The only back exercises you need.

[Deleted member 123722]

I bought the book when I hurt my pec after seeing Brignole on a Mark Bell podcast. I think there’s value in it but at the same time he’s trying to sell an idea as much as any other trainer. His explanation of having no pec insertions on your chin so incline pressing movements do nothing or close to nothing to stimulate your pecs I have a difficult time agreeing with.

Ultimately I have to enjoy training, I didn’t find much enjoyment in going in and spending the majority of my work out at a freemotion station. I took some of the ideas and worked them into what I do. Recently I’ve seen he’s done some powerlifting seminars which I’ve been meaning to watch because he directly opposes all of the lifts required for the sport so I’m curious how he fits his ideas into it.

Most of the people associated with the Brig20 and stuff aren’t that big from what I’ve seen in his videos. Even Doug in his prime was using more traditional exercises I think to build the physique that he had earlier in his competitive career.

I think one thing we could all incorporate from Doug is at least to do our isolation movements first so if we wanted to do compound movements, we would be using lighter weights and that would help reduce injury.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Also, the point of incline press is it is redundant and risky; a regluar flat press already hits the clavicular fibers.

Try it now yourselves. Touch the top of your pecs as you flex pushing your arms forward; then move your arm up and down and you'll notice its the same flexion, except raising your shoulder will move your muscle mass upward...

 

[Chieftain]

I bought the book when I hurt my pec after seeing Brignole on a Mark Bell podcast. I think there’s value in it but at the same time he’s trying to sell an idea as much as any other trainer. His explanation of having no pec insertions on your chin so incline pressing movements do nothing or close to nothing to stimulate your pecs I have a difficult time agreeing with.

Ultimately I have to enjoy training, I didn’t find much enjoyment in going in and spending the majority of my work out at a freemotion station. I took some of the ideas and worked them into what I do. Recently I’ve seen he’s done some powerlifting seminars which I’ve been meaning to watch because he directly opposes all of the lifts required for the sport so I’m curious how he fits his ideas into it.

Most of the people associated with the Brig20 and stuff aren’t that big from what I’ve seen in his videos. Even Doug in his prime was using more traditional exercises I think to build the physique that he had earlier in his competitive career.

I also read his book and analyzed his ideas. And it seemed to me not very suitable for me, so I did not even try to try it, put it off someday. Maybe someone has a positive experience. I would gladly read

 

[RomanMVP]

Personally, I gave up on one arm movements years ago. I think they are a waste of time , especially for sheer mass.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I also read his book and analyzed his ideas. And it seemed to me not very suitable for me, so I did not even try to try it, put it off someday. Maybe someone has a positive experience. I would gladly read

I'm having positive results. Basically I get to target every muscle group twice a week without systematic fatigue and joint pain.

I do wonder if there is any research indicating that sheer weight without full ROM and stretching increases size of a muscle group. For example, SLDL are basically isometric contracts of the hamstrings, yet people swear they help them gain size. If so, then I cna see the justification for heavy compound movements. The same with deadlifts: How does dead lifting build the back when none of the back muscles are going through full ROM?

Strength is one thing, but size, IDK?

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Personally, I gave up on one arm movements years ago. I think they are a waste of time , especially for sheer mass.

Well I think the issue here is "mass." If you define mass as attacking several muscle as once to be stimulated, that's one thing, but if you define it as making a specific muscle grow, than any exercise increases mass.

 

[RomanMVP]

Wrong. It's an energy drainer. Big compound movements build the most mass, and conserve energy for growth. Why the fuck do I want to waste time and energy on one arm concentration curls when I can get a shit load more out of heavy standing or Scott preacher bench curls?

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Wrong. It's an energy drainer. Big compound movements build the most mass, and conserve energy for growth. Why the fuck do I want to waste time and energy on one arm concentration curls when I can get a shit load more out of heavy standing or Scott preacher bench curls?

On the contrary, you are spending more energy doing compound lifts that involve way more parts, draining more energy on those, rather than focusing most of it on the targeted muscle.

You biceps don't know what weight is being used, nor does it care how many other parts you're moving with it; all it's going to do is respond to the mechanical tension you put on it... It makes more sense to put as much energy into the target muscle, than put that energy over several. And can you explain why concentration curls are inferior to preacher curls?

If anything is inferior, it is preacher curls because they actually put your biceps in a very bad mechanical disadvantage at that angle, they don't follow the strength curve of the muscle completely, and is why many have torn their biceps doing preacher curls.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Actually took a video of me doing the lat pull in with the hammer machine... This time I used a neutral grip rather than supinated and found it to be better. Here are some snap shots of how I am pulling from a 45-degree angle, which can be achieved by sitting the way I am here.

