Can the shape of a muscle be altered? Is that a stupid question?

[TigerJaw]

For some reason, I've developed a reputation amongst friends and colleague of know of what I speak with regards to fitness. If only they knew the truth. Some of the questions I've been asked have started me thinking though. I know I'm in danger of dredging over old ground but I've had a look through the old posts and I'm still unsure.

Now, I know that you cannot target the upper and lower abs per se because the abdominus rectus is a single muslce and contracts in unison. Fair enough. This principle extends to all muslces in the body unless you're talking about diferent heads of a muscle.

However, I've also read and heard that when training for strength, the muscle gets stronger over the range of motion that you train over. Hence, it's important to do any excercise over the full range of motion. If I understand correctly, this idea is also important in isometric stretchin with proports to strengthen the muslce when it's in a stretched position.

So, will any contraction of a muscle make it stronger and bigger and that's the end of it or does doing an excercise with a diferent range of motion make any difference to how the muslce develops or behaves. If the latter is true then surely, there would be differences in appearence as well. Can you, for example, give yourself pecs that are flat and well developed towards the centre line of your chest, by doing an excercise that has a greater range of motion in the chest, like the flyes or pec-dec. Alternatively, would only doing the leg-press half way down give you leg muslces that bulge out in the middle?

Just a thought.
Phill

[fa_jing]

Well in the case of the quadriceps, if you only do the last 30% of the motion before full extension, you will develop the head of the quadriceps that is located close to the inside of your knee. I know this because I did this exercise for physical therapy and I saw a big difference in size there. You will also feel sore in that part of the quadriceps and not so much in the other three parts.

Likewise, you can target different heads of your deltoid (shoulder) muscle. For any multi-headed muscle, you can target some or all of the heads depending on what kind of motion you perform.

However, it is doubtful that you will be able to affect the shape of a single-headed muscle such as the pectorals.

[Former castleva]

"Now, I know that you cannot target the upper and lower abs per se because the abdominus rectus is a single muslce and contracts in unison. "
Well you train lower and upper separately,don´t you?

"However, I've also read and heard that when training for strength, the muscle gets stronger over the range of motion that you train over. Hence, it's important to do any excercise over the full range of motion. "
I´m not sure if I understand correctly,to go OVER the motion does not make sense.Basically,you just do your form properly and in full range of motion for maximum efficiency.

"So, will any contraction of a muscle make it stronger and bigger and that's the end of it or does doing an excercise with a diferent range of motion make any difference to how the muslce develops or behaves. "
Would be dangerous to generalise but I would have to say yes,to a degree at least.

"Can you, for example, give yourself pecs that are flat and well developed towards the centre line of your chest, by doing an excercise that has a greater range of motion in the chest, like the flyes or pec-dec. "
I´m not sure if I got this right but if we assume that you only bench press,you will mostly develop outer pectorals,if you pec-dec,the pressure is great on inner pecs.
So in this sense,you could make them shine out but as for making sense,no.

"Alternatively, would only doing the leg-press half way down give you leg muslces that bulge out in the middle?"
Hardly I´d think,and would hardly be practical.

[SevenStar]

The shape your muscles will take is pre-determined by your genetics - you're not gonna change it. You can of course make them bigger or smaller, but the shape will remain constant.

[Former castleva]

Good point,should have adressed that.

[Serpent]

fa-jing's post and castleva's post are contradictory. Anyone care to chine in and shift the vote?

[TigerJaw]

Some interesting points so far.

I'm inclined think that fa-jing is closest to the truth. It makes sence to me that in some cases, when you're using a muscle with multiple heads, you can develop one or more head favourably and this might be associated with a restricted range of motin. This would give the illusion that not doing a full range of motion develops only part of the muscle.

I'm disinclined to agree with the idea that you can target your inner-pectorals. It is my understanding that it's impossible to target diferent parts of the same head of a muscle by doing a diferent movement. However, I don't know, that's why I asked. Can anybody shed more light, argument or oppinion on this.

