Re: Isolation or Compound Exercises for Hypertrophy

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I think, as a friend read this and said one or two things, that I best say the

following,

hope we are not crossed tongued here, as I am not debating that the bench press

for example will not give you more mass than the pec deck, as the bench press

surly will, stimulate growth (hopefully) in lots of muscles, as it exersices

the triceps, shoulders and chest, and some more smaller muscles, I am debating

the pec deck, for example, which is an isolation exercise, I do mean a good pec

deck, will stimulate more muscle mass in the chest muscles only, and I mean that

with all muscles groups.

Wayne Hall

New York

USA

-------------

Wayne Hall wrote:

Could I please have the views from the group on which they think is best for

hypertrophy only, isolation, which is mainly the prime function of the

muscle in question, or a compound movement, which is usually the secondary

function of the muscle in concern.

Casler writes:

Hi Wayne,

Hypertrophy might generally be caused by two primary stimuli.

1) A sufficient tension on the muscle fiber to cause the fiber to thicken

and grow

2) Sufficient metabolic stress that will cause the metabolic support systems

of the muscle to increase in size and number to handle increased need

These requirements can be met by " both " isolation and compound actions.

That said, there " are " differences.

ISOLATION type actions:

If you use " isolation " type actions that are utilized in an optimally

" braced " exercise, (biomechanically positioned and braced with reactive

force pads) you may realize effective advantages in creating " greater "

tension levels within the " target muscle " . This is totally dependent on the

most effective positioning, and quality of the bracing system so that it is

correct and adequate to allow the proprioceptive system to sense that the

body part is stabilized.

Maximum stabilization will then reduce " instability inhibition " , and permit

maximum activation via CNS. This then has the potential produce greater

muscle tension, but only in the stabilized target muscle.

The metabolic requirement in " isolated " actions is met by specific rep and

set strategies and this is available for " both " isolated or compound.

COMPLEX or COMPOUND type actions:

If you select to perform compound or complex actions, usually consisting of

more than one muscle and more than one joint, then you lose the " extreme "

stability of a fixed brace, and must rely on the muscles that act as

stabilizers for the action selected.

This will generally reduce the amount of load that can be used for the

target muscle, because the stabilizers have both limited strength and

endurance compared to a " fixed brace " .

Even the difference between barbell and dumbbell exercises, demonstrates

this well, with the barbell being more stable. That is most can bench,

squat, deadlift, pulldown, etc, more weight using a barbell than dumbbells.

I should mention the exception to this is when you can use your whole body

to " assist " the single arm, as in dumbbell presses or rows.

But as we all know, HUGE weights are handled in exercises such as DeadLifts,

Squats, and Bench Presses, so this doesn't mean that large forces and

tensions are not experienced,

We have to note, that the forces available to Primary Movers, is " ALWAYS "

limited to the abilities of the stabilizers, and the proprioceptive

perception and interpretation of that stability.

Now this also doesn't mean that Isolation is better for function, or

functional strength, in fact it would seem that just the opposite is true,

since the fixed bracing may provide a slight motor disconnect or reduced

activation pattern, between movers and stabilizers if used exclusively.

Also braced actions many times consist of " fixing " the bodypart in such a

way as to restrict ROM.

Additionally there are many other factors to consider, that may characterize

the two even more, and that is the concurrent activation, and proportional

stimulation of the " group " , as opposed to the isolated " target " , may have

other " systemic " benefits, such as greater hormonal response, than the

single muscle or single joint braced action.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Compounds do have more room for improvement than the isolation, that is one

good reason too start with isolation, milk it for all its worth, then when a

sticking point comes, and use a compound.

Casler writes:

While I might agree that you may find larger and longer gains from

multijoint actions, I might not agree that isolated single joint actions are

a more effective " starting point " .

Wayne Hall wrote:

On the other hand, you must remain cognisant of system recovery requirements

too. Too many multi-joint exercises in a given workout may overload your

recovery capabilities, and you may overload the CNS and get fatigued, the

big compounds do burn some people out very fast, squat very hard on the

back, butt, deadlift very hard on the back, butt, CNS says I will slow you

down for all that work on the same muscle groups, and the back.