 

[RomanMVP]

Jesus Christ, give it up, if a BB is going to spend energy on anything, it's the most productive movements he can do, anything beyond that is wheel spinning. An intelligent BB will put his effort into the exercises that matter, not piddley little crap like kick backs, one legged leg extensions, conc curls, etc. If he wants to stimulate the most size he's gonna be putting all his effort into the big movements. What are you gonna do for quad mass, leg presses done ala Dorian Yates, or some sissy ass one leg extensions??? How about triceps worth writing home about. You gonna do some femme one arm kickbacks, or some heavy skull crushers or cg bench presses? Give it up, you're arguing about nothing because your original post got shot down, take you ball and go home.

 

[Bigdiddy]

Pull ups will give you the v taper and thickness you are looking for . Really the best exercise. IMO

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Jesus Christ, give it up, if a BB is going to spend energy on anything, it's the most productive movements he can do, anything beyond that is wheel spinning. An intelligent BB will put his effort into the exercises that matter, not piddley little crap like kick backs, one legged leg extensions, conc curls, etc. If he wants to stimulate the most size he's gonna be putting all his effort into the big movements. What are you gonna do for quad mass, leg presses done ala Dorian Yates, or some sissy ass one leg extensions??? How about triceps worth writing home about. You gonna do some femme one arm kickbacks, or some heavy skull crushers or cg bench presses? Give it up, you're arguing about nothing because your original post got shot down, take you ball and go home.

No one is advocating doing kick backs, which are literally a worthless triceps exercises for many reasons. And guess what, for better quad stimulation, you get more quad with heavy leg extensions than leg presses or squats. Just because you feel like throwing up after heavy leg presses/squats, doesn't mean you stimulated the quads any better. Notice, I'm saying quads, not "legs." What you did do, however, is fry your CNS more and created more systemic fatigue because there are way more muscles involved. Leg presses/squats can do that extensions can't, in this regard: hit multiple muscles in one exercise, albeit doing so with the load dispersed among them. So if time is what you want to save, you could argue that compounds are for shaving off time and burning more calories. But aside from that, they are no better than isolations. You can literally add "mass" with compounds or isolations, yet one costs more energy, involves more muscles, and typically are risker or bad for joints.

You still haven't told me what magical mechanism compounds have that can create more "mass" than heavy isolations. You do realize the only difference between compounds and isolation movements are how many muscles, joints, and levers are involved? You do understand that the less muscles, joints, and other levers involved, the more you can focus on the target muscle you want to grow, with less energy requirement. Compound movements, by their very nature, do not isolate the muscle better than isolations; hence the term "isolation" and why bodybuilders do them. Skull crushers are an isolation movement. With that being said, skull crushers are far superior than cg bench press or dips for targeting the triceps because they actually put the muscle through the full ROM of the muscle anatomical design, whereas dips and cg do not. You may disagree and say "but I can load the bench with X more weight," but I already told you weight is irrelevant; what matters is mechanical tension and how much stimulation you get with any weight you use while executing an exercise with full ROM; the muscle has no idea if you are lifting 300 or 20 lbs, but it will respond to exercises that recruit more fibers going full ROM.

The only issue with skull crusher is how they wreck your joints, by stressing your elbows, typically because they flare out (depending on which bar you use), so instead of doing them with a bar, you do them with two dumbbells with a hammer grip. So you se the difference is, one rapes your joints, while the other, with dumbells, help you still get heavy weight while not fucking up your wrists or elbows, or course always after proper warm up.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I agree with some thing I disagree with others.
Preacher curls I always found them useless couldn't feel my bicep working so I don't train this exercise.

Now as far as compound movements. We prefer them because you can overload your muscle and give it new stimulus for new growth.
Let's say your quads can lift 150lb alone on leg extension (I really like leg extensions I think this exercise have "shape" to my quads)
Then you go to squat rack and overload them with 300lb all the other parts help quads to lift them , but the final hard contraction is on your quads.
That's the way I grow them and they were very stubborn i grow them with heavy squats but NOT FULL ROM when I did go full rom my quads didn't grow properly.


As far as my back that's my best part on my physique, I built it with heavy rows (tear especially) and heavy pull downs wide grip and V grip alternate them. Heavy cable rows with very slow negative. And heavy rack pulls.
But I can agree on some things because I've done the exercise OP is telling for Lats and you can really feel them and burn them (I do it on cables). But I do these kind of exercises as a "warm up"
High reps light weight I send blood in my lats to feel them I also touch the whole muscle when I warm it up to feel it even more.
When my muscles are pumped then I proceeded to my regular workout and I overload them. Same things with all body parts actually.

My chest genetics are terrible I still want more mass on my pecs but the size I've built was also with incline press thats what helped me the most the exercises are helping the most on my pecs is
Incline press , pullovers for chest and fly's.