BTW, no, I don't train my upper and lower 6-pack seperately. I thought that this cannot be done. A single head of muscle contracts as one.

Lastly, nobody has yet address the issue of whether there is any truth in the argument that strength can be developed in a certain range of a joints motion and if that makes any diference to how the muscle looks. Some people say that isometric stretches work by making the muscle strong when it is in a stretched position, this implies that you can have a muscle that is strong when it's at 40% of it's total possible length but weak when it's at 70%. Is there any thruth in that at all.

Also, are there any doctors who can tell us what actually makes a muscle grow. Is it stress? Can't be or stretching would work. Is it tensing? Then you should be able to do it without weights, maybe you can.

Thanks everybody for your contributions, keep em coming.

Cheers,
Phill

[Former castleva]

"I'm inclined think that fa-jing is closest to the truth. It makes sence to me that in some cases, when you're using a muscle with multiple heads, you can develop one or more head favourably and this might be associated with a restricted range of motin. This would give the illusion that not doing a full range of motion develops only part of the muscle."
When it comes to training different parts of the same muscle,it has very little to do with restricting the movement designed for it.
It´s still the same full range of motion,for maximum effect (to not do so,may not be that great in long run)

"Also, are there any doctors who can tell us what actually makes a muscle grow."
Damage.The muscle gets damaged trough exercise.Recovery process from this stress allows it to grow (thus muscle cells build up)

[Ford Prefect]

I wasn't going to chime in because this is usually hotly debated, but the truth is that you CAN target a head of a muscle group by the angle of flexion. That being said, you cannot isolate a single head of a muscle group.

It is also true that it is impossible to target parts of a whole muscle. The ENTIRE muscle contracts uniformally. A pec deck will not make you inner pectoral contract harder than your outer pectoral. It will only feel that way do to stress on connective tissue and insertion points. Thus a muscle will undergo hypertrophy (grow) uniformally as well. Sevenstar is 100% correct when he said that you cannot alter the shape of the muscle by doing this. It is all predetermined by your genetics.

These are facts backed up by hundreds of research studies and experiments.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Former castleva

Damage.The muscle gets damaged trough exercise.Recovery process from this stress allows it to grow (thus muscle cells build up)

This is actually a very popular misconception. Damage and rebuilding is not what causes a muscle to grow.

[Former castleva]

"This is actually a very popular misconception. Damage and rebuilding is not what causes a muscle to grow."
Yeah,well it was a bit confusing explanation.Largely to be taken as a metaphor.

" I wasn't going to chime in because this is usually hotly debated, but the truth is that you CAN target a head of a muscle group by the angle of flexion. That being said, you cannot isolate a single head of a muscle group.

It is also true that it is impossible to target parts of a whole muscle. The ENTIRE muscle contracts uniformally. "
Yeah.but still one does not,realistically,expect one single exercise to do the work for-.What different exercises with varying pressure were for,but that was discussed already though.

[Ford Prefect]

Sorry, bro. The "damage/rebuilding" metaphor or explanation isn't even in the same zip code as why muscles undergo various forms of hypertrophy.


Yeah.but still one does not,realistically,expect one single exercise to do the work for-.What different exercises with varying pressure were for,but that was discussed already though.

?? What do you mean ??

[Former castleva]

Phoney grammar? :o

I was just forcing the point of training invidual parts of the muscle (not for exact specific invidual isolation)
with varying exercises for desired effect.

[Ford Prefect]

That's impossible though. You can't train the inner or outer pecs, anymore than you can train the upper medial tricep head or the lower medial tricep head or the upper and lower hamstring. A muscle responds to stimuli uniformally. One part doesn't react or grow more than another.

[Former castleva]

That´s a point and I get what you mean but I do have my reasons to entertain this idea.
I would still have to disagree to a degree.

[Ford Prefect]

Are these scientific reasons or things you've "noticed" about your own training? Please expound.