Casler writes:

In general complex training might offer a more " compact " routine, since it

covers larger body areas with fewer exercises, so your supposition would

only be true, if care were not taken in constructing the program.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Any compound exercise can be broken down into several different joint

functions that can be addressed individually in a more effective manner. A

pullover and arm curl would address the muscles involved in shoulder and arm

flexion more effectively than a pulldown, for example.

Casler writes:

Interesting thought, but if explored more fully might suggest that the

pulldown activates more muscles than the combo suggested. As well the ROM

of each of the independent actions is quite different.

Long Kinetic Chain actions include significant muscular activation and

stimulus to more muscles that the " target " group.

Your pulldown, for example affects muscles and joints from the upper thigh

where the pad contacts the leg, to the hands.

This means muscles like the Psoas, and hip flexors, abs, traps, and others,

might be strongly activated, yet not with the pullovers. While the pecs

which the pullover does directly affect, might not get the same activation.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Compound movements stimulate the maximum amount of growth possible with the

least amount of exercise, therefore, preserving that much more recovery

ability for growth production. I think this is more ideal for advanced

trainees and people with poor recovery abilities, not beginners.

Casler writes:

Again an interesting supposition, but I would assume that most (I could be

wrong) on this list, would suggest that beginners use a foundation of

compound/complex actions (benches, squats, rows, presses, etc) for initial

conditioning and growth, and them move to " specialization " via more focused

isolation exercises.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Isolation in exercise is relative, and it in not isolation of individual

muscles but rather muscles contributing to a particular joint function that

is important.

Casler writes:

Very true. Seldom will a " single " muscle be responsible for a single joint

action, even if well braced.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Isolation movements are far more effective than compound movements for

stimulating individual muscles or muscle groups sharing a particular joint

function. My body grow much faster when I do direct isolation exercises, as

opposed to using compound movements only.

Casler writes:

Since I think that the only real advantage is that of slightly greater

tension possibilities, (as above) I might be pressed to agree about the

" far more effective " suggestion. Many times the " perception " of such is

brought about by how we make progress as beginners. Most start with the

" basic " compound exercises (benches, squats, Leg presses, Pulldowns) and

then add more specialized actions.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Here is an idea I seen on a forum, not saying its right or wrong, but would

like all views.

For a science project if you had to try and find out how strong, the actual

triceps, (for example you can use any muscle) was, you would have to try and

isolate it as much as possible, would you not? Or do you have another way?

So lets say we picked the triceps extension machine, and your triceps could

move exactly 100 pounds, nothing more nothing less, now if you think you can

develop the triceps far better with a compound movement, what would you use

the shoulder press maybe, as in the shoulder press you could shoulder press

far more than the triceps extension machine, which was 100, say in the

shoulder press you could use 150 pounds.

But we have already proved that the triceps is only capable of moving 100

pounds, so in the shoulder press there are many muscles involved, such as

the shoulders, traps and so forth, which are taking a lot of the weight from

the triceps, as we have seen, you may appear to be using more weight, but

the surrounding muscles are coming into play, thus some of the muscles get a

very hard workout, some get a mild workout, but if you want to totally work

a muscle you need to isolate it.

So thus in the extension you're using the triceps and a 100 pounds, but

totally focusing on the triceps and the prime function. But your most

properly moving less weight than a 100 pounds in the shoulder press with the

triceps itself, and using the secondary function of the triceps.

Casler writes:

The " ONLY " way to test this would be to find a method of " complete "

isolation of the specific muscle, which is virtually impossible.

You would also need to determine the maximal position of each joint to be

worked, in order to find the most effective position. Most every joint is

flexed or extended by a muscle. However, many of those muscles cross not

only one, but many times two joints.

The tricep being a good example. The long and largest head crosses not only

the elbow, but the shoulder. Biceps the same thing. So many of the bodies

muscles will be trained through a rather " restricted " ROM compared to their

compete abilities.

So do you use a tricep pressdown (more complete *as in shortened*

contraction) or a overhead triceps press (w/elbows above the head) type

action that gives the greatest pre-stretch length.

Secondarily, you arrive at another element. That of synergistic motor

activation. While it can be agued, most will find that the " synergy " of

(for example) gripping the bar more tightly will allow/permit/cause a

greater ability in the associated muscle groups. While many attempt to take

the grip out of exercises like pulldowns, cable rows, and such, these

attempts generally are ineffective when analyzed closely.

