kollision wrote:I agree with that. I was just stating that the blood is a big facor in regards to growing muscles. Without stimulus, nothing would happen. But the same goes in regards to the blood.
Yes, but you always have blood flow in your muscles unless you're dead
Not only the deltoids, but also the traps. A lot of muscles contract to add to the stabilization, and that alone would waste energy. Contraction of any particular muscle already starts to take out of the ATP stores.
It's not a waste of energy. The ATP is stored in each muscle fibre directly! The different muscles do not share an ATP pool located somewhere outside the fibres. If this would be the case, then it would be a waste of energy.
I don't personally think that in general it would make a lot of difference in growing the deltoids alone, but my idea is that if you are focusing on the biceps alone, wouldn't you want to cancel out any other muscles that you are not focusing on to improve? This would leave you more energy to workout the biceps since you will not be contracting other muscles to stabilize the body, as well as avoid injury if you plan on going heavy.
No. Muscles are designed to work synergistic.
(Our body is capable of doing different things at the same time (providing energy to muscles and brain, coordinating nerves and muscles, while the kidneys are filtering the blood, the liver synthesizes protein and so on). )
I doubt you have more energy for the isolated muscle than you'd have for it using free weights. Plus you can add some slightly cheated reps after reaching muscle failure if you wish.
And i believe the risk of injury is no less due to the unnatural and forced movement.
But how could you not grow bigger muscles if you keep on meeting the demands of more and more weight? The principle that you need to increase weight in order to build stronger and bigger muscles alone should be enough to accept that cables could big bigger muscles, even for non beginners. Shouldn't it? If not, why is your opinion as to why it wouldn't?
There is a limit to that. At some point you would need huge weights for the isolation movement, which would consume time and energy to work with. You have only so much resources to spend on training and regeneration. Compound exercises are economic compared to isolation work, because they work more muscles in the same time. So while you'd be focusing on one part, you'd be losing on other parts, because you wouldn't be able to keep up the intensity in the main exercises.
Most people make the mistake of combining too much isolation work with compound exercises, which is too much for their regenerational ability.
And i think this is theoretical, because you cannot isolate a muscle in any movement. There will always be other muscles involved, even when you do machines.
Nobody grows huge arms (natural at least) doing only machine curls.
If you are trying to isolate a muscle the best you can, then you would go to machines so that you focus only on that muscle alone.
Okay, i get it. But i still disagree (i won't repeat myself now )
I think your point made here is really good in terms of proving your idea. However I still disagree. The reason is that while it prevents other movement, if you were to do say a preacher curls, you are could fidget any which way because you have to stabilize your arm. If you do this on a machine, it is already controlled for you and therefore you wont need to involve other muscles in order to keep it in order.
1 - you still contract other muscles on machines.
2 - the concentration on a muscle is a minor growth stimulus, if any. If you could grow by just concentrating, the atlas-program would be the only one in use You'd just stand there and contract your biceps as hard as you can. Then the triceps. Then the pecs etc. But this doesn't work, for it lacks the major stimulus for growth - weight. Weight moved is a growth stimulus, especially controlled negative with heavy weights. So while isolating your biceps on the preacher machine, you feel it being pumped but the microtrauma are less. Probably because you don't have to controll the movement!!!
Like you also said, that is why you can do free weight exercises with proper and strict form. My defense against that would be if you are doing it with proper and strict form, then you would be doing less weight in order to appease the stregnth of your stabilizer muscles.
Which is true. Then it comes down to what you want: isolation or weight. Doing an isolation exercise without proper form makes no sense, because then you don't isolate anymore. Rather do barbell rows with 80 than cheated curls with 40kg
But rather do strict curls with 30kg than cheated with 40 when you want to isolate the biceps! (Cheating is a good way to injuries )
I take it that the reason why you say that it works for roid users is because the roids already build the muscles, even with little working out? I have noticed that a lot of BBers do use light weight, and that is mainly when they just do them really fast and even without proper technique.
Don't call these jerks bodybuilders please
People who rely on drugs have no clue what kind of training really builds muscle!
Also they are pros. Why would their risk of getting a sprain or strain be any more important than natural BBers? If anything, Naturals should be more affraid since there lifts are probably not even close to the roids users. Also, they have the roids working for them at an anabolic level, so why would they be more concerned with tear than say a natural who doesn't use it.
Because roids make the muscle fibres grow, but at the same time make your connective tissue brittle. Why do you think do pro bodybuilders tear their pecs or biceps so often? Because they use so much weight? It's because the weight is too much for their fragile connective tissue, which did not grow adequately together with the muscle fibres. When you gain strength natural, your connective tissue will strengthen accordingly.
Good point, I think thats your best statement since this entire debate!
I'm glad that i said something decent at last
Veganessentials and I already discussed the limiting factors in regards to machine. The cables, the angle, etc. that affects the actual resistance that is being applied.
I also had a friend that could do the 300s on the chest press, but for bench he was stuck at around 250. My idea for this would be, as stated the limiting factors, as well as the stabilization muscles and gravity together. When you are doing machines, the gravity isn't as strong as with free weights. Also when you do inclines, the handles are already there for you to grab, you don't have to pick it up first, and then go down.
We discussed that the weight issue with machines is a bit of a discrepency, I don't disagree with that.
I don't get your explanation. WHY does a guy who benches 300lbs on a machine NOT have a bigger chest than the guy who benches them free?
I see your explanation why you can use more weight on the machine, but why doesn't make this grow you more? You have better focus on the muscles after all! According to your theory, they should grow big, only the stabilizers would remain weak.
Can you explain that?
Or do you finally see that i'm right and you're wrong?!