# Preacher curls do build peak, and here's why!



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

Busting a Myth: There is always the debate about shaping a muscle and it can't be done. The shape of your muscle is predetermined by your genes. I call BS, because no you can not change the general shape of your muscle fibers, but you can build certain heads of a muscle to make it appear to have a different shape.

Ex. Chest- What do people complain of all the time in their chest? That the top portion is lagging, and they have a saggy chest. What's the simple solution? Start off with an incline movement first on your chest workout.

Now to biceps. What is one of the best exercises for isolating the biceps? Preacher Curl. Which head of the bicep gives the appearance of a higher peak? The outer head. What grip puts more emphasis, and work load on the outer head? Close grip. So what is the exercise to help build peak on your biceps? Close Grip Preacher Curls. Preferrably with cambered or EZ bar, because using a straight bar is a good way to mess your wrist ligaments up

Other good exercises to mention....

DB Preacher Curls with arm leaning inward
Concentration Curls with arm leaning inward
Hammer Curls
Hammer Strength Preacher Curls
_Any other curling exercise where a close grip is used[/b]

With this being said, don't expect to do these exercises and have a peak like Ronnie, Arnold, or Markus Ruhl, but you will see an improvement in your bicep's peak.


*danj112*_


----------



## The Monkey Man (Oct 13, 2006)

So if I workout my biceps they will get bigger -


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

read the stickies.


----------



## AKIRA (Oct 13, 2006)

I am waiting for someone to say "do chinups."


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 13, 2006)

who's danj112? I never heard of him......


point me to the source. It's not invite only is it?


----------



## kenwood (Oct 13, 2006)

do chinups


----------



## Focus (Oct 13, 2006)

kenwood said:


> do chinups



+1

curls are for girls
as arnold would say, LADIE MAN!


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

foreman please read the stickies before you post.


----------



## GFR (Oct 13, 2006)

assassin said:


> foreman please read the stickies before you post.


 I have read all the stickys....so the fuck what.


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I have read all the stickys....so the fuck what.



lol it was just a j/k........son


----------



## The Monkey Man (Oct 13, 2006)

assassin said:


> lol it was just a joke........son




Heres a joke...


A "modern" Islamic couple,        preparing for a religious wedding meets with
      their Mullah for counselling. The Mullah asks if they have any last
      questions before they leave. The man asks, "We realize it's a tradition
      in Islam for men to dance with men, and women to dance with women. But,
      at our wedding reception, we'd like your permission to dance together."

      "Absolutely not," says the Mullah. "It's immoral. Men and women always
      dance separately."

      "So after the ceremony I can't even dance with my own wife?"

      "No," answered the Mullah, "It's forbidden in Islam."

      "Well, okay," says the man, "What about sex? Can we finally have sex?"

      "Of course!," replies the Mullah, "Allah ho Akbar! Sex is OK within
      marriage, to have children!"

      "What about different positions?" asks the man.

      "Allah ho Akbar! No problem," says the Mullah.

      "Woman on top?" the man asks.

      "Sure," says the Mullah. "Allah ho Akbar. Go for it!"

      "Doggy style?"

      "Sure! Allah ho Akbar!"

      "On the kitchen table?"

      "Yes, yes! Allah ho Akbar!"

      "Can we do it with all my four wives together on rubber sheets with a
      bottle of hot oil, a couple of vibrators, leather harnesses, a bucket of
      honey and a porno video?"

      "You may indeed. Allah ho Akbar!"

      "Can we do it standing up?"

      "No." says the Mullah."

      "Why not?" asks the man.

      "Because that could lead to dancing..."


----------



## assassin (Oct 13, 2006)

.....  o yeah sorry I was supposed to laugh..   
now there's some  jokes .....

Q: What do monkeys do for laughs? 
A: They tell people jokes! 

Q. What did the monkey say when he cut off his tail? 
A. It won't be long now. 

Q. Why did the monkey cross the road? 
A. Because it was the chicken's day off! 

Q. What is smarter than a talking monkey?
A. A spelling bee!

Q. What side of a monkey has more hair?
A. The outside.

Q. What do you call a Monkey in a tree? 
A. A Branch Manager!!! 

A guy walks into a bar with his pet monkey. He orders a drink and while he's drinking it the monkey is running wild. The monkey jumps up on the pool table and grabs the cue ball, sticks it in his mouth and swallows it whole.