In affect, activating an assisting group more effectively, causes a

synergistic increase in ability to both groups.

Next time you go for a curling record, relax your grip a bit and see what

happens.

Wayne Hall wrote:

I am not at all against compound lifts, on the country I am for them as much

as isolation, but for certain muscle groups, especially the chest,

isolations as far better for hypertrophy.

Casler writes:

If you look closer, you might find that what you really mean is " direct

activation " actions. Actions like pec decs, cable flyes and dumbbell flyes

are more direct in their activation of a specific muscle. A more intense

activation through a more specific and direct activation will certainly

cause a more " direct " result to the target.

You offer some interesting observations, I hope my interjections might

stimulate additional contemplation, and awareness.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Casler wrote:

Hypertrophy might generally be caused by two primary stimuli.

1) A sufficient tension on the muscle fiber to cause the fiber to thicken

and grow

2) Sufficient metabolic stress that will cause the metabolic support

systems

of the muscle to increase in size and number to handle increased need

These requirements can be met by " both " isolation and compound

actions.That said, there " are " differences.

ISOLATION type actions:

If you use " isolation " type actions that are utilized in an optimally

" braced " exercise, (biomechanically positioned and braced with reactive

force pads) you may realize effective advantages in creating " greater "

tension levels within the " target muscle " . This is totally dependent on the

most effective positioning, and quality of the bracing system so that it is

correct and adequate to allow the proprioceptive system to sense that the

body part is stabilized.

Maximum stabilization will then reduce " instability inhibition " , and

permit maximum activation via CNS. This then has the potential produce

greater muscle tension, but only in the stabilized target muscle.

Wayne Hall replied,

You seem too be with me , that with isolation exercise, you get more

tension in the muscle, so if all was equal, if I started with isolations,

pure hypertrophy would be greater in the muscle that I used isolation on,and

as you said more cns activity, in the stabilized target muscle.

Casler writes:

Hi Wayne,

Yes.....and NO.

I think it might be confusing to try and fit all training into a general

" box " . My commnets on muscle tension are superficial and very general, and

based on the benefit of increasing stabilization, which in turn, reduces

" instability inhibition " .

However that said, BodyBuilding Training and Braced Single Joint Actions,

also have limitations that one has to understand.

1) In a braced single joint machine, the muscle may or may not be placed in

a " biomechanically advantageous " position, or ROM that will achieve a

" maximum " tension. For example the elbow elevated curl of the Nautilus era,

might not come anywhere close to the tension available to a standard free

weight curl.

2) Most machines might have a adjusting load cam or device that may provide

a higher tension tracking through the ROM of the exercise, but cannot match

the MMMT (Momentary Maximum Muscle Tension) experienced during the eccentric

to concentric transition of a free weight action.

3) Training a muscle in braced isolation (or pseudo-isolation, since total

isolation is not possible) may have some drawbacks with the CNS initially,

since it reduces the intensity of CNS participation to the stabilizers

(since they are not needed). This however can be overcome, as the CNS

learns the area is stable and deactivates the proprioceptive tendency to not

provide full power to an unstabilized area.

So there is not " cut and dried " clean answer to your question. Combine that

with the myriad of body shapes and biomechanical combos, and finding

machines that fit and offer an overwhelming improvement over free weights

and compound or complex actions is a tough task.

It should be enough to say that each type, can bring something to the party,

and most will find a combination of simple and complex of greater value.

Very interesting , yes the more I read what you wrote about the more I see

your points, that a combination of both exersices would be best. Which is what I

actually do.

However if you " had " to pick one exercise " only " for each bodypart what would

it be, from machines to pulleys to free weights, to develop the body for pure

hypertrophy.

