "Anatomy of the triceps."



Not at all.  However, why would you ask me for proof about something I posted 100 posts ago, instead of the topic at hand?  You have to be more specific if you are going to go out of context like that.


----------



## largepkg (Sep 2, 2005)

If anyone has a dead horse this would be the time to beat it!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Not at all.  However, why would you ask me for proof about something I posted 100 posts ago, instead of the topic at hand?  You have to be more specific if you are going to go out of context like that.


Look all you are doing here is being a smart ass ( like you said you went being in post 59 on page two  ) you keep drilling TheCurse on his opinions asking for scientific data, yet you offer none to disprove him except some basic anatomy. 

Why do you feel the need to try and brainwash everyone to agree with you? I have no problem with what you believe, I don't agree with you but thats fine.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Look all you are doing here is being a smart ass ( like you said you went being in post 59 on page two  ) you keep drilling TheCurse on his opinions asking for scientific data, yet you offer none to disprove him except some basic anatomy.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to try and brainwash everyone to agree with you? I have no problem with what you believe, I don't agree with you but thats fine.



I thought this was a forum?  As in an open public discussion...  I'm not trying to brainwash, but I merely wanted more info on how TheCurse came to the conclusion that he did.  I came to mine based, yes, on simply kinesiology.  

You just give the run around.  You don't know how to argue.  I'm done.  I've presented my case, and you presented yours.  If TheCurse wants to give me more information on how he tested his hypothesis, then he can.  It has nothing to do with you.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I thought this was a forum?  As in an open public discussion...  I'm not trying to brainwash, but I merely wanted more info on how TheCurse came to the conclusion that he did.  I came to mine based, yes, on simply kinesiology.
> 
> You just give the run around.  You don't know how to argue.  I'm done.  I've presented my case, and you presented yours.  If TheCurse wants to give me more information on how he tested his hypothesis, then he can.  It has nothing to do with you.


shut the fuck up cowshit! your losing the argument and being bloody annoying! go surf on a big wave!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I thought this was a forum? *It is but that dosent give you the right to attack those who don't agree with you.*  As in an open public discussion...  I'm not trying to brainwash, but I merely wanted more info on how TheCurse came to the conclusion that he did. *No you wanted some scientific data in its appropriate form to show you the results of his opinions........your just trying to be clever about how you disrespect others beliefs......but some of us can see through your arrogance.*  I came to mine based, yes, on simply kinesiology.  *Yet all you did to support it was post the same basic anatomy crap 100x.*
> 
> You just give the run around. *No thats what you do.....I stated an opinion, you said I was wrong ( you could have just said you disagreed...but you wanted to pic a fight) and you talked in circles never saying anything new and never showing and scientific facts to back op your bull shit.*  You don't know how to argue.*I'm not the fool who said science proved his opinion and failed to demonstrate those facts.*   I'm done.  I've presented my case, *No you just copied some high school anatomy facts.*  and you presented yours.  If TheCurse wants to give me more information on how he tested his hypothesis, then he can.  It has nothing to do with you.*Thank God I hope this is true.....I am sick to death dealing with an arrogant child with a Napoleon complex.*


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

foremanrules said:
			
		

> First of all I never said it was a scientific fact....but you did and you failed miserably to prove your point......now go read post 90....I say there that it is my "opinion," just to clear things up for you 2. Actually we were stating our opinions and you two fools started a fight.......claiming science proves us wrong.......yet you never went beyond a high school anatomy lesson......sorry bro but you are " owned."



you still didn't show me where you two were stating that isolating heads or w/e was your opinion. the words and tone you used implied that you were stating fact when in fact the science says otherwise. and no for the last time i do not have studies, but studies are not the only way to prove something, we do not need a study to prove gravity but we all know it exists because its a FACT of science. another fact of science is that the triceps extend your elbow, all three heads, no way around it.

like CowPimp, i digress. you two can't argue for shit, you just skirt around all of our questions and then backstep and start saying you never presented anything as fact because you can't present a case beyond, it worked for me (and to which we have replied, other training could have produced the same results but there is no way verify it).

