THIS..is a gym!

[Palpatine Q]

And to further expand...let me address the whole "stabilizing muscles" horseshit. If i'm squatting 400 llbs in a smith machine....i can guaran-fucking-tee you EVERY SINGLE muscle in my body is under a great deal of stress...down to my toes. and that includes these mythical "stabilizers".

The only difference is I'm not balancing the weight, but i am keep it going smoothly up and down, which will recruit the same muscles.

What Basile says is 100% on the money....some writer who thinks he knows something writes an article 30 years ago and people take it as the gospel, this goes for every aspect of the sport. It all depends on what resonates with you, that's what you will believe.

[Vince B]

The main reason there is no resolution or agreement is because of differing theories, beliefs, attitudes and explanations. There is too much at stake for participants to abandon cherished ideas and beliefs.

"On that note, I do believe that our muscles need to "recover" in order to grow. Whether or not I choose to discuss how the Central Nervous System is an integral part of that "recovery" process would be dependent on how interested one was in understanding the process, not whether or not I could explain it correctly."

Why do you continue to believe this when there is evidence that refutes this? I cite swimmers, runners and skaters who train daily yet improve. How is that possible if recovery has to occur before improvement and growth? Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required? Answer: that is a false premise.

Do a thought experiment and apply evolution to our primitive ancestors. Suppose these primitive creatures were hungry and needed to hunt and on one day got into a fight but failed to get anything to eat. The muscles the next day would be very sore from the extreme exertion. Do you think the creature would be unable to hunt again in an acute fashion because of those sore muscles? If so, then such creatures would not have survived. Thus, creatures that could function with sore muscles had an advantage and that is probably why it is possible to train with sore muscles and cause rapid growth.

The reason we haven't subscribed to this theory is because most do not believe it could be true. Because widespread negative beliefs exist does not refute a true theory. In fact, research has shown that the body once recovered is resistant to further change. They call this the repeated bout effect and we should try to avoid it at all costs. Do not let the muscle recover is mandatory for rapid growth. I mean in the sense of sustained rapid growth.

[Coach is Back!]

and IMO that's the whole problem....this shit is simple.

Heavy= heavy

Trying hard=trying hard

300 lbs=300 lbs

Your muscles don't know the difference between a machine with a square weight attached to a cable, or a round weight on the end of a bar.

they just know contraction and failure.

it's ALL good if you are doing it right, if you are a pussy and have shit genetics, nothing will work.

300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.

[DroppingPlates]

300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.

Exactly, and a free squat activates more fibers in the targeted muscles (proof)

[calfzilla]

Time to ungay this thread. 

[DroppingPlates]

Time to ungay this thread. 

Thats only ungaying if you want it to 

[dyslexic]

The main reason there is no resolution or agreement is because of differing theories, beliefs, attitudes and explanations. There is too much at stake for participants to abandon cherished ideas and beliefs.

"On that note, I do believe that our muscles need to "recover" in order to grow. Whether or not I choose to discuss how the Central Nervous System is an integral part of that "recovery" process would be dependent on how interested one was in understanding the process, not whether or not I could explain it correctly."

Why do you continue to believe this when there is evidence that refutes this? I cite swimmers, runners and skaters who train daily yet improve. How is that possible if recovery has to occur before improvement and growth? Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required? Answer: that is a false premise.

Do a thought experiment and apply evolution to our primitive ancestors. Suppose these primitive creatures were hungry and needed to hunt and on one day got into a fight but failed to get anything to eat. The muscles the next day would be very sore from the extreme exertion. Do you think the creature would be unable to hunt again in an acute fashion because of those sore muscles? If so, then such creatures would not have survived. Thus, creatures that could function with sore muscles had an advantage and that is probably why it is possible to train with sore muscles and cause rapid growth.

The reason we haven't subscribed to this theory is because most do not believe it could be true. Because widespread negative beliefs exist does not refute a true theory. In fact, research has shown that the body once recovered is resistant to further change. They call this the repeated bout effect and we should try to avoid it at all costs. Do not let the muscle recover is mandatory for rapid growth. I mean in the sense of sustained rapid growth.

Great reply. I could have hoped for nothing less.


