Biceps "parts" and wrist flicks.

[PanzeR-]

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

[vegasdsm]

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 luck

[PanzeR-]

But can you work one of those muscles more than another?

[W8isGR8]

But can you work one of those muscles more than another?

Yes, that you can't question


The degree to which you can is what's debateable. Regardless of what Bally's Trainer read in a book.

[DiamondDelts]

Yes, that you can't question


The degree to which you can is what's debateable. Regardless of what Bally's Trainer read in a book.

[Mtguy8787]

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.

[Defiant1]

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

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).

[W8isGR8]

But my $14.99 ACE study guide says.....

[PanzeR-]

Thanks w8isgr8, and defiant for the answer
I guess i will have to try myself to see on what degree it does indeed work.

[kronz]

It's easy for example to place more emphasis on the outer head of the Biceps Brachii as opposed to the inner head.

People saying things like "inner chest" is a different story. As the chest only has 2 heads. Clavical (upper) and major (the rest)

Pec minor too but it's not superficial.

[souspartacus]

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

First off, good question and I commend anyone trying to learn. I just have to point out that if you look at the name of the muscle that should give you a basic idea. BI-ceps, TRI-ceps and QUADS. The very names indicate a number. Just throwing that out there.

[I dont work at Ballys]

Yes, that you can't question


The degree to which you can is what's debateable. Regardless of what Bally's Trainer read in a book.

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 fella

[W8isGR8]

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 fella

lol


You're going to feel like an idiot once you finally understand the point.

[Mr_Slim]

lol


You're going to feel like an idiot once you finally understand the point.

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

[Uncivilization]

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

[Defiant1]

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 fella

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.

[Defiant1]

It's easy for example to place more emphasis on the outer head of the Biceps Brachii as opposed to the inner head.

People saying things like "inner chest" is a different story. As the chest only has 2 heads. Clavical (upper) and major (the rest)

Pec minor too but it's not superficial.

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.

[PanzeR-]

Thanks again for the info Now i need a book to go deeper into the subject.

BTW w8, that wrist flicking video was awesome.

[I dont work at Ballys]

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

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...

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.

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)

[Defiant1]

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)

But aren't you AGAINST that type of thinking?

If it is simple long v short head, there are other, better ways to do it beyond supinating.

[Duckenheimer]

But aren't you AGAINST that type of thinking?

If it is simple long v short head, there are other, better ways to do it beyond supinating.

What specific benefit does supinating have?

[Defiant1]

What specific benefit does supinating have?

There are motor units SPECIFIC to supination. Specialized fibers.

[I dont work at Ballys]

But aren't you AGAINST that type of thinking?

If it is simple long v short head, there are other, better ways to do it beyond supinating.

i've never been against training different motor patterns. especially those that work in line with the function of the muscle.

[Duckenheimer]

There are motor units SPECIFIC to supination. Specialized fibers.

So if I was to incorporate one isolation biceps movement, might supinating dumbell curls be a better overall choice than, say, straight barbell curls?

[Defiant1]

So if I was to incorporate one isolation biceps movement, might supinating dumbell curls be a better overall choice than, say, straight barbell curls?

*grinds teeth*

please read the above.

[Uriel_da_man]

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).

He asks how much is 2+2 and you give him quantum mechanics...

[Uriel_da_man]

What specific benefit does supinating have?

Oh well since the worms are already out...

Studies have shown that the most medial fibers of the outter biceps (the ones right down the middle of the muscle) are more activated during supination than elbow flexion. So supinating (if done against some resistance) builds peak.

[Defiant1]

He asks how much is 2+2 and you give him quantum mechanics...

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.

[I dont work at Ballys]

It's like doing the first half of a calf raise with your knees bent.

NO.

[W8isGR8]

NO.

Lets go over this one more time


If a function of the biceps is supination, and a fully supinating the biceps fully contracts them


therefore



An un-supinated biceps is slack




A slack muscle can't exert force/tension