this was a decent mental exercise, but i'm done now.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> you still didn't show me where you two were stating that isolating heads or w/e was your opinion. the words and tone you used implied that you were stating fact when in fact the science says otherwise. and no for the last time i do not have studies, but studies are not the only way to prove something, *I agree 100% experiance can be a great tool . And mine has taught me things that you don't agree with.* we do not need a study to prove gravity *But we have them*  but we all know it exists because its a FACT of science. another fact of science is that the triceps extend your elbow, all three heads, no way around it.*Yes we agree on basic anatomy.*
> 
> like CowPimp, i digress. you two can't argue for shit, *I'm not arguing you two are....I'm being attacked because I don't have the same opinion as you guys.* you just skirt around all of our questions *Not at all....name one question I didn't answer!* and then backstep and start saying you never presented anything as fact *Show me where I said anything I believed on this topic was a "fact."* because you can't present a case beyond, it worked for me (and to which we have replied, other training could have produced the same results but there is no way verify it).*Yes thats called a personal opinion....you could just have said " ok but I disagree with you"....but that was too hard for you wasn't it.*
> 
> this was a decent mental exercise, but i'm done now.


Yes you are very done.


----------



## turbine5 (Sep 2, 2005)

i would think a physio-therapist would be best able to answer this question....aren't kinesiology grads just glorified personal trainers?  Physios actually have to apply this stuff and get results...its their livelihood...Is anyone here a physio-therapist?


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 2, 2005)

one last post from me since i am serious on this topic.

  otherwise this shit is getting ridiculous.  ill even apologize for calling anyone little, except for p funk.

 my research? in the gym. i workout in san diego, california. i workout at the 24 hour fitness gyms. ive spent lots of time working out at the point loma, pacific beach, rancho san diego, mision valley, balboa, and even the gay ass hillcrest location. ive seen a lot of people come and go, and also those faces that stick around for years.

 in my first few years of working out, i noticed everyone and their momma did pressdowns for triceps and pretty much only press downs. i would see guys use a straight bar then a rope then a one handled reverse cable motion. and guess what. no one seemed to have the tricep long head development. lateral head yes, nothing in the long head department. the few guys who had these big ass horseshoes that i was after, didnt seem to do all the pressdowns. and upon me starting to ask these guys who had acheived what i wanted to achive, i started learning what exercises a lot of them had in common.
  and it wasnt press downs.

 so, armed with my idea that when you make the muscle longer, (you are pushing the insertion point farther away from the origin point as you raise your arm in regards to long head of the tricep only) it can contract a little bit harder, taxing the muscle fibers even more.

  so i never did press downs.  it was skulls and overhead dumbell presses.

 end result: i train triceps totally differently than most people, and my triceps ended up looking totally different than most poeple. i specifically tried to emphasize the long head, and it worked.
  you can say i just happen to have good tricep long head genetics, but i dont buy it.

 so thats my opinion, one i sweated through, go ahead and keep yelling 'Science!' at me, but i dont care. how many studies have you personally done? none.
  were you there to witness all these studies you keep reffering to? didnt think so.

 what im trying to say, is yes, i have read all this stuff that says muscles fire one way, on or off. i have read a lot of other stuff too. i took what i knew and applied it with my own ideas as well. this is my experience. you trying to tell me it didnt happen?

 so where is your experience. not a study you read, what did YOU do that worked. show me what you did. show me the results. that is the kind of info im here for. i can read books all day. i have another anatomy course at school this quarter. i dont need you to tell me muscle action and insertions. i like to hear the variations people put on things that seem to work for them. i dont always agree with it, but dam. you mother lovers are on the attack here something serious.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

> ill even apologize for calling anyone little, except for p funk.



why wont you apologize to me?


----------



## Sam40 (Sep 2, 2005)

I think this thread may qualify, as the longest of all time. So I can't resist getting in on it.

The triceps muscle must have a reason in having three heads, of course one being flexibility. But if you hold your arm straight out, and rotate your hand counter clockwise thumb pointing toward the floor; you will notice the triceps contracts. This proves that hand position has an a effect on this muscle. So being that is the case, it then must be possible to strike different parts of this muscle group. By using different exercises, and hand positions.

