Common misconception about working different parts of same muscle

[Sharky]

I understand that it is impossible to work just one part of a muscle on it's own. I have been told that when people say this works the "lower biceps" or "lower pecs" or "lower abs" they are mistaken. Fair enough.

But can you just clear this up for me - at the gym i hang from a bar and bring my knees up to my chest. This SEEMS to work my abs in a way i've never felt before. It DOES indeed SEEM to target my lower abdominals.

What is it actually doing? By the theory that i am hearing on here, doesn't that mean that doing a crunch works the "lower" abs just as much? But i know it doesn't. I don't feel the burn there.

I was once told that any movement that brings your body up to your legs works your upper/middle abs, and any movement that brings your legs to your chest, works your lower/middle abs - what's actually happening?

Cheers.

[Ford Prefect]

Hey Sharky,

What it is actually doing is incorperating your hip flexors into the movement which are right below your abs. Virtually all ab exercises do this; some more than others. The exercise you described is almost entirely a hip flexor movement until your thighs and body form a 90 degree angle. After that, the abdominal muscles come into play. Of course the abs will be tight up until that point too, but that's for stabilization purposes. On top of all that, the load being so great tugging at the bottom of the abdominal wall will cause the connective tissue there to become inflamed which will add the "feeling" of working your "lower abs".

[Jamesbond_007]

check out www.healthforlife.com and look at their Legandary Abs book. It talks about the diff exercises that target the abs and how to do ab exercises that do not get the hip flexors involed as much. They also use a technique called synergism which structures exercises in a certain way to get the biggest bennifit, For example when you work you lower abs your upper abs also are worked. So it would make sense to work you lower abs first and you upper abs last so you get a harder and better workout on your upper abs

[Ford Prefect]

That book actually blows. I've had it for a few years and even did some of the routines for close to a year. Big waste of time. The information in it is factually and scientifically unsound.

[Silumkid]

Sharky,

You are quite correct...you cannot work a part or a "section" of a muscle, especially in the abs which is actually one muscle belly. Ford has a great point...the connective tissues play a part. Hanging leg raises do activate the hip flexors, and you will notice this even more if you do leg raises with straight legs raising them to the front. Same thing with bench press...you are working the entire muscle belly, the different positions such as incline or decline don't really target "sections" of the chest any more specifically. The only thing that is really changing is your pain receptors.

[Arhat of Fury]

Hmmm. So is it impossible to concentrate different strands of muscles. My 2 quarms with this theory is this.

Your chest is made up of several different strands of muscles(look at any diagram) I agree that when you do any press excersise for the chest you are using the whole chest, but the concentration factor. How come when I do incline my chest pump is in the upper part of the of my chest, near the collar bone and when I do flat, my pum is more on the middle part by the nipple. Not only can I feel these "different pumps" but I can see them clothes on and off?

My second quarm is the hammer strength preacher curl where there is 3 different phases to concentration. The middle phase hits you all around(expected) but the upper and lower concentration phases are the ones, again, that I can see and feel. It really will get rock hard on the bottom and top comparebly to the middle excersises.

The stomach theory I understand, but I cant theororize the other muscles. Which leads me to my last question, Why would they put machines on the market and in gyms advertising they do the "certain part of muscle concentrating" if it is all bull huckey.

Please explain factually.

Amitoufu,

AOF

[yenhoi]

Marketing.

[Arhat of Fury]

ok I deserved that:p

[Silumkid]

Well, as I said in my previous post, you are really only changing the receptors. As I'm sure you probably know, a muscle cannot contract partially...the fibers either work or they don't, the variable is the degree to which the fibers need to fire, or the intensity. If it were possible to work only the "upper/lower" chest, it should stand to reason that there should be some mighty odd looking people in the gym. A know a few guys who decline a bit more than they can flat, but their chest development is even. Musculoskeletal leverage plays a part in the strength curve as well. Here's a simple test...next time you are spotting someone in a decline/incline, if they will let you, place your hand on their pec as they work. I guarantee that you will feel the full muscle working. *Emphasis* may slightly change, but as stated before, a muscle does not know how to partially contract.

