# Muscle Shaping



## CowPimp (Nov 8, 2006)

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1327855

Here we go.  I haven't read it yet because I have to leave for work in a minute, but I have a feeling this will get some interesting responses.


----------



## Witchblade (Nov 8, 2006)

Good stuff.

I believe him!


----------



## fufu (Nov 8, 2006)

Interesting. I didn't see fucking works cited though, wtf I wanted to look at the studies. I think one of my kinesiology profs was cited after a paragraph.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 8, 2006)

It makes sense to me.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 8, 2006)

i agree with him, you can definetely affect different parts of the muscle.....


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

eh.....I think he is looking at it the wrong way.  I don't like his analysis.  It is to simplistic.

Before I get into that, I will pre-empt what I am about to say by saying....I really don't know.  I don't think anyone knows for sure if you can activate certain parts of a muscle over others.  I see what he is doing with the drawing angles over the way the pecs run during different cable exercises, etc.  To what extent that is true, really remains to be seen.  Studies have never really backed that up.  Since research has never backed that up, I fail to believe it.  If one day, someone comes along and proves it wrong, I wont be surprised, and I will change the way I think about it.  Until then, I just have to go with what the research reports and what the physiology text tells us is true.....

That said, his breakdown of the firing of a motor unit being like a little town and a power output going to each home is friggin' retarded.  Think about what he is saying......"We can flip a light switch on in one room but light doesn't go on in the whole house."  No fucking shit sherlock.  The power to the whole house is just that....power to the whole house (think Nervous system).  We flip a switch in one room, say our bicep (bicep curl) and that is the only room that power goes on in.  I have never performed a bicep curl and had an impulse jolt my entire body.  DUH.  If what he is saying is true, then I could walk into my bedroom and turn the switch on half way, thus only turing on half the light bulb...possible..no.  Why?  All or none principle.  The light is either all the way on or it is all the way off.  No inbetween.  The same with muscles.  The quadraceps are 4 different muscles BUT they are innervated by only one nerve (one fucking light switch), the femoral nerve.  They are either contracted, or they are relaxed, but one does not work while the others rest.  Doesn't happen.  The only way to increase the amount of motor units being recruited is to add more weight and make the muscle work harder.


By showing the different angles and such, what he did was just set up what we already know (especially if hypertrophy is your goal), work at angles to prevent the body from adapting to one movement patter and to prevent neurological burnout.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 8, 2006)

i understand what you are saying p funk, relating to quads...... leg extensions DEFINITELY contract the quad in a different way and stress the quad muscles different than a lunge or squat.....

this applies to other muscles imo too...


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

swordfish said:


> i understand what you are saying p funk, but leg extensions DEFINITELY contract the quad in a different way and stress the quad muscles different than a lunge or squat.....



of course they do......the lunge and squat use more muscles than the leg ext., which is concentracted, and is a single joint exercise and uses only the knee extensors.

The same 4 quad muscles are all working at the same time....not one over the other....So, you don't understand what I am saying at all.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 8, 2006)

imo you can have a DIFFERENT part of the quad working compared to another exercise..


this is an easier example.......  incline dumbell press hits upper chest more than flat dumbell bench press....... even though the pec contracts in both the upper pecs are being more effected.............


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

swordfish said:


> imo you can have a DIFFERENT part of the quad working compared to another exercise..
> 
> 
> this is an easier example.......  incline dumbell press hits upper chest more than flat dumbell bench press....... even though the pec contracts in both the upper pecs are being more effected.............



how do you deem that possible?  please tell me how you can contract one part of your quad and not the other.  Quick, flex you mediallis.  can't do it by itself.  again, you aren't grasping what I am saying.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 8, 2006)

ok, i dont grasp what your saying then. you always want to be the one to argue..... ill just state my opinion as i did before. IMO you can affect different parts of the muscle more by hitting it from a different angle.......


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

swordfish said:


> ok, i dont grasp what your saying then. you always want to be the one to argue..... ill just state my opinion as i did before. IMO you can affect different parts of the muscle more by hitting it from a different angle.......



I am not arguing.  I am debating.  The problem is that there is no debate....research suggests one thing, but you don't like it so you want to give you opinion.

It is like debating over the defenition of a word.  You don't like the defenition so you are going to make up your own.

In my opinion, the body doesn't need food for fuel and it doesn't sleep at all.  See anything wrong with those statements?  My opinion is not correct.  They are not a matter of opinion type statements, the body needs food for fuel and it needs sleep.

