Insertion talk

[Pete3]

Originally Posted by DK777

uhhhhh no. And yes your lats DO originate at the hip, or your ass as you put it. Your pointing out differences in bbers who are way more developed than you. Give it time and maybe you will also have similarities to some of the mentioned above.

you obviously dont know bodybuilding well enough, look at dennis james lats, and then kai's lats, thats what people mean by a high insertion even if they actually originate at the same spot

[wala]

Originally Posted by Pete3

you obviously dont know bodybuilding well enough, look at dennis james lats, and then kai's lats, thats what people mean by a high insertion even if they actually originate at the same spot

But the OP is saying that this is the case yes - they both INSERT at the same point. But 'high lats' and 'low lats' are merely the cause of things like musle belly size, tendon legth etc.. and NOT the actual insertion point.

Therefore, we shouldn't be using the term 'High inserting lats' and visa versa.. more like, 'well developed muscle bellied lats' for low lats etc...

[Zeneth]

This is just pedantic silliness.

You could validly say the muscle belly insertion is important.

[Norse_rors]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of long and short tendon lengths? In biomechanical rather than aesthetic terms.

[wala]

Originally Posted by Zeneth

This is just pedantic silliness.

You could validly say the muscle belly insertion is important.

I suppose you could But what exactly is the muscle belly insertion? The point at which the muscle belly stops and the tendon begins? If not, then that phrase would be inaccurate. And I guess that's what the OP is saying - that in a biological sense, there is virtually no difference in 'insertion' points in nearly all human beings and so why do we use the wrong technical language when we discuss what we are looking at when it comes to muscle shape/size etc on bbers...

I see what you mean about being picking about the whole topic, but you can't disagree that the OP has a valid point?

[wala]

Originally Posted by Norse_rors

What are the advantages and disadvantages of long and short tendon lengths? In biomechanical rather than aesthetic terms.

It would definitely mean being stronger/weaker depending on which way round you own tendon lengths are etc... as to which is which and which variation makes your stronger/weaker.. I couldn't tell you.. I'm guessing, but large muscle belly and shorter tendon - the stronger you'd be... makes sense to me, but could be wrong..

[dballer]

Do you think there mite be a way through training or stretching or sumthing for us to shorten, or lengthen our muscle tendens?

[Zeneth]

Originally Posted by wala

I suppose you could But what exactly is the muscle belly insertion? The point at which the muscle belly stops and the tendon begins?

Exactly. Nobody can argue that there arn't differences between individuals there.

[KarateChris]

Originally Posted by dballer

Do you think there mite be a way through training or stretching or sumthing for us to shorten, or lengthen our muscle tendens?

No... in order to shorten the tendon the way we're talking about you'd need to turn tendon into muscle tissue to elongate the muscle belly.

[lancs_hotpot]

So summing up OP was right? Insertions are the same while its the shape of the muscles on the tendon that creates the appearence of different insertion points, eg more muscle along the biceps tendon creates the Phil Heath Kev Levrone look? With bone structure playing a part? This seems to make sense to me. I came into the thread not really having a clue but now i think i do. Have i grasped OP's point?

[Pump Freak 86]

Originally Posted by wala

I suppose you could But what exactly is the muscle belly insertion? The point at which the muscle belly stops and the tendon begins? If not, then that phrase would be inaccurate. And I guess that's what the OP is saying - that in a biological sense, there is virtually no difference in 'insertion' points in nearly all human beings and so why do we use the wrong technical language when we discuss what we are looking at when it comes to muscle shape/size etc on bbers...

I see what you mean about being picking about the whole topic, but you can't disagree that the OP has a valid point?

Well, who ever said the insertion isn't where the muscle joins the tendon? We all know that muscle doesn't directly attach to bone, that's just elementary physiology. I never assumed we were talking about anything other than a transition of muscle to tendon when using the term "insertion." Another think I always thought of when using the term instertion is a sent of overlap with muscles such as how the upper forearm muscles seem to overlap the lower brachialis which overlaps the biceps to create a well-developed look in the arms for example. It wasn't about how the muscle is connected to a tendon or how a tendon is connected to a bone but about how the muscles look next to and/or on top of one another at their extremes.