[Former castleva]

Sort of both.
What I have picked up from related literature etc.

[TigerJaw]

Thanks for joining in Ford. If what you say is the case then why is it important to do an excercise, for example the bench press or bicep curl over it's full range of motion. What difference does it make?

Casteleva, I appreciate your oppinions but could you perhaps back up some of your points with some kind of argument. For example, if what you said about muscle growth is a metaphore, then what is the real mechanism? If you have reason to believe that you can build your inner pectorals, what are those reasons?

[Ford Prefect]

Tiger Jaw,

I'm not sure I understand that question. The range of motion which you use will be the one strengthened plus 0-15% degrees of flexion. Naturally, if you want a greater strength carryover to greater ROM, you'd use a large ROM in the exercise you perform.

As for muscle hypertrophy (growth) there are two types of hypertrophy: myofabrillar and sarcoplasmic.

Myofabrillar hypertrophy is a growth in the muscles contractile proteins/fibers themselves. The muscle actually gets denser.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the growth in the amount of muscle sarcoplasm which is a jelly-like filler in between the contactile proteins from which the fibers extract their energy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is generally what is responsible for most muscle "growth" (ie getting "jacked")

FYI, there is a term called hyperplasia which refers to an increase in number of muscle fibers but it has been largely disproven.

Since you were asking about "growth", I'll concentrate on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Any hypertrophy is a result of the symbiotic relationship of intensity (as in % of your 1-rep max), rest time, and volume (amount of sets and reps). Since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a growth in the energy system in the muscle, it would make sense to target the energy system for the most growth.

This will lead to relatively low intensity, short rest, and moderate-high volume. The most obvious display of this is in the typical bodybuilder workout of 3 sets of 12 reps. 3 sets total is moderate volume, but if you condense rest periods to under a minute you will obviously be taxing the muscle's energy systems. Doing 12 reps per set will also cause you to use low intensity since not many people can lift a high % of their one rep max 12 times!

Obviously you can play around with this relationship of intensity, rest, and volume. If you raise the intensity, then you must raise the volume. I only say this because as intesnity goes higher, the amount of reps you can do goes lower. Say if you are only doing 4 reps of an exercise. That means that will now have to do 9 sets instead of 3 to get those same 36 reps.

This is why it seems like there are so many approaches to reach the same goal. On the surface, they look radically different, but underneath it all are the same basic principles of the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy: Intensity Volume Rest

I'll leave it at that since I'm kind of tired of typing. Feel free to ask any questions about it all.

BTW, there are no studies or research that I'm aware of that prove you can build a part of the muscle (inner pecs, etc) Any research on the subject has consistently proven otherwise. If a muscle fires uniformally through the entire muscle, then what stimuli would cause it to "grow" more in one location? Because the connective tissue and muscle insertion points in that area were physically stressed more? I don't think so. Basic knowledge of phsyiology added with a little common sense would lead most to assume otherwise along with all the research.

[TigerJaw]

I see ford, so it's exhausting the muscle that actually casues it to grow by carcoplasmic hyperthrohy. That's interesting. Is it the same for Myofabrillar hypertrophy? I guess it wouldn't be. If I understand correctly. It's Myofabrillar hypertrophy that the low rep high volume people like Pavel Tsatsouline are aiming at and that dosn't seem to relly on exhausting the muscle.

I'm pretty much sold now on what you say about building part of the muscle.

I'm sorry i didn't quite explain the other part of the question properly. I think you answered it though. You say that the range of motion used will be the one strenghtened plus about 15%. Does that mean that if you only did the bench press down to half way, like I see some people doing. You'll only build strength to the half way point? Would that make any difference to how the muslce will look?

Thanks again Ford, I'm finding your responses very interesting and informative.

Phill

[Ford Prefect]

Hi Phill,

You are correct about Pavel. His PTP program is actually based on high intensity, long rest, and low volume which will lead to myofabrillar hypertrophy. Although some size can be gained by the strengthening and growth of the muscle fibers themselves, the muscle doesn't grow much at all compared to sarcoplasmic gains.