The bartender is livid and says to the guy, "Did you see what your monkey just did?"

"No. What did that stupid monkey do this time?" says the patron.

"Well, he just swallowed the cue ball off the pool table, whole" says the bartender.

"Yeah, well I hope it kills him because he's been driving me nuts" says the patron.

The guy finishes his drink and leaves.

Two weeks later he comes back with the monkey. He orders a drink and the monkey starts running wild around the bar again. While the man is drinking his drink, the monkey finds some peanuts on the bar. He grabs one, sticks it up his butt, then pulls it out and eats it. The bartender is disgusted.

"Did you see what your monkey did now?" he asks.

"What now?" responds the patron. "Well, he stuck a peanut up his butt, then pulled it out and ate it" says the bartender.

"Well, what do you expect?" replied the patron. "Ever since he ate that darn cue ball he measures everything first!"


----------



## fUnc17 (Oct 13, 2006)




----------



## blueboy75 (Oct 14, 2006)

The Monkey Man said:


> Heres a joke...
> 
> 
> A "modern" Islamic couple,        preparing for a religious wedding meets with
> ...



keep that crap for open chat, this is a training forum.


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 14, 2006)

Allthough most of what I read says you can't shape a muscle, I think you can, to a certain degree. So I sort of agree with this post. 

Common examples: inner chest, upper chest, front delts, lower abs, wide/central back.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 14, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> Allthough most of what I read says you can't shape a muscle, I think you can, to a certain degree. So I sort of agree with this post.
> 
> Common examples: inner chest, upper chest, front delts, lower abs, wide/central back.



There is no such thing as an inner/upper/lower/outter chest.  There is a sternal and clavicular head, consider them two muscles with practically the same function, Just like the deltoids have 3 heads....posterior, anterior and medial...and the triceps have 3 heads...biceps have 2 heads....there is also no such thing as lower abs.  The rectus abdominus is also one muscle.  When you do crunches it is trunk flexion..not working the upper abs...when you do say leg raises, the abs tilt the pelvis...flattening out the lower back, allowing the hip flexors to work more efficiently.  Try doing leg raises one day before a leg workout and next week do them after, noting the difference.  

When someone mentions the "upper" back they more than likely mean the muscles in that general vicinity as in posterior delts, traps, lats etc...as opposed to the "lower" back with muscles responsible for spinal flexion and hip extension.

It's a common misconception.


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 14, 2006)

I know. That's what all the science says and I believe it.

Yet my (and that of many others I know) experience tells me you cán shape a muscle to a certain degree. Some examples: I've done a lot of crunching in one program and my 'upper' abs were solid, but my 'lower' abs were pretty mediocre. Then I started doing leg raises and the difference disappeared.

Same with my biceps. It got 'thicker' when I started to focus on the brachialis. And my chest got flatter when I worked the incline bench more often. Also, my front delts are very big, my medial delts are pretty big, but my rear delts are lacking. My middle and lower traps are also way more developed than my upper traps. Etc etc.

I've no idea how it can be done scientifically, but from my experience you can shape a muscle (a bit at least). Maybe it's an illusion or some coincidence in the growth pattern of my muscles, but I don't think so.


----------



## assassin (Oct 14, 2006)

you all need to read the stickies again... 


lol ..j/k


----------



## assassin (Oct 14, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> I know. That's what all the science says and I believe it.
> 
> Yet my (and that of many others I know) experience tells me you cán shape a muscle to a certain degree. Some examples: I've done a lot of crunching in one program and my 'upper' abs were solid, but my 'lower' abs were pretty mediocre. Then I started doing leg raises and the difference disappeared.
> 
> ...




change in  body fat percentage could have a big effect .....as you can't change muscles shape ...


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 14, 2006)

I know it goes against science but i agree with witchblade. In a way, you can shape your muscles. 

