I've seen a few debates about this lately and I'm wondering if anyone could magically come with an answer to it.
Basically, can you really put more emphasis on certain part of a muscle? Does a bicep really have 2 parts, a triceps 3 and a quads 4 and is it really doable to work certain part more than the others?
I've seen a lot of trainers, vids, articles, talking about wrist flicks that are supposed to hit certain part of the biceps harder, is it true?
There is a lot of nay-sayer going around saying a biceps will grow the same no matter how you do the exercice, the shape is all about genetic. Are these peoples just like then one claiming squat+milk = huge pipes?
Ty
PanzeR
|
Thread: Biceps "parts" and wrist flicks.
-
08-28-2007, 03:28 PM #1
Biceps "parts" and wrist flicks.
Last edited by PanzeR-; 08-28-2007 at 03:31 PM.
Best total: 1715 (600-415-700) raw with wraps.
A method behind madness....
-
08-28-2007, 03:31 PM #2
- Join Date: Feb 2007
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
- Age: 44
- Posts: 2,064
- Rep Power: 371
time to look into buying a book related to the human body and the composition of it....
there are several muscles that make up the biceps, triceps, quads, hamstrings, etc....
good luckSCIVATION XTEND...... 8-10 scoops a-day make the fibras happy!!!!!!
check my bodyspace blog.....
learn how to squat right SQUAT RX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8CWv8UPAI&mode=related&search=
-
08-28-2007, 03:45 PM #3
-
08-28-2007, 03:47 PM #4
-
-
08-28-2007, 03:50 PM #5
-
08-28-2007, 03:55 PM #6
Its easy to place significantly more emphasis on different heads. Its common to see people who have over developed/underdeveloped heads of their biceps, triceps, quads, etc.
The degree to which you can emphasize one part of a specific head over another is what's debatable.... not whether one head can be emphasized more than another.
-
08-28-2007, 05:04 PM #7
Yes.
Covers whether you can work different sections (beyond long/short head) longitudinally....
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magaz...ebuilding2.htm
A great deal of evidence supports the above discussion. As one example, one of the most manipulated muscles in the body is the biceps brachii. Bodybuilders utilize numerous angles while training it. In support of such protocols Segal (1992) wanted to see if the clear Electrophysiological evidence that the human biceps brachii muscle is organized into functional neuromuscular compartments had an anatomical basis( electrophysiological in that, clear electrical studies have supported that the biceps do not act in a homogenious manner, but rather task specific). Here is a summary of their findings:
"The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was an anatomical basis for these compartments. Dissection of the biceps revealed both architectural and nerve branching pattern compartmentalization within the muscle. Although the biceps brachii is grossly subdivided into long and short heads, these heads are further subdivided into roughly parallel architectural compartments. Moreover, these architectural compartments usually receive a private nerve branch, thus supporting the notion that the human biceps brachii has neuromuscular compartments."
Thus, there is not only functional evidence, but now anatomical evidence for neuromuscular compartmentalization in the biceps. However, there is much more supporting evidence for the above. Brown (1993) conducted a study which was rightfully named, "Further evidence of functional differentiation within biceps brachii" They studied whether supination during various phases of flexion could activate different portions of the muscle. It was found that when the elbow joint was fully extended (or actually when extended below 90 degrees), that the long head of the biceps was more activated than the short head during supination movements, and the short head was more activated when the elbow was flexed past 120 degrees of flexion than the long head.
Romeny, van der Gon, and Gielen (1988) discovered something truly astonishing. These scientists studied the long head of the biceps. In doing so, it was revealed that motor units in the lateral aspect of the muscle were specialized for flexion of the elbow joint, motor units located medially were activated for supination of the forearm, and motor units located in the center of the head were specialized for both movements superimposed on one another.
How about distally vs proximally? That is, upper vs lower?
Evidence for (using forearms)
Here's the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus
Here's the link to download the study:
http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprintframed/73/12/857
Essentially, it was found (page 44 on the study) that different activation can be measured in the distal v proximal portions of the individual muscles of the forearms. These muscles are relevant because they are parallel muscles like the biceps.
(p-proximal, d-distal, ECRL is extensor carpi radialis longus, FCR is Flexor Carpi radialis. The numbers are are relative activation from different tasks.
pECRL dECRL pFCR dFCR
Movement % SD R SD SD X SD
Elbow flexion 5.1 4.2 3.3 2.8
Elbow extension 4.2 3.5 2.4 1.8
Wrist extension
(supported) 9.1 5.0 6.9 3.8
Radial deviation
(supported) 5.3 2.8 3.2 1.4 4.6 3.4 2.9 1.9
Ulnar deviation
(supported) 3.8 2.8 1.9 1.2 3.9 3.1 2.3 1.9
Radial deviation
(unsupported) 5.9 3.3 4.2 2.4
Ulnar deviation
(unsupported) 5.1 4.2 3.3 2.8
Two-way analysis of variance for repeated measures (P<.O5).CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
08-28-2007, 05:06 PM #8
-
-
08-28-2007, 05:39 PM #9
-
08-28-2007, 05:40 PM #10
-
08-28-2007, 05:59 PM #11
-
08-28-2007, 06:51 PM #12
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 12,125
- Rep Power: 6346
nice one.