I haven't worked with a Hammer preacher so I can't answer this directly, but I can say that the bicep is supposed to be divided into "inner/outer" sections. But I have yet to hear "x exercise works only the outer head of the bicep". Partial contraction and all that...just like different grips may change the *emphasis* on a tricep extension, but all three heads are working.

Well, yenhoi got that last one! Indeed, if advertisers were in the job of educating us truthfully, there would be a lot less products out there, especially in the fitness industry. Fitness advertisers love the fact that there are so many myths about the business, and are not going to do anything to change it. It's all about the gimmick to get the dollar.

Hope that clarified my position.

[Arhat of Fury]

Sorry to beat this to death, but Im just trying to clarify, youre saying,

That you cannot work "only part" of a muscle but you can concentrate the stress on certain striations all the while the whole muscle is working but one part harder than the other.

Make sense!:confused:

AOF

[Silumkid]

Pretty much. :D

Take for example a military press...most of the emphasis is on the front and medial heads with triceps as "secondary mover", but EMG analysis has shown that the rear head does bear some of the work as well, just not as directly as in say a lat pulldown.

Don't take my opinionated drivel as saying that certain exercises are useless...I'm not saying that by any means. I just take great personal enjoyment out of myth-busting. :cool:

But of course, knowing the fitness industry, they'll totally "revolutionize" everything by saying something that is essentially recycled mythos from years ago like Weider supposedly "revolutioned" resistance training with "his" principles and everybody will be saying something else. I'd like to think I'll be sticking to my guns though. The current science seems pretty solid.

[Arhat of Fury]

makes sense to me! This in a sense clears up a couple of misconceptions in a couple of other threads.

Amitoufu,

AOF

[IronFist]

My challenge still stands.

I forgot the dollar amount I placed on it, but I hereby change it to $10 because I'm a poor college student.

$10 to anyone who can demonstrate to me that they can flex only part of their pecs thereby proving that there is a difference between "upper" and "lower." Yes, the top half must be flexed while the bottom half remains soft and squshy (ewww).

This works for any muscle. If anyone can flex their lower biceps I would accept that, too.

Note, this doesn't count for people who can make the left half of their six pack stick out (like the pics at www.maxalding.plus.com ). I think that has to do with abdominal pressure, not tension.

Other than that, the people here cleared everything up already so I have nothing else to say :) Good job guys!

IronFist

[fmann]

What about force gradients? <u>Below is opinion and conjecture only:</u>

One thing about the abs and any muscles in general is that while you cannot isolate the forces in the ways that people think, there will be a force gradient over the entire muscle depending on the insertion and origin.

So just like a lever has more torque f a rther out, your muscles even though completely contracted can feel different amounts of torque depending on how far you move out along the muscle. And since your muscles, bones, etc. grow due to the forces they feel, it is possible that this gradient can cause the muscles to develop slightly differently.

The abdominis rectus, btw, is actually several muscle groups stringed together by the rectus sheath I think... that's why you have a six pack and not 1 big ab muscle.

That's my theory. It's not about actually controlling and isolating which part of the muscles are doing the work, but rather what different parts of the entire muscle are feeling.

[BSH]

The confusion seems to be in what we consider working different parts of a muscle seperately. While I agree that the entire muscle is participating, different strands are doing more or less work. Therefore, targeting just means that you are working one part of a muscle more than other parts.

I think Isolating is the wrong word to use because it implies all and nothing. Targeting is preferable.

[Sharky]

Ah - what are hip flexors? Muscles or tendons or what?

[Ford Prefect]

Muskles ;)

[Arhat of Fury]

My thoughts have to agree with BSH and fmann. I am not suggesting that a certain part of a muscle can be flexed rather a certain part can be worked and "Concentrated" on to feel more torque. When flexed the muscles all recruit together(meaning all tri-cep, or all chest exct..) but with pressure working from different angles, you are able to raise your chest(incline).

Amitoufu,

AOF

[Braden]

Not being facetious - Is it all in my head that my pecs look way different after doing decline flies than after doing close-grip bench presses? And just different, not that one is better.

[IronFist]

My thoughts have to agree with BSH and fmann. I am not suggesting that a certain part of a muscle can be flexed rather a certain part can be worked and "Concentrated" on to feel more torque. When flexed the muscles all recruit together(meaning all tri-cep, or all chest exct..) but with pressure working from different angles, you are able to raise your chest(incline).

