so one of my favorite broscientists, jefe "the boss" cavaliere was talking about building pecs, and he mentioned something about two innervations in the pec allowing you to target the memeical "inner chest"
now my first reaction was to disregard this as he is a notorious broscientist... but..
a cursory google does seem to lend credence to the possibility the lateral nerve could target the "inner chest"
is there a chance this is (at least partially) true?
i don't know enough about physiology or the function of innervations to speak to any educated level... but intuitively it seems if you get one nerve to contract the muscle more dominantly than the other, it will target that area of the muscle (though.. i guess it still recruits the entire head of the pec major?)
>>35097949
Its not true. Where the nerve ends is largely irrelevant - when the muscle contracts, it contracts along the whole length of the fibre.
>>35097959
i understand motor unit recruitment, brah.. but isn't hypertrophy more complicated than that?
also i found this while googling
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/articles/mechanisms_of_muscle_hypertrophy.pdf
>Moreover, muscles are sometimes
divided into neuromuscular components—distinct regions
of muscle each of which is innervated by its own nerve
branch—suggesting that portions of a muscle can be calledinto play depending on the activity
any /sci/ fags got access to full paper of
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2000/02000/Nonuniform_Response_of_Skeletal_Muscle_to_Heavy.18.aspx
(same article:)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232176583_Nonuniform_Response_of_Skeletal_Muscle_to_Heavy_Resistance_Training_Can_Bodybuilders_Induce_Regional_Muscle_Hypertrophy
i can only find the abstract...
http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/hypertrophy/regional-hypertrophy/tables/#2
holy shit... guys...
were the broscientists right all along?
>>35097949
I thought the entire premise of his channel was that it was all science-based info? Is that incorrect? I've seen a few of his videos but never really applied any of what he said.
Won't read shit
Guise can I fix my chest gap?
>>35099625
Well that sucks
>>35098065
Idk, this seems very flawed. almost all of the 'proximal vs distal' (ie differences along the fibers) measurements that resulted in differences were performed on actual group of muscles (quads, tricep), not individual heads. So pretty much
>into the trash it goes
until someone does it right.
>>35097992
thats just researcher interpretation of someone elses study and just says the morphology suggests such and such - doesnt actually mean anything except:
>well it looks to me like it does
and even then, he just lists a couple long bellied muscles and says they have several innervation attachments - which isn't proof of selective hypertrophy, he just speculates it might happen.
You can definitely utilize different heads of a muscle preferentially, e.g. upper and lower chest (clavicular and sternal heads). I think it is possible to somewhat target different groups of muscle fibers in a muscle too neurologically, yes.
But I think most of this is irrelevant wanking unless you're a pro bodybuilder that does this as a job. Upper and lower chest, yeah, if you have pectacle tits, it's a good idea to do some incline benching/incline flyes or whatever to hit the sternal head more.
But inner vs outer chest? Long head vs short head of the bicep? At least at this point, who cares? Just grow your chest/biceps in general with movements that hit all of the muscle relatively equally. Nothing will really trump genetics anyway, sadly.
>>35100106
>squats train the legs
>but to answer your question: who cares
basically on par with how useful your response was
>>35097949
Wait, wasn't he talking about the UPPER pec? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71NiUvA_nlo
Or do you mean this video where he talks about the middle of the chest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUaWwgd8p68
In any case, he is kind of right on both videos. One thing people usually misinterpret is the whole "muscle contraction happens through the entire length, and is always 100%". This is, however, for muscle FIBRES, not for the entire muscle.
I suggest watching the videos I linked, he explains it way better.
However, as I said, he is KIND of right. While you can selectively contract different parts of the muscle with varying degrees of intensity, we have no real studies on how this affects hypertrophy or if that even makes a difference for muscle growth.
This is a complicated issue that hasn't been much explored by the researches yet, mostly because we don't really have the technology needed and the correct methodology to do those studies. For now, all we can do is speculate, really.
>>35100373
he's only right if those 'non spanning fibers' are a thing. Not much in google to confirm/deny it.
>>35100419
Yes, they are a thing.
I don't have a link for sauce, but I'm a med student and have studied this.
I don't have time to do a google research right now, but keep looking and you will find it.
>>35100419
There are many links talking about it
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124147 for example.
>>35100419
Another link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9575360
>>35100419
And here's a book. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=THXfHT8L5MEC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Non-spanning+Muscle+Fiber&source=bl&ots=Hae6r59NCN&sig=AkPZo8uED5aXXrvsCAgT3x8WB2g&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXiICugbvJAhUPnZAKHahCCuIQ6AEIXTAG#v=onepage&q=Non-spanning%20Muscle%20Fiber&f=false
>>35100461
>>35100480
>>35100467
Cheers lad. I'll get to reading when I'm back from my training.