since one of the functions of the biceps is to supinate the forearm (which you obviously had no idea until last night) because the biceps attaches to the radial tuberosity which rotates the forearm, it would obviously make NO SENSE to supinate at the end of a curl to further emphasize the function of the muscle.
last time i checked (i could be wrong since its in so many books) the best way to train a muscle is to put resistance along the ROM of its function which for the biceps, happens to also be supination and elbow flexion.
but then why, OH WHY, would you want to change motor patterns of the ever so effective "bicep curl" by adding this mysterious motion to it that apparently does nothing? why dont you post your ignorant video you made. (that just proves even more so you dont understand what you're talking about.)
oh W8, you will never admit to being wrong, you would rather die than admit i taught you something that *gasp* came from a text book. (and has real life application and proof) sorry for the rant, but you really deserved this time big fellaIf what I see does not amaze me, I am not looking hard enough.
The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.
__________________
My Powerlifting Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=189654831
My YouTube Vids: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ajcharmoz
-
-
08-28-2007, 07:10 PM #13
-
08-28-2007, 10:56 PM #14
lol i second that
yes you do have different purposes of the muscle, and yes there are different parts of the muscle. yes there are different insertions (only one origin), and in theory it is possible to train different parts of the muscle.
but is there much point to this, and how effective would any training on this portion of the muscle be?
in regards to supernating (i assume you mean lateral rotation) the only advantage i can see in this is to work the muscle ecentrically. you are correct in that one of the roles of the bicep is to provide medial rotation of the arm, therefore this is the concentric phase. so by supernating you would be working the muscle in the ecentric phase. however the benefit you see out of this would be minimal at best.
basically i think the point is that for your biceps, spending time to work on the individual parts of the muscle would require a fair amount of work for not much gain
-
08-29-2007, 12:21 AM #15
- Join Date: Aug 2007
- Location: Romford, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 39
- Posts: 311
- Rep Power: 443
Go buy That Arnold Schwarzenegger Encyclopedia. It teaches you so much about how to bring your weak points out.
Like Outta bicep use close grip on a bar, that hits more the outside.
Wide grip hits inner.
Squats
Feet close toes pointed forward and that hits more the outta quad.
Feet shoulder wide hits all 3 quads
Feet wider and toes pointed more out hits inner quad
Cheat Curls worked for Arnold they will work for me too!
This Genetics stuff is bullsh*t , train hard and you can have what ever you want.
-
08-29-2007, 04:21 AM #16
Bally's, it's not simply supinating. It would have to be supinating with resistance. Resistance against the supination. You would have to have more resistance on the inside of the grip. A good way to do this is with a rope handle, starting in a hammer position, then supinating the hand on the way up. The most supination against resistance a majority of people see is tightening a screw with a screwdriver.
Supinating while curling with a regular dumbbell changes the angle of pull of the biceps, but doesn't actually "work" the supination function.
I make the analogy of aerobics instructors that think they are working pecs because they do a pec dec motion.....standing up. No resistance on the pecs.CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
-
08-29-2007, 04:25 AM #17
Sigh.
Read the above.
It SPECIFICALLY says that the muscles are divided WAY beyond simple "heads".
"Inner" on pecs would be proximal. "Outer" would be distal. If a parallel form muscle like the forearms muscles can do it, why wouldn't a fan shaped muscle like the pecs be able to do it? It has a WIDER origin.CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
08-29-2007, 05:18 AM #18
-
08-29-2007, 05:39 AM #19
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 12,125
- Rep Power: 6346
jesus...
nice google science, its obvious you dont understand your own post. and LOL @ "supernating"
and you're stepping into something from earlier. if you knew me at all you'd know that im a big believer in the basics, and the good old fashioned, bicep curl. it was W8's response to someone using this exercise as an alternative to a bicep curl from another thread that prompted this response. i will sum up my argument by quoting Defiant's post below...
thats the whole point of what im saying. changing the motor pattern of the movement, as a supplement to the regular bicep curl. following the function path of the muscle. i have enough sense to understand that twisting a counterbalanaced DB back and forth is not going to train anything (minus the critical point acceleration from controlling the momentum of the movement)If what I see does not amaze me, I am not looking hard enough.
The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.
__________________
My Powerlifting Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=189654831
My YouTube Vids: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ajcharmoz
-
08-29-2007, 05:46 AM #20
-
-
08-29-2007, 05:49 AM #21
-
08-29-2007, 05:55 AM #22
-
08-29-2007, 05:57 AM #23
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 12,125
- Rep Power: 6346
-
08-29-2007, 05:58 AM #24
-
-
08-29-2007, 06:21 AM #25
-
08-29-2007, 06:37 AM #26
-
08-29-2007, 06:40 AM #27
-
08-29-2007, 08:06 AM #28
Believe me.....
I'd rather say "yes, you can work different parts of your biceps", but without substantial proof, and since no one just takes the word of experienced bodybuilders, you have to.
In fact, WITH substantial proof and and the word of experienced bodybuilders, people still refuse to believe.CSCS, ACSM cPT.
-
-
08-29-2007, 09:50 AM #29
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 12,125
- Rep Power: 6346
-
08-29-2007, 09:57 AM #30
Bookmarks