[KarateChris]

Originally Posted by Pump Freak 86

Well, who ever said the insertion isn't where the muscle joins the tendon? We all know that muscle doesn't directly attach to bone, that's just elementary physiology. I never assumed we were talking about anything other than a transition of muscle to tendon when using the term "insertion." Another think I always thought of when using the term instertion is a sent of overlap with muscles such as how the upper forearm muscles seem to overlap the lower brachialis which overlaps the biceps to create a well-developed look in the arms for example. It wasn't about how the muscle is connected to a tendon or how a tendon is connected to a bone but about how the muscles look next to and/or on top of one another at their extremes.

Anatomists say that the insertion isn't where the muscle joins the tendon... on anatomy/medical school tests they ask you origins and insertions of muscles... and it always means where the muscle proximally (origin) and distally (insertion) connects to bone.

[NextProtege]

Originally Posted by DK777

I never understood why bodybuilders and bodybuilding fans bring up muscle insertions. EVERYONE has the same insertions. Everyones pec originates at the sternum inserts at the bicepital grove, everyone's lats originate at the hip and insert at the bicepital grove as well, everyone's bicep femoris originates at the humerus and inserts at the head of the fibula,etc, etc.

Actually, the Biceps Femoris originates at the Ischial Tuberosity (Butt Bone) and is the reason why hip extension involves the hamstrings. You sound like an idiot saying humerus for hamstring.


The reason why everyone brings up insertions is because yes we are all human, but we do not all develop the same. If we did, then there would be not genetic muscular difference amongst anyone and this sport would be really really less interesting. They may be the same functional muscle belly, but beyond that the differences with training/nutrition are infinite.

[Wilde]

Originally Posted by Pete3

you obviously dont know bodybuilding well enough, look at dennis james lats, and then kai's lats, thats what people mean by a high insertion even if they actually originate at the same spot

When people have that much crack in their system bro don't bother trying, save your energy for the gym.

[NextProtege]

Originally Posted by pyrolee

This.

The location of the tendon's attachment to the bone is, for the most part, identical in all people, relative to their bone structure.

However, in everyday terms, we often refer to a long bicep as having a good insertion and a short bicep as a bad insertion. This is technically incorrect because, as the OP mentioned, insertions have nothing to with the muscle belly's size or shape.

If anything, the term "insertion" (as used on this forum) is often referencing the location where the muscle belly ends and the tendon begins.

So the moral of the story is that we should be saying muscle belly shape or muscle belly size instead of muscle insertions.

I like this distinction!

Anatomically - Insertion is where the muscle attaches to bone, and Origin is where it begins.

Visually - Insertion is where the muscle belly becomes a majority of tendon-is fibers from it's specific origin.


I still wouldn't rule out the laws of the S.A.I.D. principle on these specific tendon strengths and size however. I do believe that if you were well-trained enough and identified major weaknesses in your body that you can address them and change insertion style and length. I couldn't accept a "your stuck with this look" logic.

[T3mpest]

Originally Posted by NextProtege

I like this distinction!

Anatomically - Insertion is where the muscle attaches to bone, and Origin is where it begins.

Visually - Insertion is where the muscle belly becomes a majority of tendon-is fibers from it's specific origin.


I still wouldn't rule out the laws of the S.A.I.D. principle on these specific tendon strengths and size however. I do believe that if you were well-trained enough and identified major weaknesses in your body that you can address them and change insertion style and length. I couldn't accept a "your stuck with this look" logic.

As far as I always knew tendons connect at similar points on everyone which is how why we keep similar biomechanical leverages. However how far the muscle goes down the tendon is the difference between shape and is what is normally referred to as the insertion in BBing terms.

[Pump Freak 86]

Originally Posted by KarateChris

Anatomists say that the insertion isn't where the muscle joins the tendon... on anatomy/medical school tests they ask you origins and insertions of muscles... and it always means where the muscle proximally (origin) and distally (insertion) connects to bone.

So bodybuilders (or at least the ones around here) are clearly talking about something different. I would have never assumed it was a scientific term.

[Grinners]

To clarify, from now on, when the term 'muscle insertion' is used, it is referring to where the muscle insertion appears to be.

[DK777]

Originally Posted by NextProtege

Actually, the Biceps Femoris originates at the Ischial Tuberosity (Butt Bone) and is the reason why hip extension involves the hamstrings. You sound like an idiot saying humerus for hamstring.,


The reason why everyone brings up insertions is because yes we are all human, but we do not all develop the same. If we did, then there would be not genetic muscular difference amongst anyone and this sport would be really really less interesting. They may be the same functional muscle belly, but beyond that the differences with training/nutrition are infinite.

Your right, I meant Femur in which the short head of the biecep femoris inserts at the top lateral grove of the femur called the linea aspera. Stupid mistake.