As far as science goes. The lowly Bumble Bee cannot fly, it is not aerodynamically possible.  BUT! somebody forgot to tell the bee. They can hover, fly sideways, and backward, something few flying creatures can do. So it seems they do pretty good, for a bee that absolutely is not supposed to fly. So science stands red faced on this one, who knows how many other things science fails to prove??.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Hey P, AKA:lil guy <---
> 
> I only have one thing to say. You're a riot!



Don't know if that is bad or good?  LOL.

I am not even really arguing with anyone.  More just making a statment.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

Sam40 said:
			
		

> I think this thread may qualify, as the longest of all time. So I can't resist getting in on it.
> 
> The triceps muscle must have a reason in having three heads, of course one being flexibility. But if you hold your arm straight out, and rotate your hand counter clockwise thumb pointing toward the floor; you will notice the triceps contracts. This proves that hand position has an a effect on this muscle. So being that is the case, it then must be possible to strike different parts of this muscle group. By using different exercises, and hand positions.
> 
> As far as science goes. The lowly Bumble Bee cannot fly, it is not aerodynamically possible.  BUT! somebody forgot to tell the bee. They can hover, fly sideways, and backward, something few flying creatures can do. So it seems they do pretty good, for a bee that absolutely is not supposed to fly. So science stands red faced on this one, who knows how many other things science fails to prove??.


This is the best post on this thread.....  
Love the bee analogy......shows what science is capable of.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 2, 2005)

for yanick and cowbell the workout masters of all, here are some more threads you better go trumpet your cause in:

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=39833

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=31563

  or is it just tricep envy that is the cause of all these attacks on my superior methods?



 gopro seems to agree with me, but since he doesnt know anything nearly as much as you two expert experts i guess i should discount his years of training knowledge and application.

 did someone say owned somewhere?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

I still don't get it??  Are they arguing with you about the long head or the outer head?  If you raise your arms up you will be working the long head as it is placed in its greatests strech.  Similiar to if you do a preacher curl and shorten the long head of the bicep you will use less of it.  While performing a incline DB curl that stretches that head will activate it to a greater extent.


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 2, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I still don't get it?? Are they arguing with you about the long head or the outer head? If you raise your arms up you will be working the long head as it is placed in its greatests strech. Similiar to if you do a preacher curl and shorten the long head of the bicep you will use less of it. While performing a incline DB curl that stretches that head will activate it to a greater extent.


 well p, if anyone cared they could go back and read my original statement and see that is pretty much what i said.

 lol.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

Thanks Curse.  I honestly just wanted a bit more information on what you meant by tested a hypothesis of yours.  I didn't mean it as an attack.  In the end, I don't totally disagree with you.  I think we ended up arguing about 10 different, but interrelated, things here, and a slightly different variation of each one.

The original poster asked about "specifically targetting" the outer head, which I took to mean as isolate.  I said that couldn't happen, and I still stand by it.  Not to mention I believe the outer head means the lateral head.  The lateral head is on the outside of the body in an anatomically relaxed position (Palms up, arms down to the side).

Now, I understand that you can get a greater stretch of the long head during overhead extensions, but the other heads still contract, and I don't think you can hypertrophy the long head at the expense of the other two heads.  That is, all the heads are going to grow if you do elbow extension movements.  Their rate of growth is dictated by genetics.  That is my opinion.  I'm owning that statement so Foreman can relax.

I appreciate your apology too.  I felt I was civil during this discussion, but pardon me if I wasn't.


----------



## buildingup (Sep 2, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Thanks Curse.  I honestly just wanted a bit more information on what you meant by tested a hypothesis of yours.  I didn't mean it as an attack.  In the end, I don't totally disagree with you.  I think we ended up arguing about 10 different, but interrelated, things here, and a slightly different variation of each one.
> 
> The original poster asked about "specifically targetting" the outer head, which I took to mean as isolate.  I said that couldn't happen, and I still stand by it.  Not to mention I believe the outer head means the lateral head.  The lateral head is on the outside of the body in an anatomically relaxed position (Palms up, arms down to the side).
> 
> ...


owned!!!