Pavel's "BEAR" routine which he recommends for muscle growth follows the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy to a "t". While he keeps intensity high, he shortens your rest periods, and adds enough volume to give a pickup truck problems.

You are pretty much correct with that bench press example that you gave. Since they don't go all the way down, their muscles, nervous system, and connective tissue won't be used to a hard contraction at the bottom of lift when the muscle is in a fully stretched position. ROM's and strength increase over ROM's isn't a black and white thing. There are plenty of exceptions and some things that seem counter-intuitive. A good general rule is to use the largest ROM possible though.

[IronFist]

I just thought I'd point out that Pavel's Bear program, while keeping the intensity high, still relies on low reps (5 reps per set) in order to keep the weights closer to your 1RM. I guess the theory is that this will build more strength than typical bodybuilding programs.

IronFist

[TigerJaw]

Thanks Ford, that's very interesting. So, sticking with the simple example of the improperly performed bench press that only goes half way down. The subects nervous syestem is not used to contracting hard during the lower half of the motion and fails to make the necersary neurological adaptation to be strong when his pectoral muscles are elongated. I can see how this would prevent him from being strong but would it make a difference to the shape of the muscle. By shape, I mean how the muscle looks, that is to say, would the muslce somehow look shorter and more bunched up, perhaps less flat.

If this were the case, would an excercise that involved a larger ROM of the shoulder extension, like say the fly or pec-dec where you can reall feel the pectoral stretch, result in a diferent look to the muscle than, say the bench press.

Phill

[Ford Prefect]

How a muscle looks is based on genetics. If somebody doesn't go all the way down on the bench, their pecs will still be contracting uniformally which will cause it to grow uniformally based on his genetic muscle shape. It either grows or it doesn't grow. It's shape doesn't change.

[TigerJaw]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
How a muscle looks is based on genetics. If somebody doesn't go all the way down on the bench, their pecs will still be contracting uniformally which will cause it to grow uniformally based on his genetic muscle shape. It either grows or it doesn't grow. It's shape doesn't change.


Thanks Ford, you're one hoopy frood, as Zaphod might say. I hope I can return the favour one day.

Cheers,
Phill

[Zbloff]

Really interesting thread.

What does an increase in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy lead too, apart from size?
Would it give you really good muscle endurance?

For example would it enable you to hold your leag stretched out in the air for long periods, or stay parked in an horse stance for a long time?

Which athletes apart from bodybuilders go for this kind of development?

[Cyborg]

Would it give you really good muscle endurance?

No, look at the way marathoners train. Long distance, low intensity.


Which athletes apart from bodybuilders go for this kind of development?

Not aware of any in general... read in my last MILO that one of the powerlifters trains that way occasionally. But most powerlifters you see don't look ripped, they look overweight even though they're extremely strong.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by Cyborg
But most powerlifters you see don't look ripped, they look overweight even though they're extremely strong.

There are some light weight powerlifters that are freaking ripped.

I think the ones with the highest numbers just happen to be fat because, generally speaking, endomorphs can best develop their muscles even though they have all that fat. Dieting it off serves no purpose in their sport, and if they were to diet it off, they would likely lose some strength with it, too, and therefore not be able to lift as much. It's like how bodybuilders lose some strength when they diet for a show, except they don't care because bodybuilding is not about how strong you are.

I think I'm right about this... Ford?

IronFist

[iron thread]

What does volume mean in the idea of intesity, volume, and rest?

[Ford Prefect]

IF,

You sir are correct. The powerlifters in the lower divisions that have to watch their weight are generally shredded because they have to watch the bofyfat. The guys with bigger numbers tend to look fat because it helps them. You can squat a hell of a lot more with a big belly and calves to bounce off of.

I-Thread,

The simplest way to describe volume is total tonnage/poundage lifted. For intance 10 reps of 100 lbs on the bench would have a total volume of 1,000 lbs.