Opinions mean nothing in the field of science.  No one cares WHAT you think.    They only care what you can prove.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 8, 2006)

I don't think he presented anything bulletproof there, but it may be possible.  I'd like to see some of those references.  Even if neuromuscular compartmentalization is a fact (I certainly think it's a distinct possibility), it seems like it was purely speculation that the compartments are geographically based, so to speak.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> I don't think he presented anything bulletproof there, but it may be possible.  I'd like to see some of those references.  Even if neuromuscular compartmentalization is a fact (I certainly think it's a distinct possibility), it seems like it was purely speculation that the compartments are geographically based, so to speak.



I agree.  It _may be _ possible, but I don't know when, if, or how they will be ever able to show it.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 8, 2006)

P-funk said:


> I agree.  It _may be _ possible, but I don't know when, if, or how they will be ever able to show it.



Actually, one person who seems to believe in neural compartmentalization is Stuart McGill.  He specifically mentions different neural compartments of the obliques in his book Low Back Disorders.  

Again, even if that is the case, there are other things that must be determined proved before I believe that muscle shaping is ultimately possible as a result:


Does hypertrophy specifically occur in geographically distinct regions of a muscle (We're talking one head here) if certain neural compartments are activated more than others during training?


What is the peak and average variance in terms of neural activation of the different compartments?


If a specific stimulus for hypertrophy can be applied to different locales of the same muscle based on differential activation of the neural compartments, does the body have some sort of regulatory mechanism to prevent an unbalanced growth in the muscle in question?

Furthermore, even with these items thoroughly researched, you would still need to determine exactly what compartments exist in which muscles before solid recommendations on the application to training could be established; what types of movements preferentially activate the specific portions of the muscle would also be key.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 8, 2006)

what does he say about the obliques?

what research does he reference to back it up?

Under what circumstances is he talking about it?  In the terms of hypertrophy of the oblique muscles?  In terms of what?

RE: regulatory mechanism to prevent unbalanced growth in one are of a muscle over another....

If it were possible, I would think so.  the body has a regulatory mechanism to attempt to prevent unbalances in the contra-lateral side.


----------



## Richie1888 (Nov 9, 2006)

what does that work anyone know ?

what is the yellow lines pointing at ?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 9, 2006)

teh yellow lines are showing the angle (the line of pull) of the pectorallis major as she performs that exercise.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> what does he say about the obliques?
> 
> what research does he reference to back it up?
> 
> ...



I'll have to look it up again when I have a break between classes in a few hours.  I don't believe he's referring to selective hypertrophy of the different compartments, merely the need to perform different exercises to full train the muscles in question.  Again though, I have to go back and reference that point a little later.


----------



## DiGiTaL (Nov 9, 2006)

Nice article, very usefull informations. Thank CP.


----------



## Richie1888 (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> teh yellow lines are showing the angle (the line of pull) of the pectorallis major as she performs that exercise.



thanks mate


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> what does he say about the obliques?
> 
> what research does he reference to back it up?
> 
> ...



I found a few instances of mentioning the neural compartmentalization of the obliques, but they aren't followed by a reference so I can't tell you where the information came from.

This is the quote from McGill (The other mentionings were very similar, including the context):



			
				Stuart McGill said:
			
		

> A distinct upper and lower rectus does not exist in most people (although some individuals may have the ability to preferentially activate one section slightly differently from the other in select activities).  Thus, training the rectus can be accomplished with a single exercise.  *This is not true for the obliques, as they have several neural compartments-lateral, medial, upper, and lower.*


----------



## P-funk (Nov 9, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> I found a few instances of mentioning the neural compartmentalization of the obliques, but they aren't followed by a reference so I can't tell you where the information came from.
> 
> This is the quote from McGill (The other mentionings were very similar, including the context):



Interesting.

I believe dale posted some research on the rectus and the upper and lower abs and contraction of each.

As far as the obliques go, they do have more than one innervation, as they are innervated by I believe 3 differnet spinal nerves (I am not 100% sure.  I can look that up later if you want).  Something like the quardacep muscularture, again, is only innervated by one nerve, the femoral nerve.  So, you could see how compartamentalization is not the same across the board.


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 9, 2006)

that scientific stuff means nothing to me, and proved nothing to me.

but IMO, from my short lifting experience, I think it's possible to *emphasize* different parts of the pec's. Not by doing incline/decline/flat benching, they all seam the same to me.