I had a hard time developing my pecs, then I eventually figured out how to squeeze them during the lifts. But only the lower part of my pecs we're getting big, but the upper's still looked the same. So I figure if I concentrate on squeezing my upper pecs, they'll start getting bigger. 

It's working!!!


----------



## assassin (Oct 14, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> I know it goes against science but i agree with witchblade. In a way, you can shape your muscles.
> 
> I had a hard time developing my pecs, then I eventually figured out how to squeeze them during the lifts. But only the lower part of my pecs we're getting big, but the upper's still looked the same. So I figure if I concentrate on squeezing my upper pecs, they'll start getting bigger.
> 
> It's working!!!



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

there is already an upper pec so you are not changing the shape of muscles you are just building a new muscle...


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 14, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> I know it goes against science but i agree with witchblade. In a way, you can shape your muscles.
> 
> I had a hard time developing my pecs, then I eventually figured out how to squeeze them during the lifts. But only the lower part of my pecs we're getting big, but the upper's still looked the same. So I figure if I concentrate on squeezing my upper pecs, they'll start getting bigger.
> 
> It's working!!!



There's no "upper" pec to squeeze lol!  

The sternal head of the pec makes up most of what you would consider the "upper" portion if you look at an anatomical chart.


----------



## GFR (Oct 14, 2006)

assassin said:


> http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/PectoralisClavicular.html
> 
> there is already an upper pec so you are not changing the shape of muscles you are just building a new muscle...





http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/dissector/mml/mmlalpha.htm

http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/dissector/mml/mmlalpha.htm


http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/dissector/mml/mmlalpha.htm


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 14, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> There's no "upper" pec to squeeze lol!
> 
> The sternal head of the pec makes up most of what you would consider the "upper" portion if you look at an anatomical chart.



do you think it's possible to isolate regions of the Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head)?


----------



## assassin (Oct 14, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/dissector/mml/mmlalpha.htm
> 
> http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/dissector/mml/mmlalpha.htm
> 
> ...



I'm not agreeing about squeezing to get an upper pec ..i mean that there is the clavecular head wich some people call the upper pec , i don't mean you can isolate every head but you may target the upper head more by doing inclined presses for example....but even that i don't think it have an effect on the shape of the whole muscle group , wich is predetermined by genetics ......


----------



## assassin (Oct 14, 2006)

all the changes that occur for the shape of the muscles is due to changing of bodyfat percentage and the fat distribution among  all the body, wich is changed due to weight training ........


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 14, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> do you think it's possible to isolate regions of the Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head)?



If you mean isolate the sternal head over the clavicular...Maybe not isolate it per se, perhaps emphasize it...There's really almost no point though..just don't use the same angles and rep/set scheme all the time and you will be fine.  I've never seen someone who obviously didn't emphasize the clavicular head of the pec....get my drift??


----------



## mike456 (Oct 14, 2006)

yes you can work the clavicular head without working the sternal head but most people when they say upper chest, they arent talking about the clavicular, they are usually talking about the upper part of the sternal- wich is impossible to work without working the whole head, you can't isolate a part of the sternal head, but you can work the clavicular head without working the sternal head.
in simple: the sternal head is one muscle, and the clavicular head is on muscle, you can't isolate one part of a muslce.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 14, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Busting a Myth: There is always the debate about shaping a muscle and it can't be done. The shape of your muscle is predetermined by your genes. I call BS, because no you can not change the general shape of your muscle fibers, but you can build certain heads of a muscle to make it appear to have a different shape.
> 
> Ex. Chest- What do people complain of all the time in their chest? That the top portion is lagging, and they have a saggy chest. What's the simple solution? Start off with an incline movement first on your chest workout.
> 
> ...


_

what the hell do you mean by upper chest? are you talking about this part- http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/PectoralisClavicular.html or the upper part of the sternal head?!_


----------



## GFR (Oct 14, 2006)

mike456 said:


> what the hell do you mean by upper chest? are you talking about this part- http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/PectoralisClavicular.html or the upper part of the sternal head?!