Are you talking about the individual heads of a tricep being stressed differently on different exercises?

IronFist

[Arhat of Fury]

Are you talking about the individual heads of a tricep being stressed differently on different exercises?

Ironfist, that may have been a bad example being that the Tri-cept does have the different heads. (outside of arm and backside of arm. My point was that I dont beleieve a certain part of a muscle can be flexed, the whole muscle has to be flexed but the concentration on the different striations in your muscles can be concentrated differently via the use of different angles. Do we really think that bodybuilders chest's would look that way if all they did was flat bench? I dont think so, in fact, I know so.

What do you guys think?

AOF

[lowsweep]

You can work different parts of your chest. There are 4 muscles in your chest: Pectoralis Major Sternal, Pectoralis Major Clavical, Pectoralis Minor, and Serratus Anterior. Different chest excercises target different chest muscles to an extent, such as switching from incline to decline bench. However, because of somebody I can't remember right now's law, when one muscle tenses, so do the sorrounding muscles. You can't work just one of the chest muscles, but you can work it more than the others. You also can't flex just one of them for the same reason. See this link and click on the names of the chest muscles to see the anatomy: link (http://www.exrx.net/Lists/ExList/ChestWt.html) The same goes for biceps, there are bicept bracci and braccialis, except there are no upper or lower biceps, just one muscle under and to the side of the other. The abs are one muscle, so you cannot concentrate on parts of them.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by Arhat of Fury
the Tri-cept does have the different heads. (outside of arm and backside of arm.)


Actually it's got three heads, tri-ceps. :) But that doesn't matter.


Do we really think that bodybuilders chest's would look that way if all they did was flat bench? I dont think so, in fact, I know so.



Yes, they would look the same (within the parameters of muscle growth). In other words, a Bodybuilder's "upper pecs" will not change because he does incline bench.




Here we go:


You can work different parts of your chest. There are 4 muscles in your chest: Pectoralis Major Sternal, Pectoralis Major Clavical, Pectoralis Minor, and Serratus Anterior. Different chest excercises target different chest muscles to an extent, such as switching from incline to decline bench. However, because of somebody I can't remember right now's law, when one muscle tenses, so do the sorrounding muscles. You can't work just one of the chest muscles, but you can work it more than the others.


Alright. The Pectoralis Major Sternal and P.M. Clavical are different muscles. Yes. But this isn't relevent to the discussion because when people talk about working their "upper pecs" they are talking about the top portion of their Pectoralis Major Sternal. Besides, as far as bodybuilding goes the Pectoralis Major Clavical is kind of small. It gets worked, but it is overshadowed by the pec Sternal and Deltoids.

Again, when someone says "I'm gonna work my "upper pecs," they're not talking about their Pectoralis Major Clavical.

The reason people think there is a difference between upper pecs and lower pecs is because some Bodybuilders, such as Franco Columbu, have such (genetically) ripped chests that you can see a line between "upper pecs" and "lower pecs." Bodybuilders assumed that you can work these two portions OF THE SAME MUSCLE seperately, much as people assume you can work different portions of your abs seperately.

Ok, one more time:

It is impossible to work certain parts of the same muscle head with more or less stress than other areas of the same muscle head. As far as I know, it is possible to stress the clavical more than the sternal, because these are two DIFFERENT muscle heads.

K, I've got some homework to do so I'm gonna run.

IronFist

[Arhat of Fury]

Yes, they would look the same (within the parameters of muscle growth). In other words, a Bodybuilder's "upper pecs" will not change because he does incline bench.

Ironfist, I do not agree with you on this. I have seen a dramatic change in my anatomy since I have laid off the incline and focused more on flat bench. Also, if you are an experienced weightlifter you know exacly whats it like to start your chest work out with flat and then switch to startig it with incline, the pump is completely different. With that in mind there would have to be different stress ratios and different areas of the muscle(or heads) that are working harder. But enough with the opinion talk, I have read this somewhere in one of my Arnold books, where an unbiased doctor did a study on this concept... Let me get that info for us:)

Anyway after thouroughlly reading your post it seems we are all capitulating the same idea which is.