Mine would be,

Calf's, Standing calf raise,

Quads, Leg Extension,

Hams, leg curl,

Gluts, dead lift,

Abs, scissors curl,

Chest, pec deck,

Lats, Nautilus/Hammer pullover, or pulldowns or rows,

Shoulders, Nautilus/Hammer lateral raise, second chose shoulder press,

Traps, Seated shrugs, second chose dead lift,

Triceps, pulley triceps extension, second place dips,

Biceps, EZ bar curl,

Forearm, slight decline wrist curls, and reverse curl,

However I think Some mistakenly think that just having a muscle under tension

is relevant, when the relevant aspect is the " amount " of tension a muscle is

under, when where, and for how long, I think you stated that isolation

exersices give the more tension to the muscle in concern, meaning the muscle is

being worked harder.So that seems Isolation movements are superior over compound

for targeting and fatiguing more fully a particular muscle or closely associated

muscle group, as in the isolation movement, if you try your hardest you are

exerting as much of the muscles power/strength as it has, so if you use a

compound movement, where your using more muscle groups, you can still only exert

the same power/strength from the muscle in question. As I wrote before, say you

used the best isolation exercise for any muscle in question and it turned out

that the muscle could exert 100 pounds of strength, so in any other exercise a

compound, the muscle in question could still only exert 100 pounds, it would be

the other muscles that are helping to move the extra weight.

muscle hypertrophy is closely associated with the degree to which you can load

and subsequently fatigue the muscles. Compound movements are at a disadvantage,

because it seems impossible to select a resistance that conforms to every

strength curve in every muscle that is involved in the compound movement; and it

is also impossible to maintain each muscle in a fully loaded state throughout

its entire ROM throughout the set. Isolation seems to solves all these problems.

All compound movements are simply the sum total of all moments around the

involved joints. Ability in bench press, to use one example, is sum total of all

moments around joints by the prime movers: namely torque generated by the pecs,

triceps, and ant shoulders. Now, here's where it gets interesting,

Does anyone here actually claim that the PECS, TRICEPS, ANT DELT ALL FAIL

SIMULTANEOUSLY while performing the bench ? In my opinion, each will fail

independent of the others, and that because of this limited growth stimulus will

be applied to those that are not (yet) at failure, that is if you are a training

to failure person, I am.

In this example, I would think ant delts would fail first, but they don't

generate significant torque anyway so, when the ant delts fail first, the

trainee can most likely continue to generate sufficient torque from the others

to continue to get reps. However! The triceps will fail NEXT! When they do the

set is over, but the pecs are still " wanting " . They have not failed yet and are

under stimulated.

So, the bench press is actually a triceps exercise.

So, this begs the question: Why not ISOLATE each prime mover off ever muscle

group with its own exercise. Say namely, the triceps and pecs (forget the ant

delt for now) and work each to complete failure ? Why even DO the bench press

(for pure hypertrophy) which is just a glorified triceps exercise anyway, and

triceps can be better worked with an isolation movement. The same logic can be

applied to nearly all compound exersices.

The muscle that fails first (triceps in bench press) will receive the greatest

growth stimulus and the pecs will be left wanting but not receiving additional

stimulation.

Isolation movements do not have this constraint (for most part). Much more

efficient way to expend your energy allowance.

Again I would like to remind readers I am only talking about pure hypertrophy,

show muscles. that is all. I am not talking about developing strength for,

Powerlifting, strongman or Powerlifting, or any sport, then you would definitely

need compounds and isolations.

The prime function of the chest muscles are responsible for shoulder

adduction, that is, bringing your arms closer to your body, (Bringing the arm in

towards the chest) and medial rotation of the arm. Like in a fly movement, or

far better a good pec deck or a pullover, or better still a good pec deck, it

attaches from your chest bone (Sternum) to your upper arm, and makes up your

primary chest muscle. The secondary function is in any pushing or pressing

movement.

However you did seem to agree that a good peck deck, was better for

hypertrophy in the chest.

Yes your right there are 1000's who have used both compounds and isolating for

their sports, but as I said I am talking " only " bodybuilding and show muscles

nothing more. Stated previously in this thread I've never seen anybody do just

isolation movements and be big and strong. Just because I have not seen it

doesn't mean it can't happen. It's also possible that people who are capable of

lifting heavy weights in compound movements are pre-disposed to getting bigger

and stronger. But someone who is never going to squat 300 lbs may need leg

extensions etc to reach their potential. Maybe it doesn't really matter which

you do as long as you apply overload and train progressively.

Let's take another exercise, the king of exercise the Squat,

Hip Ext, Lumbar Ext, Leg Ext, leg Curl,

if you agree these exercises more effectively isolate and fatigue the

respective muscle/groups then why would I ever need to do the Squat ???