Say Cable fly's for instance. When my shoulders are slightly hunched over,  It feels like I'm working my upper chest more. Back straight, pullling from low, I can feel the outer region getting worked more. Back straight, shoulders up and pulling from medium, I feel my chest getting worked as a hole, just slightly less on the upper.

that probably sounds stupid to someone who's educated in this stuff. but I"m just speaking from experience and what is working for me, I have no proof to offer.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 9, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> that scientific stuff means nothing to me, and proved nothing to me.
> 
> but IMO, from my short lifting experience, I think it's possible to *emphasize* different parts of the pec's. Not by doing incline/decline/flat benching, they all seam the same to me.
> 
> ...





some people perform chest press and say they never feel anything in their chest?  Does that mean that their chest is not working?


----------



## viet_jon (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> some people perform chest press and say they never feel anything in their chest?  Does that mean that their chest is not working?



IMO? Not using the pec's whatsoever? no.

I dont think they're using their pec's to the max potential though.

I was one of those people your referring to. I started a thread a while back complaining about why I couldn't get my chest to grow. I didn't know how to squeeze out the pec's, and was pressing mostly with my arms.


----------



## PWGriffin (Nov 9, 2006)

wow, good arguments CP and Funk...


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I believe dale posted some research on the rectus and the upper and lower abs and contraction of each.
> 
> As far as the obliques go, they do have more than one innervation, as they are innervated by I believe 3 differnet spinal nerves (I am not 100% sure.  I can look that up later if you want).  Something like the quardacep muscularture, again, is only innervated by one nerve, the femoral nerve.  So, you could see how compartamentalization is not the same across the board.



I'd be interested to see Dale's references on that.  I have heard him mention it.  I know one time he told me he asked a neuroscientist, or some such person, and they told him they though it was possible.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 9, 2006)

I see how we could easily start another upper/middle/lower pec debate here.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

Prince said:


> I see how we could easily start another upper/middle/lower pec debate here.



That's what this is all about.  Read the article.  Christian Thibideau obviously thinks that is possible.  Not that I necessarily agree, but that's why we're speculating.


----------



## DiGiTaL (Nov 9, 2006)

Hey the article is way too freakin long anyone mind pointing out the good paragraphs and stuff to read...or the usefull ones or w/e to not confuse myself if its not a big problem to anyone.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

DiGiTaL said:


> Hey the article is way too freakin long anyone mind pointing out the good paragraphs and stuff to read...or the usefull ones or w/e to not confuse myself if its not a big problem to anyone.



Wow, someone with a shorter attention span than me!  Haha.  Just read it man, it's not as long as you think.  It's like 10 minutes of reading.


----------



## fufu (Nov 9, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Wow, someone with a shorter attention span than me!  Haha.  Just read it man, it's not as long as you think.  It's like 10 minutes of reading.



That's 9 minutes too long! 

Usually I hate reading long stuff, but something grabs my interest I can read for an hour easily.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 9, 2006)

DiGiTaL said:


> Hey the article is way too freakin long anyone mind pointing out the good paragraphs and stuff to read...or the usefull ones or w/e to not confuse myself if its not a big problem to anyone.



In a nut shell....

Thib believes that you can recruit certain parts of a muscle over another and target certain areas (even if they are innervated by the same nerve).  Research doesn't really support this, so whether it can happen or not and whether it is true or not remains to be seen.  Basically, it is an opinion based article and he is giving an idea of what he THINKS happens.


----------



## slip (Nov 9, 2006)

one of my teachers performed research on pectoral activation at different angles.

Incline - RELATIVELY more activation in upper portion of pec than the lower
Flat - most even activation, and most activation overall
Decline - RELATIVELY more activation in the lower portion of the pec than the upper

The incline did not activate the upper portion of the pec more than in the flat bench press, it activated it more than the lower part of the pec in that particular movement.  flat pressing saw the strongest activation for all portions.  So the findings were as she expected, yes you can load one part of the pec more than another, but flat bench would still want to be the bread and butter, with angle variations thrown in for change/variety etc.

thats only one study though.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 9, 2006)

slip said:


> one of my teachers performed research on pectoral activation at different angles.
> 
> Incline - RELATIVELY more activation in upper portion of pec than the lower
> Flat - most even activation, and most activation overall
> ...



What was the testing methodology?  Do you have an abstract or anything with more information on the study?


