My [Least] favorite training myths.

[from zero]

Bfold there is nothing wrong with heated debate. It's what keeps a forum healthy. As long as people know how to argue like adults, there's no problem. I'd love to hear your arguments against my myths, because I'm curious to hear the other side. So far no one has been able to effectively counter them, so I would like to see what you have to say.

I don't think there is such a thing as "arguing like adults." I'm all for a good debate anytime. But, let's keep it that way guys. A debate. Non-biased and intelligent.

 

[Exodus]

well im going to be my usual self.

Debaser...... what scientific proof do you have for your statements???

X

 

[ATF]

This is what I'm talking about. First of all, what do you mean all three areas of the chest? Seconds, the flat press works the upper chest just as hard as inclines, as I've stated. The inclines work the shoulders more, but there's always overhead presses for that.

Debasser,

I curious about where you get your information about inclines and flat presses. If you would direct me there it would be appreciated.

I started pressing on a slight incline...20° or so. My upper chest is lagging and this is giving me better results.

The only research that I have done is in front of the mirror, holding my arms out straight (as in a flat bench). If you move your arms up slightly, you can see that the upper pec flexes more with the movement. The lower pec does flex a little less, and the shoulders a little more. My thought with going with inclines was to move my upper chest to be the primary target and the lower pec and shoulders as stablizers. It seems to me that it is more of a compound movemet then flat presses because you have added the shoulders, yet the pectoral minor hasn't been completely obsoleted from the lift.

I agree with everyone else about changing things up, and I think we agree, but are arguing the same point from a different perspective. Change is good, mostly mentally. I do know that if I change an exercise I have to lower the weight to get my form down. Therefore I am kind of doing with slobberknocker is doing. Does that make sense. Other than that, it keeps me into it mentally by making it not to monotonous (spelling?)

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

recently posted by Arnold'sApprentice:

"he's probably the most knowledgable guy in this forum"

And given the intelligence of your contribution..i endorse this statement with added certainty.

 

[casualbb]

I can't help it... with respect to fiber types, they recently did an experiment with the express purpose of debunking it, and did a decent job.

See Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60).

Basically they just pick high, medium, and low rep programs, randomly assigned people to each, and measured growth of each fiber type. Here are the results:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
· pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

As you can see, in each case the highest-twitch fibers grew most, and the growth was predominantly weighted towards higher twitch fibers, even doing 20-28 reps.

QED.

 

[Scotsman]

For the first time I think I find myself in full agreance with debaser. My favorite chest myth is that declines give you great lower chest to go along with what you said about inclines.

Cheers,
Scotsman

 

[Debaser]

well im going to be my usual self.

Debaser...... what scientific proof do you have for your statements???

X

Well casual already got to one for me, for the inclines I'd have to look up where I found some EMT (sp) data. I've seen it published in a few different places, but I can't recall exactly where, as I browse so many sites daily. But this can also be dispelled if you understand the biomechanical function of the pecs, which is scientific in and of itself.

But the more important question is Exodus: why would I be the one to prove it? All 3 of these myths seem to originate from muscle mags, hardly a trustworthy source of information. THEY should have backed up their claims, not make up fallacies and then have me prove the opposite. Thus I would believe the burden of proof wouldn't rest on me anyway.

 

[JOKER47]

But the more important question is Exodus: why would I be the one to prove it?

Because you initiated the thread, and made the challenges.

The challenger bears the burden of proof.

 

[The Red Dragon]

the whole concept of definition/toning
spot reduction
high rep definition/low rep bulk mass (stupidest shit I've ever heard)

Kind of all related =/

Hmm why would musclemag companies want to spread around all that false shit?

 

[coolcolj]

I can't help it... with respect to fiber types, they recently did an experiment with the express purpose of debunking it, and did a decent job.

See Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60).

Basically they just pick high, medium, and low rep programs, randomly assigned people to each, and measured growth of each fiber type. Here are the results:



As you can see, in each case the highest-twitch fibers grew most, and the growth was predominantly weighted towards higher twitch fibers, even doing 20-28 reps.

QED.

The problems is there are too many variables, how fast were they lifting, how fast were the eccentrics, did they explode etc etc
Honestly reps and sets are archiac things.

I can get a very light weight and do 3 explosive reps with it, pushing as hard as I possible can - which I do all the time - and obviously it's gonna be pretty ballistic, and you would expect the high threshold fibers to be heavily recruited.
But if I take the same weight and do 3 casual reps, chances are not much if any high threshold fibers will be recruited

Nothing is black and white