Wayne Hall replied,

Lets take two of the hardest muscles too develop, in my thinking its the

forearms and calves, if anyone asked me for exersices for these muscles, I

would give them, three isolations, wrist curl, reverse wrist curl and finger

curl, and one compound, reserve curl, and for calf's, I would suggest a

isolation only, the calf raise, and remember these are the hardest to

developed, so why not isolation for the easier to develop muscle groups.

Casler writes:

Not sure what you mean by the " calf raise " is isolation only? Are you

talking about the " seated heel raise " ?

If so, I might have a tendency to disagree on several levels.

1) It reduces the amount of work to the Gastro's by bending the knee which

reduces Gastrocnemius tension. This reduction then would reduce hypertrophy

to the Gastro's

2) It reduces the amount of weight that can be used (standing heel raises

allow much greater weight than the seated). This would then translate into

a greater overall tension potential.

3) Place large forces on top of a bent knee, with both ligaments and knee

musculature relaxed, has the potential to damage the knee. With the

standing version, the knee ligaments and the muscles stabilize the knee,

again allowing for large loads to be used and received to the calf.

So as you can see it is not a " cut and dried " situation.

Sorry there , As you call the exercise, I was talking about the standing

heel raises

Wayne Hall replied,

And lets take the traps, I would recommend the shrugs as a main traps

workout, another isolation.

Casler writes:

Actually Shrugs are not an isolation exercise. They are a full " closed

kinetic chain " from hands to feet (unless you do them seated) Granted they

are good at hitting the " target group " , but it is not in isolation.

Interesting , I always thought of the standing shrugs as an isolation

exercise, ok I will go for the seated shrugs.

Casler wrote:

The metabolic requirement in " isolated " actions is met by specific rep and

set strategies and this is available for " both " isolated or compound.

COMPLEX or COMPOUND type actions:

If you select to perform compound or complex actions, usually consisting

of more than one muscle and more than one joint, then you lose the " extreme "

stability of a fixed brace, and must rely on the muscles that act as

stabilizers for the action selected.

This will generally reduce the amount of load that can be used for the

target muscle, because the stabilizers have both limited strength and

endurance compared to a " fixed brace " .

Even the difference between barbell and dumbbell exercises, demonstrates

this well, with the barbell being more stable. That is most can bench,

squat, deadlift, pulldown, etc, more weight using a barbell than dumbbells.

I should mention the exception to this is when you can use your whole body

to " assist " the single arm, as in dumbbell presses or rows.

But as we all know, HUGE weights are handled in exercises such as

DeadLifts, Squats, and Bench Presses, so this doesn't mean that large forces

and tensions are not experienced,

Again your knowledge astounds me, where would you say the greatest tensions

are in the big three, please.

The squat would be a wonderful exercise if ALL muscle groups were brought to

fatigue equally but they are not. If I am not mistaken, it's been shown the

lumbar extensors fatigue first before any of the others. To what extent are the

other muscle groups fatigued ? Isn't it better in terms of improved muscle

hypertrophy and force production (strength ?) to fatigue each and every

muscle/group FULLY ? Then why bother with the Squat, a sub-par exercise for most

if not all the muscle/Groups?

In my opinion, I think some people say the Squat permitting " huge loads " at

various points along the strength curve. The maximum squat weight you can employ

is limited by the strength of the " weakest " muscle/group that sustains the load,

i.e. your lumbar extensors. On the contrary, isolation movements effectively

permit the greatest loads along their respective force curve. Even " huge " loads

at any point should you decide to manipulate the technique in this manner.

Performing each of those movements separately would most likely address the

individual muscle groups more effectively, but performing the squat and

addressing all of them simultaneously would be more time efficient, but time is

not the issue

I think the Squats, as well as its cousin, the Bench Press, are poor poor

substitutes for their isolation counterparts.

Muscular growth stimulation is probably not a simple thing that can be reduced

to only one factor. It is possible that compound and simple exercises are each

more effective at accomplishing different things, all of which contribute to

better overall results. A person can get excellent results with nothing but

basic, compound movements, so simple movements are not essential for size gains,

but simple movements are the only way to provide certain structures with the

greatest load they are capable of handling and providing true full-range

exercise for them, and theoretically the only way to develop those structures to

the limits of their size and strength potential.