----------



## Nate K (Nov 9, 2006)

P-funk said:


> eh.....  DUH.  If what he is saying is true, then I could walk into my bedroom and turn the switch on half way, thus only turing on half the light bulb...possible..no.  Why?  All or none principle.  The light is either all the way on or it is all the way off.  No inbetween.  The same with muscles.  The quadraceps are 4 different muscles BUT they are innervated by only one nerve (one fucking light switch), the femoral nerve.  They are either contracted, or they are relaxed, but one does not work while the others rest.  Doesn't happen.  The only way to increase the amount of motor units being recruited is to add more weight and make the muscle work harder.
> 
> 
> By showing the different angles and such, what he did was just set up what we already know (especially if hypertrophy is your goal), work at angles to prevent the body from adapting to one movement patter and to prevent neurological burnout.



He didn't say anything about being able to flex a quadracep muscle independently.  He knows that different areas of a muscle can be emphazied with angle variations.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 10, 2006)

Nate K said:


> He didn't say anything about being able to flex a quadracep muscle independently.  He knows that different areas of a muscle can be emphazied with angle variations.



I wasn't saying anything about flexing the quadracep in that post either.  That didn't come up untli later in my arguement.  

What he is saying is that you can emphasize a certain portion of a muscle of another (ie contract the upper pecs more than the middle pecs...or contract the medialliss more than the lateralis)....what I am saying is that they have one innervation (one light switch to go back to his analogy), so you can't contract a certain part more than another....they are either contracted or relaxed.


----------



## Nate K (Nov 10, 2006)

P-funk said:


> I wasn't saying anything about flexing the quadracep in that post either.  That didn't come up untli later in my arguement.
> 
> What he is saying is that you can emphasize a certain portion of a muscle of another (ie contract the upper pecs more than the middle pecs...or contract the medialliss more than the lateralis)....what I am saying is that they have one innervation (one light switch to go back to his analogy), so you can't contract a certain part more than another....they are either contracted or relaxed.



I understand the all or nothing idea but do you think that if a study was done where people did low cable flys, bringing arms up, and another group did high cable flys they would develop the pectoralis the exact same way?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 10, 2006)

Nate K said:


> I understand the all or nothing idea but do you think that if a study was done where people did low cable flys, bringing arms up, and another group did high cable flys they would develop the pectoralis the exact same way?



again, I don't know.  I don't think it is completely out of the question.  All I am saying is that nothing has evern proven that it could happen......So I am unsure.  

What I can tell you about the pectorallis is that (a) it has two different points of origin....sternocostal and clavicular.  Even though it has two points of origin, both the sternocostal and the clacicular portion share the SAME attachment on the humerus, at the crest of the greater tubercle.  The pectorallis major is innervated by the medial and lateral pectoral nerve.  Because they share an attachment, it would seem that the ability to contract one part instead of the other would not be likely.  Can one emphasized?  again, I don't know.  It has never been shown.


----------



## Witchblade (Nov 10, 2006)

Well, I just find it very hard to believe that dips and military presses would work the chest in the same way.

It's whay he says in his article: why would we need to vary angles etc. so our body doesn't adapt to the stress? If different angles would provide the same stimulation, it wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 10, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> Well, I just find it very hard to believe that dips and military presses would work the chest in the same way.
> 
> It's whay he says in his article: why would we need to vary angles etc. so our body doesn't adapt to the stress? If different angles would provide the same stimulation, it wouldn't make a difference.



huh?


----------



## slip (Nov 10, 2006)

CP - pecs had sensors picking up electrical signals in different portions measuring activity and intensity from memory.  I never read her study, we were having a group debate over angles etc, and she gave us a summary of the findings.  I will try and get hold of it.  Makes sense to me though, in an incline, your clavicular portion would be working harder than lower portion due to the angles.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 10, 2006)

slip said:


> CP - pecs had sensors picking up electrical signals in different portions measuring activity and intensity from memory.  I never read her study, we were having a group debate over angles etc, and she gave us a summary of the findings.  I will try and get hold of it.  Makes sense to me though, in an incline, your clavicular portion would be working harder than lower portion due to the angles.



I'd be interested to see it if you can get a hold of it.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 10, 2006)

in my own lifting experience i  can definitely feel exercises work diffferent parts of the muscle....... 



slip- i have heard of something like that as well, although i dont know wherE??


----------



## swordfish (Nov 10, 2006)

i find it very odd that many many bodybuilders  state that hitting a different exercise hits a different part of the muscle. the easiest example is working the chest.   "if your upper chest is lagging that hit incline first"     is a quote i have heard SOOOO MANY times...  

again i cant prove anything scientific and i dont know if there is some study that has been done(im sure there has...)  but I would be VERY VERY surprised if it is every DISPROVED.....