Surely we could enjoy discussion away from the board.


Let me adress one comment. Since I swam AAU and then USA for 13 years (and now train these same swimmers) I have to agree that they can improve daily--if you cycle their training. You also have to adress their nutrition with increasing objectivity (towards recovery and increased efficiency)

Now, in the water, the swimmers aren't just improving musculature (growing). They are also improving on their technique. As you stated, there are many innumerable variables. A butterflier may be diving a little more, kicking a little harder, breathing a little more efficiently--maybe he tilts his head to breathe and scrapes the top of the water with his chin as opposed to bringing his whole neck up. All of these increases in efficiency will make a faster and more improved swimmer (and of course, lap time)-- I wouldnt really expect to see him grow more muscle unless he was working out in a gym, and taking the time to recover enough to grow.


Question: should we talk about improvement and growth at the same time? They may not be one and the same.


When we are talking specifically about bodybuilding, we are truly only concentrating on growth. Even if a BB wants to get stronger and mixes his training with powerlifting philosophies, his main objective is still growth.

I don't know that the hunter and the swimmer have to grow to improve. The "sore" hunter the next day may find himself hunting with less physical effort, which essentially is 'improvement'... He may not necessarily 'grow' until after recovery, and when he does, he is now stronger, bigger and improved because of recovery, efficiency and experience. He may not necessarily have to become bigger to become a stronger, faster and more efficient hunter. I am being redundant here. I think you get my point. What do you think?


I have never been dogmatic about strength equating to growth. Logic would imply that the two indeed go hand-in-hand, but empirical data proves otherwise.


I am not close-minded. The only way I can improve is to continue to learn... and I don't like doing it the hard way.

[Devon97]

Louie Simmons, Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, Chad Waterbury and Mike Boyle all need to re-think their training methodologies, re-write their published books and renig on their entire training manifesto after the golden nuggets of training info revealed by the resident experts in this thread!

[Wiggs]

Ronnie will always be on in Jay's head...Cause even though he beat him, he beat an old and beaten up Coleman...But a wins a win right?

Ronnie is a 1st teir Mr. O, Jay is a 2nd tier Mr. O.

[Mr Nobody]

Ronnie will always be on in Jay's head...Cause even though he beat him, he beat an old and beaten up Coleman...But a wins a win right?

Ronnie is a 1st teir Mr. O, Jay is a 2nd tier Mr. O.

I just dont Wiggs just dont know

[pellius]

300lbs on a smith machine is not the same as 300lbs on an olympic bar.

So if you put 300 lbs from a Smith on a scale and a 300 lbs barbell on a scale they would read differently?

Don't you mean that lifting (pressing or squatting 300 lbs on either a Smith or a barbell) is not the same?

[Coach is Back!]

So if you put 300 lbs from a Smith on a scale and a 300 lbs barbell on a scale they would read differently?

Don't you mean that lifting (pressing or squatting 300 lbs on either a Smith or a barbell) is not the same?

Of course thats what I mean. But 300lbs on a smith would come up about 30lbs lighter since a smith is built with a counter weight and a pully system on guides.

[Coach is Back!]

And to further expand...let me address the whole "stabilizing muscles" horseshit. If i'm squatting 400 llbs in a smith machine....i can guaran-fucking-tee you EVERY SINGLE muscle in my body is under a great deal of stress...down to my toes. and that includes these mythical "stabilizers".

The only difference is I'm not balancing the weight, but i am keep it going smoothly up and down, which will recruit the same muscles.

What Basile says is 100% on the money....some writer who thinks he knows something writes an article 30 years ago and people take it as the gospel, this goes for every aspect of the sport. It all depends on what resonates with you, that's what you will believe.

"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right?  If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.

[pellius]

Of course thats what I mean. But 300lbs on a smith would come up about 30lbs lighter since a smith is built with a counter weight and a pully system on guides.

I'm not sure about that because if you unrack 300 lbs off the Smith it's still 300 pounds.
Also, it might be "heavier" to press up because of the friction inherent in the machine. Traditional squats are harder because it is harder to stabilize free weights than on a machine. More muscles are being activated to stabilize the weight. I don't think it necessarily translates into greater stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group but it will certainly leave you sucking wind more than an equivalent set with the Smith.