I'm not close minded , compounds , isolations , machines , I love them all if I can really feel my muscle and overload it , then I do and I love this exercise.
Everyone is different , if you enjoy your workout and lifting heavy your muscles will grow along with food and anabolic that is no question.
You must just find the exercises you feel the best and can overload the muscle.
I believe almost everything works as far as training so I wouldn't bite into new fancy methods.
Training is volume/intensity if those two are in place and alternate every few months you'll grow no matter the exercises, most if the time I mostly do the same exercises just different volume and intensity

 

[Chieftain]

perhaps I agree with you. I also think that these are useless activities.

Personally, I gave up on one arm movements years ago. I think they are a waste of time , especially for sheer mass.

 

[Chieftain]

very interesting experience. those. do you have a successful experience? But in fact, the development of strength is not directly related to hypertrophy. After all, these are different tasks and require their own specific work, or am I mistaken?

I'm having positive results. Basically I get to target every muscle group twice a week without systematic fatigue and joint pain.

I do wonder if there is any research indicating that sheer weight without full ROM and stretching increases size of a muscle group. For example, SLDL are basically isometric contracts of the hamstrings, yet people swear they help them gain size. If so, then I cna see the justification for heavy compound movements. The same with deadlifts: How does dead lifting build the back when none of the back muscles are going through full ROM?

Strength is one thing, but size, IDK?

 

[jJjburton]

Close stand feet together legs press heels all the way to the bottom on pressing mat, grows quads most.

 

[RomanMVP]

No one is advocating doing kick backs, which are literally a worthless triceps exercises for many reasons. And guess what, for better quad stimulation, you get more quad with heavy leg extensions than leg presses or squats. Just because you feel like throwing up after heavy leg presses/squats, doesn't mean you stimulated the quads any better. Notice, I'm saying quads, not "legs." What you did do, however, is fry your CNS more and created more systemic fatigue because there are way more muscles involved. Leg presses/squats can do that extensions can't, in this regard: hit multiple muscles in one exercise, albeit doing so with the load dispersed among them. So if time is what you want to save, you could argue that compounds are for shaving off time and burning more calories. But aside from that, they are no better than isolations. You can literally add "mass" with compounds or isolations, yet one costs more energy, involves more muscles, and typically are risker or bad for joints.

You still haven't told me what magical mechanism compounds have that can create more "mass" than heavy isolations. You do realize the only difference between compounds and isolation movements are how many muscles, joints, and levers are involved? You do understand that the less muscles, joints, and other levers involved, the more you can focus on the target muscle you want to grow, with less energy requirement. Compound movements, by their very nature, do not isolate the muscle better than isolations; hence the term "isolation" and why bodybuilders do them. Skull crushers are an isolation movement. With that being said, skull crushers are far superior than cg bench press or dips for targeting the triceps because they actually put the muscle through the full ROM of the muscle anatomical design, whereas dips and cg do not. You may disagree and say "but I can load the bench with X more weight," but I already told you weight is irrelevant; what matters is mechanical tension and how much stimulation you get with any weight you use while executing an exercise with full ROM; the muscle has no idea if you are lifting 300 or 20 lbs, but it will respond to exercises that recruit more fibers going full ROM.

The only issue with skull crusher is how they wreck your joints, by stressing your elbows, typically because they flare out (depending on which bar you use), so instead of doing them with a bar, you do them with two dumbbells with a hammer grip. So you se the difference is, one rapes your joints, while the other, with dumbells, help you still get heavy weight while not fucking up your wrists or elbows, or course always after proper warm up.

First of all your not going to fry your CNS with intense, heavy, high intensity leg presses or squats when you apply the appropriate amount of days off after such an event. Secondly, controlling rep tempo is an excellent way to prevent joint damage from ballistic training, using 3-4 second negatives, with controlled turn arounds at the bottom. And you have to be kidding if you think the most massive quads ever built was because of leg extensions. That's a namby pamby movement compared to Squats, LPresses, and deadlifts. And the example I used with skull crushers was to illustrate it's not one of those one arm movements that I think are worthless. The same as choosing another "isolation" movement like barbell curls over DB conc curls. And back to leg extensions, the only value they have is using them in a pre exhaust fashion as explained to me by a well known BB in the 90s when I competed at the state level.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

First of all your not going to fry your CNS with intense, heavy, high intensity leg presses or squats when you apply the appropriate amount of days off after such an event. Secondly, controlling rep tempo is an excellent way to prevent joint damage from ballistic training, using 3-4 second negatives, with controlled turn arounds at the bottom. And you have to be kidding if you think the most massive quads ever built was because of leg extensions. That's a namby pamby movement compared to Squats, LPresses, and deadlifts. And the example I used with skull crushers was to illustrate it's not one of those one arm movements that I think are worthless. The same as choosing another "isolation" movement like barbell curls over DB conc curls. And back to leg extensions, the only value they have is using them in a pre exhaust fashion as explained to me by a well known BB in the 90s when I competed at the state level.