ISOLATION type actions:

If you use " isolation " type actions that are utilized in an optimally " braced "

exercise,(biomechanically positioned and braced with reactive force pads) you

may realize effective advantages in creating " greater " tension levels within the

" target muscle " . This is totally dependent on the most effective positioning,

and quality of the bracing system so that it is

correct and adequate to allow the proprioceptive system to sense that the body

part is stabilized.

As you said ,(Maximum stabilization will then reduce " instability

inhibition " , and permit maximum activation via CNS. This then has the potential

produce greater muscle tension, but only in the stabilized target muscle.)

So and isolation exersices creates greater tension in the muscle, which means

the muscle is being worked harder.

Lets take this one step further, you can have a isolation exercise, and

compound and a multi compound, now which or the following would you use to

develop the shoulder the prime function of the shoulder the lateral raise which

when performed concentrates on the shoulder solely (yes I know you can't totally

isolate a muscle, but lets not get into that) and which as we know creates more

tension in the muscle, which in turn means we are working the muscle harder, and

more intensely, or would you use the shoulder press, which uses the shoulder

muscle " and " the triceps muscle, " and " which does not cause so much tension in

the shoulder muscle, because we are now brining into action the triceps muscle,

so that means less tension the muscle in question the shoulder muscle, because

now we are using a compound movement.

Casler wrote:

We have to note, that the forces available to Primary Movers, is " ALWAYS "

limited to the abilities of the stabilizers, and the proprioceptive

perception and interpretation of that stability.

Now this also doesn't mean that Isolation is better for function, or

functional strength, in fact it would seem that just the opposite is true,

since the fixed bracing may provide a slight motor disconnect or reduced

activation pattern, between movers and stabilizers if used exclusively. Also

braced actions many times consist of " fixing " the bodypart in such a way as

to restrict ROM.

Yes I agree there, for functional strength you need a full combination of

exersices.

The pec deck, movement and the bench press are really the same well nearly,

well for the chest muscles they are, hold your chest and look at your chest, and

do some fly's, no weights are needed just go thought the motions, now do the

same, and do some free bench press's, see what I mean, please do the same for

the lateral raise and shoulder press, and then the pullover and pulldowns.

Really speaking the involved muscles are doing the same actions in both

isolation and compound movements, however in the isolation you are creating

greater tension in the muscle, which means the muscle is being worked harder.

But in the compound you are using heaver weights, but you're using other

muscles to move all that weight, so really speaking are these movements the

same, I am talking for pure hypertrophy show muscles.

Wayne Hall replied:

As you say , but I am only talking about hypertrophy only, yes I know

you know that and are only putting other points of interest in, which I am

really enjoying, however, for pure hypertrophy, which do you think would

build muscle the fastest, if you had to pick isolation only or compound only

routine, which would you pick, as over the last 100 years of training people

go for compounds, but has there ever been a study done on groups of people

doing one or the other, it would be very interesting, as my hypertrophy is

far better on isolations. the thing is I like to question things and

tradition, not to be right, but just to find answers, I don't take things at

face value, I tend to think there are to many people do not question things

that much.

Casler writes:

I have chosen, and do most of my training with complex actions. I think

that you will also find that " ALL " of the top bodybuilder use complex

actions as basic exercisers, and then isolated actions for specialization,

and smaller groups like arms.

While the Leg Extension you mentioned does have the potential to create a

greater tension in 2 of the 3 muscles in the quad (not the rectus femoris)

it does not hit the whole " THIGH " , like the squat, or even a leg press does.

I doubt you'll find too much support for " isolation only " or predominantly

training, even among serious bodybuilders. There is just too much of an

" organic " or " holistic " quality to more complex actions and how they

ultimately develop the body.

, As I find your writing so interesting I did a little search on you, hope

you did not mind, I had a fantastic read over two hours, and it seems on times

you did for six to months to a year do a 50% compound and 50% isolation program,

but that is not really fair on you as I expect at times you did more isolation

than compounds and at times more compounds than isolations, however from what I

gather, years ago you trained for bodybuilding, and later on more for strength,

I apologise if my assumptions are wrong.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=634720 & page=10

I did not do any " specific " RM testing during the program since each set " was "

a RM test.