You cannot work, flex or concentrate stress on certain part of a muscle head, however you can work the same muscle from different angles to promote different stress when it contains more than one head or more than grouping of striations.

Agreed,


Amitoufu,


AOF


P.S.- My guess is that all the times that this topic has been argued, folks on the board have been asking the question wrong. Instead of saying "can I concentrate stress on certain paert of my bi's, chest, tri's or cuads", they have been saying "can I work out/or flex my upper chest only, when in fact the whole muscle grouping has to work, just some parts more than others----

[Silumkid]

Braden,

Yes, there is a reason. Flies are a chest exercise...close-grip bench is primarily a tricep exercise. However, if during close-grip bench you feel it more in your chest than your tris, I'd suggest having a trainer check your form...you may be flaring your elbows out too wide and doing this a lot can eventually put too much pressure on the shoulders.

If somebody told you close-grip bench was an "inner chest" exercise, smack them. See above posts for why.

[IronFist]

Arhat of Fury, the Arnold book, while very inspiring and full of information, is also full of anatomical errors :)

When your pectoralis major sternal muscle fires, the entire muscle fires at once. Nothing in the world can make part of it work harder or less hard than another part of it. The only thing that you can change is how much the entire muscle works.

You can change the ratio between Pectoralis major sternal and pectoralis major clavical usage, but that is different.

You said:
I have seen a dramatic change in my anatomy since I have laid off the incline and focused more on flat bench

That's because flat bench stresses the entire pectoralis more so than incline bench does. Incline bench causes the front deltoids to work harder than they do on flat bench. So, your chest has probably gotten bigger because you are working it more. It has nothing to do with working the "middle" or whatever of your chest more, it has to do with placing more stress on the chest.

I gotta go to class now. Please find the references you were talking about in the Arnold book, because if it's the one I'm thinking of then it's wrong :) However, I left my copy of the book at home this semester so I'll take your word for whatever it says.

IronFist

[Arhat of Fury]

Iron,
Yeah, i will dive into the library tonight and get back to you.
Now, this has gotten me real curious.

Amitoufu,

AOF

[ElPietro]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but muscle shape is genetically determined...all you can do is influence it's size...and that also has a genetic maximum. You can break the maximum size through the use of anabolics...but for shape please go stand in the synthol line because without injections you won't be able to do anything else about it.

[IronFist]

lol, synthol line :)

IronFist

[Braden]

Silumkid - Thanks, I thought I was being ignored. ;) That makes sense (I actually haven't done close-grip bench in years, but you're right, back when I did them I was convinced they were for 'inner chest' ;) ). However, I really just chose them as an extreme example. None of mid -> wide grip benches, a variety of push-ups, or even flies done horizontal build my pecs the way the decline flies do. Now I'm not challenging the theory laid out here; I'm just curious because I swear that's what goes on with me. ;) Will the other exercises do the same; maybe I'm just not working them hard enough? Could this be due to simple individual difference in _my_ pec shape - ie. this motion capitilizes best on my shape, but maybe something else is best for you? Is there something anatomical going on, like differential working of muscles that balance the pecs in the exercises? Or should I just check for gas leaks where I work out?

BTW, just bouncing off something IronFist said in a related thread - if pecs are for pulling your arms closer to your body, why do more people think 'bench press' as the epitome of chest exercises, rather than the fly?

On a completely unrelated note, I'm working on doing handstand pushups now. They're so much harder than I thought they'd be. ;p

[Sharky]

Sigh. I'm more confused than i was before now.

Let me get this straight - it is IMPOSSIBLE to work one part of the SAME muscle more than another part. You are merely targeting the muscle more by doing different exercises?

The reason the "lower abs" seem to be worked when doing leg raises is cos it's working your hip flexor muscles - cool.

The reason that when you do close-gripped bench press it seems to work your "inner pecs" more is........?

Cheers

[ElPietro]

...only in your mind.

muscle fibres run horizontally in the pectorals...muscle fibres are recruited on an all-or-nothing basis. There are two parts to your chest, however stimulating one and not the other is not possible. By lifting heavy you will be recruiting maximally from both pec major and minor. I believe the ideal position for bench is a very slight incline, however, as i said if you are lifting maximally then you are recruiting maximally, simple as that. You do not necessarily have to use bench press...I use it because it is a very effecient exercise...i am working my chest, triceps, shoulders, and many other stabilizers. The isolation exercises such as flies are also good for chest however you are not working many of the synergistic muscles that will inevitably be used in any functional movement involving the chest.