----------



## PWGriffin (Nov 10, 2006)

Most of the "upper" chest is still made up of the sternal head of the pec major.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 10, 2006)

swordfish said:


> i find it very odd that many many bodybuilders  state that hitting a different exercise hits a different part of the muscle. the easiest example is working the chest.   "if your upper chest is lagging that hit incline first"     is a quote i have heard SOOOO MANY times...
> 
> again i cant prove anything scientific and i dont know if there is some study that has been done(im sure there has...)  but I would be VERY VERY surprised if it is every DISPROVED.....



Lots of people also say that spot reduction exists.  What's your point?


----------



## Witchblade (Nov 11, 2006)

I have a related question. Muscle fibers are layered in your muscles. When you train in the 1-5 rep range, you dominantly recruit the slow twitch fibers, right? Similarly, you dominantly recruit fast twitch fibers if you train in the 8-10 rep range. 

So if you can ephasize different fibers in your muscles. Does that mean you can slightly change the shape of your muscles?


----------



## swordfish (Nov 11, 2006)

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 102???113.

Nonuniform Response of Skeletal Muscle to Heavy Resistance Training: Can Bodybuilders Induce Regional Muscle Hypertrophy?
JOSE ANTONIOa

aHuman Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Kearney, Nebraska 68849.

ABSTRACT

Skeletal muscle is a heterogeneous tissue that exhibits numerous inter- and intramuscular differences (i.e., architecture, fiber composition, and muscle function). An individual muscle cannot be simplistically described as a compilation of muscle fibers that span from origin to insertion. In fact, there are unique differences within a single muscle and within single muscle fibers with respect to fiber size and protein composition. Electromyographic data indicate that there is selective recruitment of different regions of a muscle that can be altered, depending on the type of exercise performed. Longitudinal resistance-training studies also demonstrate that individual muscles as well as groups of synergist muscles adapt in a regional-specific manner. The author speculates that no single exercise can maximize the hypertrophic response of all regions of a particular muscle. Thus, for maximal hypertrophy of an entire muscle, athletes (particularly bodybuilders) are justified in incorporating various exercises that purportedly stimulate growth in a regional-specific manner.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 11, 2006)

swordfish said:


> The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 102???113.
> 
> Nonuniform Response of Skeletal Muscle to Heavy Resistance Training: Can Bodybuilders Induce Regional Muscle Hypertrophy?
> JOSE ANTONIOa
> ...



That was something from the article I believe (Well, the full deal instead of an excerpt).  Unfortunately, we don't fully understand what causes hypertrophy.  Is it tension?  Is it electrical activity?  Is it damage to the muscle?  What amount and how frequently is the stimulus required?  

We really don't know.  So, saying there was some extra electrical activity in a certain portion of the muscle doesn't prove anything.  You need measurements.  I already went through this and said that neural compartmentalization is certainly possible, but we still don't know if that translates into localized of hypertrophy of a muscle.

Furthermore, if it is possible, we don't know what exercises selectively emphasize certain parts of a muscle for each muscle.  So, giving out training recommendations is erroneous as of now, because everything is just a guess or based on "conventional bodybuilding wisdom," which we all know is not necessarily correct.


----------



## PWGriffin (Nov 11, 2006)

Witchblade said:


> I have a related question. Muscle fibers are layered in your muscles. When you train in the 1-5 rep range, you dominantly recruit the slow twitch fibers, right? Similarly, you dominantly recruit fast twitch fibers if you train in the 8-10 rep range.
> 
> So if you can ephasize different fibers in your muscles. Does that mean you can slightly change the shape of your muscles?



not quite correct...

Slow twitch (typeI) fibers are for the low intensity activities.  (Think walking)

Fast Twitch (typeII) fibers are ur higher threshold motor units that are recruited in more intense activities (I.E. Maximal effort lifts)

As it was explained to me better here (p-funk) Muscle fibers fire in order starting with the typeI fibers and on up to your higher threshold motor units, or typeIIa-x/b...So by lifting at a high intensity, you are recruiting all of your muscle fibers in order from weakest to strongest...

This may be a poor explanation....someone here will correct any mistakes/misconceptions presented here.  


As to the question, I've read that muscle fibers won't change in type per se...but depending upon training stimulus imposed, can shift in fiber type _characteristics_.


----------