What I'm trying to show you is that there is nothing special about barbell compound movements that make them better for "mass," if so, what is that mechanism which isolations lack? You have to name it. Hint: you can't.

In regards to the CNS, if you didn't destroy yourself in the gym each day doing compounds that aren't necessary for mass, you would able to get in more sessions per week, and grow more times per year.

Leg extensions are not a namby pamby movement for quads; they are one of the only movements, along with the sissy squat, that loads the quads with 100% because the load is directly opposed to the quad muscle, and go precisely with the full ROM and strength curve; squats and leg presses do not. The reason why you can put 500lbs on a squat, but can barely do your own body weigh with a sissy squat, is because the sissy squat is actually harder, and you're putting MORE mechanical tension directly on the quads with less weight compared to the squat.

As bodybuilders, are job is to develop each muscle to their full potential; I highly doubt you can build a great physique just doing compounds; but you can build a good body doing just isolations, for body builder purposes, because there is nothing about isolations that prevent each muscle to get fully developed with them.

Squats and leg presses only have one advantage, and that's hitting multiple leg muscles at once time during one movement; however, for the very same reason, they have a big disadvantage. Squats for example, only load the quads with 30% of the weight, which means you need more weight to get the same amount of stimulus you'd get with leg extensions with less weight, and that's with loading your spine and fatiguing yourself using several muscles at once. Moreover, NONE of the leg muscles get a full ROM with the squat. NONE. Further more, during one half the movement, your quads are activated, and the other half they aren't, becuse they have to shut off (reciprocal innervation) in order for the other muscles to function and do their part in the movement. That is what I'm talking about when I more efficient and safer. Do not confuse an exercises full ROM with a muscles anatomical structure and its strength curve and purpose.

So it seems to me you are equating effort with stimulus, and that is a fallacy. Moreover, there are plenty of powerlifters who squat their face off with shitty leg development, that's due to genetics for sure, but also because they are not bodybuilding. Bodybuilders do squats and leg presses, but they also do a ton of other shit, all of that adds up. And again, just because an exercise may be less efficient and load the muscles less, doesn't mean doing enough of them won't create muscle growth; they will, but at what cost?

Now imagine doing this: instead wasting a ton of of energy on a tons of sets of compounds, you instead, fry the target muscle with more volume of exercises that literally are designed to destroy that muscle with 100% of the load. That is a smarter way to train, and will yield the same results if not better, without risk of injury and waste of effort.

Think of it like this, which would fry your triceps better without using an excess amount of energy or weights: heavy close grip bench, that fucks up your wrists, involves shoulders and chest to an extent, does not follow the true full ROM of the triceps, or doing cable press downs with a rope? The answer is the latter.

Same with barbell curls: you can load a barbell curl with more weight, but in reality, that's an illusion, because again, it is relative to the exercise. Standing dumbell curls actually are easier on the wrists, and stimulate the biceps even better because you're not locked in stiffly on a bar, reducing the full ROM, while also not taking into account of "bilateral deficit" (one side being stronger than the other).

full ROM is always superior to limited ROM.

So it seems to me that your position is that heavy and hard compound movements are better than isolations for mass, but that simply is not true, and there is no physics or anything to back that claim up.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Again, before you just dismiss these videos, he is not saying these exercises don't build muscle, they do, but at what cost and how effeciently? Watch and see for yourself if you can argue against the logic, physics, and mathematics put forward here.

@RomanMVP watch this


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIy-21BWDlo&t=399s&ab_channel=MarkBell%27sPowerProject


View: https://youtu.be/ML13sTW8o4Q

 

[RomanMVP]

Where do you get the idea that full ROM equates to being more valuable than less than full ROM? I can get more range of motion with a pec deck than I can with an incline press, but the pec deck is vastly inferior to the incline. If you ever watch old vids of Rich Gaspari or Lou Ferrigno those guys used a ton of partial range movements, as I did back in my competitive days. And you have to be kidding comparing CGBPresses vs. rope press downs??? There's no comparison, the amount of work from the former makes the latter look like child's play. Not to mention the massive pump from the former. You must be reading straight out of some of John Little's crap books. In actuality, the past 60 years of competitive BB proves that big movements build by far the most absolute mass, because THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN USED TO BUILD THAT MASS! And fuck that ROM shit, load up a barbell and put it mid-range to a bit higher and move it 3-4 inches to failure. You've just stimulated the shit out of that muscle!