BTW, you're OK in my book (soon to be published). Anyone who can survive being a God fearing Republican in Southern Ca is my kind of guy. You deserve a Nobel prize. Not necessarily for anything you've actually done but for what you say you are going to do. As long as your intentions are good results don't matter.

[pellius]

"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right?  If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.

I've asked this before: is there a separate unique class of stabilizing muscles?

It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group? Does an unstable environment make for more optimal workouts? Should we all head to the gym during an earthquake?

[Palpatine Q]

"Mythical stabilizers" Seriously, you're joking right?  If you're not joking then you to re-evaluate your knowledge of training besides getting it from a bodybuilding rag and to be fair, they have even written some pretty good articals on the subject. Things are a little more advanced than just pushing a weight up and down than they we're 30 years ago.

No they're not....that's my whole point.

I haven't read a BBing "rag" in 15 years, and even back then i took them with a grain of salt.

Contraction is contraction no matter what device you choose to contract the muscle. Are you telling me that the bio mechanics of the human body have "advanced" in the last 30 years?

If you want to squat 300 lbs on a smith, add the extra 30 lbs of counterbalance....proble m solved.

[Parker]

 Read about the fowl experiments where weights were fastened on one wing of the experimental group. Some researchers, Antonio for example, managed to generate 300% growth in an anterior latissimus dorsi muscle of his group in 30 days! How is such rapid growth possible if recovery is required? 

I always wanted to take a falcon like bird, like a American Kestrel or another type of raptor and train it to fly with weights strapped to it's legs. Each week the weight would get progressively heavier.

[Palpatine Q]

I've asked this before: is there a separate unique class of stabilizing muscles?

It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group? Does an unstable environment make for more optimal workouts? Should we all head to the gym during an earthquake?

That's what I'm saying Smellius.

And to add, why are these "stabilizers" so fucking important? If I'm training my quads.... activating my Serratus really isn't a priority.

 And like I said before...If you've got 400 lbs on your back, every fucking muscle in your body is "activated" no matter what the apparatus is.

I've only managed to get up to 260...so what the fuck do i know.

[DroppingPlates]

It seems to me that all muscles act as stabilizers simply to keep you from crumbling to the ground. But does this necessarily translate into greater stimulation of the targeted muscle group? Squatting on a Swiss ball requires far more effort to stabilize yourself but does this translate to better stimulation and overload in the targeted muscle group?

In case you define 'greater stimulation' as 'more muscle fibres involved' : yes. I've already provided a link to a source, but in case you missed it, it's http://www.ergo-log.com/freebarbellsquat.html (Google for EMG and squat and you see a lot more references)

[Coach is Back!]

Ok Groink, so just to clarify, you don't think that there are certain (smaller) muscles in the body that are used to stabilize?

[pellius]

In case you define 'greater stimulation' as 'more muscle fibres involved' : yes. I've already provided a link to a source, but in case you missed it, it's http://www.ergo-log.com/freebarbellsquat.html (Google for EMG and squat and you see a lot more references)

Yes, I am familiar with that study and again I concede that the free weight squat works more muscles in your body because you have to stabilize the weight. All else being equal it is a much harder exercise and will do more for overall strength and conditioning for your body than any other exercise. In this study they pointed out that the calves and outer quads are worked harder and the only ones that were statistically significant. Of course you'll never achieve optimal calf development just doing squat so we can dismiss that (assuming we are primarily concerned about quad development).

I read a critique of this study, or something similar (which I will try to dig up). They pointed out some subtle points to be considered. The subjects were required to do 8 reps on both movements but none of these sets were taken to failure or even high intensity. To keep the measurements accurate all reps had to be performed in a clean, strict and consistent form. Why is this important? Because when squatting with free weights, as the reps get more difficult you start to lean forward putting more stress on the lower and back and glutes. This shifts the stress away from the targeted muscle group.

But what do I know? In shorts I look like I have polio.

[pellius]

Ok Groink, so just to clarify, you don't think that there are certain (smaller) muscles in the body that are used to stabilize?