[Arhat of Fury]

Iron-
I cannot find the book, it was a black cover with green writing and a picture of Arnold, Flexing his back while leaning on a brickwall face first. I dont know what happened to it. Probably lent it to one of the guys I was training.

Anyway, I still do not agree with the statement that you cannot make a different strands or heads of muscles fire harder using different angles. I would be willing to put my shirt on it.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY UNBIASED DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE THESE ALLLEGATIONS EITHER WAY!

I will keep searching for scientifical facts on this, until anyone care to share.

Amitoufu,

AOF

[Ford Prefect]

Just buy an anatomy book. Preferably one that wasn't written with any sort of exercise in mind. It's actually widely accepted fact. Muscle Mags lead to a lot of misinformation. Just looks at how many people still believe in spot reduction. (ie doing a bunch of crunches will make you loose fat around the abs) It's pretty amusing.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by Arhat of Fury
make a different strands or heads of muscles fire harder using different angles.


HEADS, yes. Strands as you put it, no. Different "heads" are essentially different muscles, as they have THEIR OWN INSERTION POINTS. Let's use the triceps as an example because I'm sick of talking about pecs.

The triceps have three heads, lateral, long, and something else which I cannot remember at the moment, so for simplicity's sake we will call them Head 1, Head 2, and Head 3. "Triceps" is actually a group of these three muscles, but people just refer to them as "triceps" because it's easier than saying "I'm going to go work the three heads of my triceps."

Now, different exercises may recruit the different heads (each with their own insertion points) in different ratios. Let's assume a hypothetical measure of power output called "p" (for "power" :) ).

Exercise 1 may recruit the triceps' heads like this:
Head 1: 200p
Head 2: 300p
Head 3: 300p

Exercise 2 may recruit the heads like this:
Head 1: 800p
Head 2: 600p
Head 3: 600p

However, the stress placed along a SINGLE head at any certain point will NEVER be more than at any other point in the same head.

For example, during Exercise 1 above, EVERY point on head one will be contracting at a level of 200p. This includes "upper," "lower," and everything in between.

Now, let's apply this to pecs.

Incline bench may recruit the Pectoralis Major Sternal less than flat bench, but throughout the entire Pectoralis Major Sternal the contraction will be exactly the same (in other words, the "upper" part is working just as hard as the "lower" part). This may differ from the amount in which the Pectoralis Major Clavical is contracted in the same exercise, but this is because Pectoralis Major Clavical and Pectoralis Major Sternal are different HEADS.

Now, the confusion comes in, I believe, because some people may be referring to the "upper section of the Pectoralis Major Sternal" by "upper pecs" while other, albeit a few people, may be referring to the Pectoralis Major Clavical, which is an entirely different muscle head.

Make sense? I have to go to class now :) Use the link above if you want to see pictures of the muscles I was talking about.

IronFist

[Silumkid]

Braden,

What Iron said is correct, the "primary" function of the pec is to draw the arm across the body. It is also involved in front or "away" pressing motions such as a punch.

ElPietro also nailed on why it is done so often...efficiency. It can also be used to monitor and correct muscle imbalances. Very generally speaking, if a person tends to hit "sticking point" at the lower part of the bench, it usually means weak pecs. If they tend to stick more towards the middle, it usually means weak triceps.

Now, as to why one exercise may work for you better than it might me...one simple rule applies. No one responds to exercise exactly the same. This is true in regards to muscular response, recovery, fiber recruitment, fiber ratio disposition...and now we know why there are so many books on this seemingly simple subject. *sigh*

***
Sharky,

I think you read the posts wrong...you SHOULDN'T feel close-grip bench in your so-called "inner pecs" more. It's a tricep exercise.

***
Arhat,

Some of the best books I have ever seen on these subjects are:

Getting Stronger - Bill Pearl
Just about anything by Fred Hatfield

I can't recall if they address this particular subject exactly though...Hatfield's stuff probably does.