Primary Exercises during the program were:

Chest and Back:

Lat Pulldown

Bench Press (which was slightly limited due to a seperated should injury)

Arms:

Standing E-Z Barbell Curls

Close Grip Bench Press

Legs:

Leg Ext

Leg Curl

Leg Press

Standing Calf

I'll try and see if I can locate some of the old training records and post

them.

__________________

A. Casler

BIO-FORCE Inc.

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

Casler wrote:

Additionally there are many other factors to consider, that may

characterize the two even more, and that is the concurrent activation, and

proportional stimulation of the " group " , as opposed to the isolated

" target " , may have other " systemic " benefits, such as greater hormonal

response, than the single muscle or single joint braced action.

Wayne Hall replied:

Yes I often thing of this, but have not found any conclusive evidence, and

think if there is any hormonal releases, from the body, there too would be

from isolation, and the two releases from the two forms of exersices, would

be to small to worry about

Casler writes:

While I have not seen the evidence of this, the stimulation that seems to

create the greatest " Hormonal Response " as far as HGH and Testosterone is

the one that activates the greatest amounts of the body under the greatest

magnitude of intensity.

Sprinting, is one activity that shows a great release. High reps Squats,

another. Stimulating smaller body areas seems to not have as great an

effect.

Casler wrote:

While I might agree that you may find larger and longer gains from

multi-joint actions, I might not agree that isolated single joint actions

are a more effective " starting point " .

I was only stating that maybe for hypertrophy, that there say 60% isolation

and 60% compounds might be a better and faster way, as has this ever been tried

by a beginner on a well rounded program, as I do not mead a young person going

into the gym working curls, pec deck and squats, and he's out there.

Wayne Hall replied:

Yes I agree if I was designing a routine for a athlete for useable

strength, but what about pure show muscles.

Casler writes:

In the end, I think the best " overall " result will come from a foundation of

general compound basic actions, complemented with specialization where

needed.

Wayne Hall wrote:

On the other hand, you must remain cognisant of system recovery

requirements too. Too many multi-joint exercises in a given workout may

overload your recovery capabilities, and you may overload the CNS and get

fatigued, the big compounds do burn some people out very fast, squat very

hard on the back, butt, deadlift very hard on the back, butt, CNS says I

will slow you down for all that work on the same muscle groups, and the

back.

Casler writes:

In general complex training might offer a more " compact " routine, since it

covers larger body areas with fewer exercises, so your supposition would

only be true, if care were not taken in constructing the program.

Wayne Hall wrote:

Yes agreed, but I am just talking of hypertrophy. As if someone do you a

pure isolation routine, they would still be more functional than the average

Joe.

Casler writes:

While I don't think it devastating to the CNS, I don't think selectively

strengthening a handful of motor patterns in isolation would yield a more

" functional " aspect, other than enjoying an increase in strength.

Casler wrote:

Since I think that the only real advantage is that of slightly greater

tension possibilities, (as above) I might be pressed to agree about the

" far more effective " suggestion. Many times the " perception " of such is

brought about by how we make progress as beginners. Most start with the

" basic " compound exercises (benches, squats, Leg presses, Pulldowns) and

then add more specialized actions.

Wayne Hall replied:

Ok then , what if I said only more effective. As you said the

isolation gives more tension, so that would be better for hypertrophy would

it not.

Casler writes:

Only within a limited capacity, and as posted above, it is really on a case

by case basis.

When I was a kid, I did seated concentration curls (rather loosely) with

140# dumbbell for 10 reps. I would do standing Cheat Curls with over 250#

for reps. On curl " machines " I could many times do the stack (maybe listed

at 150#) with only one arm for reps.

My ability to do this came from the complex actions.

While I might have been able to develop a good portion (if not all) of that

bicep strength from a single joint machine curl, I have my doubts that it

would have been as fast and as complete (functionally).

It would seem that the only advantage they might " occasionally " have is your

example of the humerus adduction (pec dec) example, and let me assure you

that there are " many " who get absolutely great PEC WORK from benches and

flyes, just as there are those who hate the " alignment " they have with pec

decs.

It would be very difficult for me to suggest to you that you should train

predominantly with isolation. I think ultimately you would not achieve your

best, without the combination.

Wayne Hall

New York

USA