It is not my post so I am not talking at all.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 14, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> If you mean isolate the sternal head over the clavicular...Maybe not isolate it per se, perhaps emphasize it...There's really almost no point though..just don't use the same angles and rep/set scheme all the time and you will be fine.



agreed!


emphasize is the word, not isolate.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Oct 14, 2006)

Oh lord.

Shaping muscles.

lol.


----------



## AKIRA (Oct 15, 2006)

I cant believe this shit is going.

But while its still alive, can anyone tell my how to shape my biceps into looking like horshoes and my triceps into oranges?  I wanna do a magic trick later..


----------



## assassin (Oct 15, 2006)

Any One Who Posted In This Thread Should Be Punished By Copying The Stickies 100  Times , Including Me ....


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 15, 2006)

assassin said:


> Any One Who Posted In This Thread Should Be Punished By Copying The Stickies 100  Times , Including Me ....


Any One Who Posted On Page 3 Is Narrow Minded, Excluding Me...


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 16, 2006)

When people think they are shaping muscles, they are in fact losing or gaining body fat, causing hypetrophy in some surrounding muscles that have nearby insertion, or are experiencing some psychosomatic phenomenon.

Why do people always want to work their upper chest?  Because fat tends to get stored more in the lower portion of their chest, so they think there is some kind of imbalance.  What do people want to work their lower abs?  Same deal.  You tend to store more fat right around the waistline.  Guaranteed no one has ever seen someone with more hypertrophied lower abs.

The whole upper/lower abs isolation theory is frequently based on flawed studies.  Often people think they are inserting electrodes in the lower rectus abdominus when they are in fact measuring electrical activity in the pyramidalis.  By the way, I didn't pull this reason out of my ass.  Dr. Stuart McGill firmly believes this is the case and supports his claim well.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 16, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> When people think they are shaping muscles, they are in fact losing or gaining body fat, causing hypetrophy in some surrounding muscles that have nearby insertion, or are experiencing some psychosomatic phenomenon.
> 
> Why do people always want to work their upper chest?  Because fat tends to get stored more in the lower portion of their chest, so they think there is some kind of imbalance.  What do people want to work their lower abs?  Same deal.  You tend to store more fat right around the waistline.  Guaranteed no one has ever seen someone with more hypertrophied lower abs.
> 
> The whole upper/lower abs isolation theory is frequently based on flawed studies.  Often people think they are inserting electrodes in the lower rectus abdominus when they are in fact measuring electrical activity in the pyramidalis.  By the way, I didn't pull this reason out of my ass.  Dr. Stuart McGill firmly believes this is the case and supports his claim well.




Is Stuart McGill a Doctor?  I never new that.


----------



## assassin (Oct 16, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> When people think they are shaping muscles, they are in fact losing or gaining body fat, causing hypetrophy in some surrounding muscles that have nearby insertion, or are experiencing some psychosomatic phenomenon.
> 
> Why do people always want to work their upper chest?  Because fat tends to get stored more in the lower portion of their chest, so they think there is some kind of imbalance.  What do people want to work their lower abs?  Same deal.  You tend to store more fat right around the waistline.  Guaranteed no one has ever seen someone with more hypertrophied lower abs.
> 
> The whole upper/lower abs isolation theory is frequently based on flawed studies.  Often people think they are inserting electrodes in the lower rectus abdominus when they are in fact measuring electrical activity in the pyramidalis.  By the way, I didn't pull this reason out of my ass.  Dr. Stuart McGill firmly believes this is the case and supports his claim well.



yeah cp that's what i meant by fat distribution and percentage ....... people think their chest became flat when their bf% get lower (as u said fat is stored more at the lower portion) ,also people think that their muscles are getting more defined and better in shape when their bf% get's lower and the muscles are more visible....that's also when you'l think that your biceps peak is bigger because fats is gone from the edges  of the biceps..


----------



## GFR (Oct 16, 2006)

P-funk said:


> Is Stuart McGill a Doctor?  I never new that.


He is a chiropractor so as much a Doctor as Franco is.