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

When you put a bully in his place he can act civil...no new information yet he now behaves


----------



## TheCurse (Sep 2, 2005)

i seem to keep repeating myself over and over.  ive put this information out in several other threads and a few dozen PM's.

 i never said isolate, i said slightly shift the workload, i think the word i used was emphasize.

 look at P funks description of bicep heads being shortened and thus contracting less.  sure they all still contract, but in some postitions one head my be called upon more than in other postions.

 the actual numbers here, who knows.  is it a 1% workload shift? 10%? more?
 of course i dont know, never said i did. i just shared my successful training experience and why i think it was successful.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 2, 2005)

buildingup said:
			
		

> owned!!!



dude jump off their cocks, you're like a little fuckin baby and its annoying when we're doing big people stuff.



			
				TheCurse said:
			
		

> otherwise this shit is getting ridiculous. ill even apologize for calling anyone little, except for p funk



thank you for that, although i didn't take offense, but that was kind of you. i'll apologize for any pot shots i might have taken at you and at Foremanrules, in the end the discussion was great and hopefully any noobs reading this will learn something.

i still however stand by my position, so we can all agree to disagree.

oh yeah, p-funk is a bitch so don't worry about apologizing to him


----------



## P-funk (Sep 2, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> oh yeah, p-funk is a bitch so don't worry about apologizing to him




fuck you.


----------



## GFR (Sep 2, 2005)

I agree with P-funk 100%

Fuck you!


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 2, 2005)

TheCurse said:
			
		

> i seem to keep repeating myself over and over.  ive put this information out in several other threads and a few dozen PM's.
> 
> i never said isolate, i said slightly shift the workload, i think the word i used was emphasize.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's how it always happens.  There are too many people presenting too many opinions and too many posts to catch up on.  People go off on tangents, talk past each other, etc.  Either way, some good information was illicited from both parties during the discussion.  That's the whole idea.


----------



## Yanick (Sep 3, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> fuck you.



i know you say that with all the love in your heart


----------



## buildingup (Sep 3, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> i know you say that with all the love in your heart


 shut up spamdick, you lost the argument go fuck yourself! nobody likes you now fuck off!!!!


----------



## AKIRA (Sep 3, 2005)

I just love watching these arguments.  Pretty damn funny.

Anyway, while we are on the topic.  There are 3 heads of the triceps yes?  First off, Ive only seen two spoken about here..what about the other?  And what is it called again?

Also, I guess I am just confused, but I just dont know which part the outer head is.  Is this the part of your tricep that you can see by looking down at your arm?  Or is it on the back where youd have to see it with a mirror?  

Also, hah!  The triceps is a horshoe shape as we all know, but I ve always wondered, what the fuck is in the center of it?  What muscle is there?


----------



## HardTrainer (Sep 3, 2005)

AKIRA said:
			
		

> I just love watching these arguments.  Pretty damn funny.
> 
> Anyway, while we are on the topic.  There are 3 heads of the triceps yes?  First off, Ive only seen two spoken about here..what about the other?  And what is it called again?
> 
> ...



please dont stir it up    ... look how much trouble has been caused on just the long head.... and and now you want to bring 2 more into the debate!!.....


----------



## buildingup (Sep 3, 2005)

You cant isolate tricep heads


----------



## LexusGS (Sep 3, 2005)

damn man, this SHIT is getting out of hand.


----------



## CowPimp (Sep 3, 2005)

AKIRA said:
			
		

> I just love watching these arguments.  Pretty damn funny.
> 
> Anyway, while we are on the topic.  There are 3 heads of the triceps yes?  First off, Ive only seen two spoken about here..what about the other?  And what is it called again?



There's the long head, the medial head, and the lateral head.




> Also, I guess I am just confused, but I just dont know which part the outer head is.  Is this the part of your tricep that you can see by looking down at your arm?  Or is it on the back where youd have to see it with a mirror?