>>35100187
It's true m8
Leg press and squats use the same muscles pretty much the same way as prime movers. So who cares which one you do, unless you're a powerlifter or Olympic lifter?
>>35100622
or so called 'general strength trainee', because lp won't teach you to stabilize your torso.
>>35100451
>>35100373
just watched the vid he posted. despite the shitty drawings and the non-determinative visual aid, i'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
So he claims the NSF are picked up by the SF and are subsequently involved in the contraction, and the further you contract, the more NSF that are recruited. I don't know enough about NSF to call him out but heres what i don't get:
1) if spanning fibres are muscle fibres that attach end to end, they should fall under the all-or-nothing principle, no? so if the whole length of all the SFs contracts at once, shouldn't all the NSFs picked up also contract at once?
2) if the NSF are just 'floating' as he claims, are they therefore not innervated and only used in conjunction with SFs? and if so how does that add any contractile power if nothing turns it on?
3) are we also assuming ALL of the NSF are located at the inner chest?
Hope you're still around and willing to help me understand this
>>35100622
literally wat
could you help me figure out where I said anything along the lines of "leg presses dont train similar muscles as the squat"?
I was pointing out the fact that the other guys response wasn't helpful
>>35100671
>So he claims the NSF are picked up by the SF and are subsequently involved in the contraction, and the further you contract, the more NSF that are recruited. I don't know enough about NSF to call him out but heres what i don't get:
Correct.
>1) if spanning fibres are muscle fibres that attach end to end, they should fall under the all-or-nothing principle, no? so if the whole length of all the SFs contracts at once, shouldn't all the NSFs picked up also contract at once?
>so if the whole length of all the SFs contracts at once
>of all the SFs
This is where the misconception is.
The "all-or-nothing principle" still applies. However, it applies to each individual muscle fibre, NOT the whole muscle. You can't recruit ALL your muscle fibres all at once, be it SF or NSF. If you did, you would be the strongest olympic lifter ever and beat all the world records and set records that would never be beaten unless someone else with such godlike genetics was born.
The "explosion" is the ability of the person to recruit as many fibres in a short period of time.
So basically, if you recruit a muscle fibre it goes 100%. But you can't simply recruit ALL muscle fibres on a determined muscle, or you would have inhuman strength. This is limited by your nervous system, which is why people say "x trains your CNS". Basically what it means is that your nervous system adapts to being able to recruit more muscle fibres, thus making you stronger.
>2)
Not "floating" per se, but attached to other myocytes in the middle of the muscle with direct cell-to-cell junctions - instead of being attached to connective tissue like the SF.
Yes, they are not directly innervated. What causes their contraction is the contraction from the SF to which they are attached to.
>3)
No. There are NSF and SF everywhere in the muscle.
The notion that you can't target different parts of a given muscle with different exercises is outdated dogma.
There is plenty of research now that shows otherwise and that, to some extend at least, the bodybuilders were right all along.
Some of these studies have already been posted in this thread. I know I've seen at least 5.
>>35101111
yeah my bad i coulda phrased number 1 better. I meant to talk about how if the whole length of the respective SF are recruited, then how can we 'target' inner NSF?
and if NSF are everywhere, doesn't that mainly back up the whole "you can't target the inner chest" thing? because the location of the NSF's picked up is more down to your fiber breakdown and recruitment patterns?
thanks for your time btw, have a confused dog
>>35101111
>>35101257
To my knowledge it has been shown that muscle fibers do in fact not always span all the way from the origin to the insertion of the muscle.
>>35101314
i.e. None Spanning Fibres (NSF) and Spanning Fibres (SF)
this is not under contention, friend
>>35101371
I'll just sit in the corner and be quiet now.
>>35101257
There are NSF everywhere, but they are not the same ones (they usually are not very long).
There are NSF around the medial part of the pec major that are not around the lateral part of it.
So when you do a longer range of motion with a bigger "squeeze", you manage to target those NSF that are around the medial portion of the muscle.
Now, you might be asking yourself, "how does your body specifically activate those NSF if they depend on the contraction of the rest of the muscle?"
The answer is a bit more complicated and it depends on the whole "elasticity" properties of the fibres.
You have to realise that they DO activate regardless, but they only "contract" if you do the full range of motion to the point where they can shorten their length (the so called "squeezing").
Now, they do contract if you don't do the squeezing, but only an isometric contraction. That is, a contraction in which the length of the fibre doesn't change.
For those NSF fibres around the medial portion of the pec major to actually "contract", as in actually shorten their length to produce work, you have to do the "squeezing".
That's what Cavaliere means with "targeting the middle chest". It means actually allowing those fibres to do a proper contraction by doing a longer ROM, instead of just having them do an isometric contraction.
Hope this is not too confusing.
>>35102311
>>35101111
Fuarrrk that makes a lot of sense.
mirin the knowledge.
>>35102311
THANK YOU BASED ANIME POSTERS