----------



## GFR (Oct 16, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Busting a Myth: There is always the debate about shaping a muscle and it can't be done. The shape of your muscle is predetermined by your genes. I call BS, because no you can not change the general shape of your muscle fibers, but you can build certain heads of a muscle to make it appear to have a different shape.
> 
> Ex. Chest- What do people complain of all the time in their chest? That the top portion is lagging, and they have a saggy chest. What's the simple solution? Start off with an incline movement first on your chest workout.
> 
> ...


_



danj112 said:



			Where did I say anything about "isolating" a certain head.  *EMPHASIS*  I'm done with you dumbasses and this retarded forum.

You idiots think that I'm saying doing close grip curls will build you a peak like Markus Ruhl. You can't f*cking read. I simply said these exercises put more emphasis on the outer head, and the larger the outer head=higher peak appearance. Why is that so complicated for you?
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 16, 2006)

My brain just exploded


----------



## fUnc17 (Oct 16, 2006)

AKIRA said:


> I cant believe this shit is going.
> 
> But while its still alive, can anyone tell my how to shape my biceps into looking like horshoes and my triceps into oranges?  I wanna do a magic trick later..



damn... beat me to it


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 16, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> When people think they are shaping muscles, they are in fact losing or gaining body fat, causing hypetrophy in some surrounding muscles that have nearby insertion, or are experiencing some psychosomatic phenomenon.
> 
> Why do people always want to work their upper chest?  Because fat tends to get stored more in the lower portion of their chest, so they think there is some kind of imbalance.  What do people want to work their lower abs?  Same deal.  You tend to store more fat right around the waistline.  Guaranteed no one has ever seen someone with more hypertrophied lower abs.
> 
> The whole upper/lower abs isolation theory is frequently based on flawed studies.  Often people think they are inserting electrodes in the lower rectus abdominus when they are in fact measuring electrical activity in the pyramidalis.  By the way, I didn't pull this reason out of my ass.  Dr. Stuart McGill firmly believes this is the case and supports his claim well.


That would explain the chest and ab examples. But how about the delts? My front delts are way bigger than the rear ones. 

And the biceps? Do you think emphasis on the outer head/brachialis is possible to create (the illusion of) more thickness?

Finally, does this mean that dips build the entire chest and that your chest would eventually shape the same way from dips as from inclines?


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 16, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> That would explain the chest and ab examples. But how about the delts? My front delts are way bigger than the rear ones.
> 
> And the biceps? Do you think emphasis on the outer head/brachialis is possible to create (the illusion of) more thickness?
> 
> Finally, does this mean that dips build the entire chest and that your chest would eventually shape the same way from dips as from inclines?



Well, first of all, I do think some degree of emphasis on the clavicular head of the pectoralis major is possible.  As far as I know, it is separately innervated from the other head.  Nonetheless, their anatomical functions are so similar that they often act as a syncytium.  I still think it's funny when people with small chests do inclines all day long because their upper chest is weak; in reality, they just need more overall mass before worrying about silly shit like that.  The effectiveness of inclines for developing the upper chest specifically is highly debatable at best.

The deltoids are a different story.  There are 3 separate heads with totally different anatomical functions.  They are also innervated separately.

I really think the ability to cause hypertrophy in one head of the biceps over the other is overrated.  Can it be done?  Anatomically, it is possible due to something called active insufficiency.  I'm not sure how much additional hypertrophy this leads to for one head over the other, but I'm willing to be it's minimal.  The bracialis, well, that's a different story.  It's an entirely different muscle with different advantageous leverage points, though it's functionality is pretty similar to that of the biceps.  The fact that the biceps are more active when the forearm is supinated, and they also assist in this articuation, is the prime differentiator.

I sincerely doubt there is going to be a huge difference between the chest you develop from doing only dips relative to doing only inclines.  Is a difference possible?  Yes, but again, I think the difference is exaggerated by many, especially if the chest isn't all that developed in the first place.  Anatomically it is possible, but asking me to quantify that kind of difference is virtually impossible.


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 17, 2006)

Well, that explains it! Thanks for the help. I guess it's probably also different for everybody, the amount of which they can 'shape' muscles.


----------