I was assuming that the outer head is the lateral head, but I don't really know which head he was referring to.  The reason I say this is because in the anatomically relaxed position you have your arms at your sides with your palms facing up.  The lateral head is facing away from your body in this position.




> Also, hah!  The triceps is a horshoe shape as we all know, but I ve always wondered, what the fuck is in the center of it?  What muscle is there?



I don't think any muscles is there...


----------



## AKIRA (Sep 4, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I was assuming that the outer head is the lateral head, but I don't really know which head he was referring to.  The reason I say this is because in the anatomically relaxed position you have your arms at your sides with your palms facing up.  The lateral head is facing away from your body in this position.



Hmm, well if its the muscle facing away the body, then mine is HUGE.  I want my front one bigger.

Maybe its genetics?

Anyway, thanks for the accurate and immediate answers.


----------



## TyGym (Apr 19, 2009)

*Outer Head!*

I've had some lagging lateral head on my triceps too. What I've done is some serious muscle-head scientific research. :-D
Alright. So every grip you use makes the muscle heads contract. BUT, they also make certain muscle heads contract more so than others. So, try using to T-Bar on a push-down cable. Grip it with thumbs close to you, then push down. Just like a normal triceps push down, but with your hands gripping a T-Bar with thumbs close to your body.
It took me a few times until I really started feeling it.. But once you really get the mind-muscle connection with this exercise, it works. My triceps are now very full and symmetrical. 
I hope this movement helps you.


----------



## Ngordyn (Apr 20, 2009)

TyGym said:


> I've had some lagging lateral head on my triceps too. What I've done is some serious muscle-head scientific research. :-D
> Alright. So every grip you use makes the muscle heads contract. BUT, they also make certain muscle heads contract more so than others. So, try using to T-Bar on a push-down cable. Grip it with thumbs close to you, then push down. Just like a normal triceps push down, but with your hands gripping a T-Bar with thumbs close to your body.
> It took me a few times until I really started feeling it.. But once you really get the mind-muscle connection with this exercise, it works. My triceps are now very full and symmetrical.
> I hope this movement helps you.




LOL i hope you realize this post is 4 years old now


----------



## T_man (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm tired of hearing genetics.

Else we'd all be the skinny/fat guy we used to be!

And about the exercises, you can definately work certain muscles even though others contract along with it. Take bench press, your triceps contract but your chest takes the bigger load. It's not spread evenely. If you make it close grip, more stress is put on the triceps, and so the triceps grow at a faster rate than chest if you do this exercise only. I know it's not the same muscle but they work together like one muscle just moving different bones.


----------



## TitanUnleashed (Apr 26, 2009)

This might work for you.
You know when we normally do the dumbell chest pullover? Sit upright on a bench now and with the same grip(using ur triceps) push the dumbell upwards in some sort of a press. Super set it with tricep push down for tt extra omph.
But still, to each his own. Play and try ard a lil and find one tt suits you best.


----------



## Hench (Apr 26, 2009)

T_man said:


> I'm tired of hearing genetics.
> 
> Else we'd all be the skinny/fat guy we used to be!
> 
> And about the exercises, you can definately work certain muscles even though others contract along with it. Take bench press, your triceps contract but your chest takes the bigger load. It's not spread evenely. If you make it close grip, more stress is put on the triceps, and so the triceps grow at a faster rate than chest if you do this exercise only. I know it's not the same muscle but they work together like one muscle just moving different bones.



T-man that is not even close to the same thing. Your talking about switching the focus between two muscle groups, they are talking about switching the focus in the same muscle group. Very different.

Still, fucking great thread.


----------



## T_man (Apr 26, 2009)

I know but

when doing compounds the muscle groups work together like the different heads of a single muscle group when doing isolation. changing the manner in which you do it changes the head that gets stressed the most 

<trying hard to dig himself out of a hole>


----------



## Hench (Apr 26, 2009)

T_man said:


> I know but
> 
> when doing compounds the muscle groups work together like the different heads of a single muscle group when doing isolation. changing the manner in which you do it changes the head that gets stressed the most
> 
> <trying hard to dig himself out of a hole>



Trying....but failing.


----------