Again, to reiterate, all muscles act to some extent as stabilizers. But is there a unique class of stabilizing muscles? It's often referred to as your "core" which someone defined here as all your muscles minus you arms an legs. OK. So you are working your traps and abs when you do squats. I get that. But is squats the optimal movement for working you abs and traps? A lot of what a trainer refers to as "stabilizers" is simply the skill of balancing and controlling a weight when doing a specific movement (such as doing dumbbell bench presses on a Swiss ball). This is great if you are trying to develop the skill in pushing weight on a Swiss ball and I'm sure you are using more muscles than just doing a traditional bench press but the unstable environment compromises using maximum resistance on the pec muscles and makes that movement less than optimal for developing the pecs (assuming that is your goal).

[DroppingPlates]

Yes, I am familiar with that study and again I concede that the free weight squat works more muscles in your body because you have to stabilize the weight.

This study isn't so much about more supporting/balancing/whatever-you-name-them muscles, but about the recruitment of fibres.

All else being equal it is a much harder exercise and will do more for overall strength and conditioning for your body than any other exercise. In this study they pointed out that the calves and outer quads are worked harder and the only ones that were statistically significant. Of course you'll never achieve optimal calf development just doing squat so we can dismiss that (assuming we are primarily concerned about quad development).

A small correction: this study talks about vastus medialis activation which is more the inner quadriceps, the outer quad is called vastus lateralis. The study also says: "Taking all the muscles together, they worked 43 percent harder during the free squat."

I read a critique of this study, or something similar (which I will try to dig up). They pointed out some subtle points to be considered. The subjects were required to do 8 reps on both movements but none of these sets were taken to failure or even high intensity. To keep the measurements accurate all reps had to be performed in a clean, strict and consistent form. Why is this important? Because when squatting with free weights, as the reps get more difficult you start to lean forward putting more stress on the lower and back and glutes. This shifts the stress away from the targeted muscle group.

In case the subjects trained with the same techniques and intensity during the Smith machine version I don't consider this as relevant.

But what do I know? In shorts I look like I have polio.

[pellius]

This study isn't so much about more supporting/balancing/whatever-you-name-them muscles, but about the recruitment of fibres.
A small correction: this study talks about vastus medialis activation which is more the inner quadriceps, the outer quad is called vastus lateralis. The study also says: "Taking all the muscles together, they worked 43 percent harder during the free squat."

In case the subjects trained with the same techniques and intensity during the Smith machine version I don't consider this as relevant.
 

You got me on that vastus medialus thing. But again that is dependent of the stance you adopt. Narrow stance will hit the outers more.

But really, in a way, it's all moot. I've done infinitely more barbell squats than Smiths and I'm still a twink. I think if you have the genetics you'll get big quads doing either Smiths or barbell and the difference will probably be insignificant. A friend of mine, bless with brutal Samoan genetics, calves are twenty inches and his quads measure 30 and it's all muscle. He doesn't have the definition to step on stage but when he flexes his quads you see the blurry separation in his quads. And he's done the exact same amount of squats with a barbell as with a Smith machine which in both cases is zero.

And people wouldn't why I'm such a spiteful, bitter man.
 

[Coach is Back!]

Again, to reiterate, all muscles act to some extent as stabilizers. But is there a unique class of stabilizing muscles? It's often referred to as your "core" which someone defined here as all your muscles minus you arms an legs. OK. So you are working your traps and abs when you do squats. I get that. But is squats the optimal movement for working you abs and traps? A lot of what a trainer refers to as "stabilizers" is simply the skill of balancing and controlling a weight when doing a specific movement (such as doing dumbbell bench presses on a Swiss ball). This is great if you are trying to develop the skill in pushing weight on a Swiss ball and I'm sure you are using more muscles than just doing a traditional bench press but the unstable environment compromises using maximum resistance on the pec muscles and makes that movement less than optimal for developing the pecs (assuming that is your goal).

Now your getting it. Yes there are. You have movers and stabilizers. Movers are what the name implies, those are the muscles that move bodyparts so to speak, stabilizers are the muscles are the ones that hold your bodyparts in place and prevent you from being damaged while the movers are moving you. A good example would be your rotator cuff, a stabilizer and mover would be delts. Damage your rotator and see how much movement you have left?