k_koolman's neverending bulk journal - Page 2 - ABCbodybuilding

Go Back   ABCbodybuilding > Iron, Metal, & Steel!! > Online Training Journal

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 07-12-2002, 11:08 PM
rianevans rianevans is offline
rianevans should change his/her status!
Middleweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 538
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

This journal is sadly defunct now, but I've been meaning to reply to this statement:

<blockquote><font class="small">posted by k_koolman:</font><hr />
As for dumbell flys, different things work for different people, and I feel they've worked for me. It's a great exercise that packs mass on quickly to the pectorals. The focus is almost entirely on the stretching portion of the exercise, which expands the fasciae and allows for a greater muscular growth. (Good ol' ABC)
<hr /></blockquote>

Alright, I've been trying to think of a response to this and after asking around and doing some reading I am absolutely sure that flys are one of the most worthless exercises around. Ready? Okay...

Fascia is connective tissue, it holds the bundles of muscle fibers (also known as striations) together and also holds the skin to the muscle. If you want to see fascia up close, take a look at the membrane that covers a chicken breast. That is the fascia, it is very, very thin and stretchy.

Fascia is a lot like skin, it grows to accommodate the growing underlying fibers. It isn't the other way around, muscle doesn't accommodate the fascia, so "stretching" the fascia would not accelerate muscle growth or make room for more muscle. Fascia is basically the "skin" of your muscles. Now, have you ever had to stretch your skin to accomodate more fat or muscle? No. It just happens on its own. There is need to try to stretch the fascia and no muscle building benefits to be gotten from it.

As for flys being a great exercise to pack on mass, flys are basically the same as bench press but the elbow movement and tricep involvement are eliminated. What does that translate to? Less overload, which means less muscle growth as a result. Try doing nothing but a variety of flys and pec deck for several weeks and see how much mass you pack onto your chest. [img]/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img]

Of course, I didn't come up with all, or really any of this, by myself. My good ol' bud and hero Eric Satterwhite passed this info onto me.


  #12  
Old 07-12-2002, 11:53 PM
k_koolman k_koolman is offline
k_koolman should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crescent City, CA.
Posts: 399
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

<blockquote><font class="small">posted by rianevans:</font><hr />Alright, I've been trying to think of a response to this and after asking around and doing some reading I am absolutely sure that flys are one of the most worthless exercises around. Ready? Okay...

Fascia is connective tissue, it holds the bundles of muscle fibers (also known as striations) together and also holds the skin to the muscle. If you want to see fascia up close, take a look at the membrane that covers a chicken breast. That is the fascia, it is very, very thin and stretchy.

Fascia is a lot like skin, it grows to accommodate the growing underlying fibers. It isn't the other way around, muscle doesn't accommodate the fascia, so "stretching" the fascia would not accelerate muscle growth or make room for more muscle. Fascia is basically the "skin" of your muscles. Now, have you ever had to stretch your skin to accomodate more fat or muscle? No. It just happens on its own. There is need to try to stretch the fascia and no muscle building benefits to be gotten from it.

As for flys being a great exercise to pack on mass, flys are basically the same as bench press but the elbow movement and tricep involvement are eliminated. What does that translate to? Less overload, which means less muscle growth as a result. Try doing nothing but a variety of flys and pec deck for several weeks and see how much mass you pack onto your chest. [img]/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>

This all goes back to Old School VS. New School theories, but no one can argue with the muscular results of those who have been known to utilize fascial stretching to the fullest. Those like Tom Platz, and the Austrian Oak himself! These were some of the pioneers of fascial stretching, and who's to say their muscles' impressive size, SEPARATION, and overall looks weren't some of the most impressive in BB-ing's history?

"Every muscle is made up of 1000s of muscle fibers. These muscle fibers are all individually wrapped with a connective tissue wrapping, or a sheathe. This is called the endomysium. These individual muscle fibers are then organized in bundles( called fascicles ) which are covered by another connective tissue sheathe called the perimysium. These bundles or fascicles are then placed together in an orderly arrangement( which determines the shape and functionality of the muscle ) and held in place by a layer of connective tissue known as the epimysium. Finally each of these layers is held together by the deep fascia( a courser material ). The connective tissue of every muscle fiber acts like a girdle of sorts. Which means that it binds a muscle group together, and to its neighboring muscle in many cases. It also protects, organizes and allows the force of contraction generated by the thousands of muscle fibers in a particular group, to be harnessed with great efficiency!"


"Fascial stretching allows for a greater capacity for growth, a fuller muscle, and greater separation between body parts!"

"The important thing to understand is this: Connective tissue is not only a tuff material, but also hugs tight to its surrounding area, almost constricting it! What does this have to do with muscle growth you say? Think about it for a moment. In order for a muscle to hypertrophy( grow ), what needs to take place if it is restricted by this tight binding girdle? The tissue must stretch and become more pliable right?! If this did not occur, then muscle growth would be hindered( you cannot grow unless there is enough room to do so)!"

Now, of course, the connective tissue already does this naturally, otherwise we wouldn't be able to grow AT ALL. But fascial stretching (as already said) can provide greater room for growth, and less constriction of your muscles' growth. More importantly, it enhances separation between muscles.

With fascial stretching, "You were no longer fighting the restrictions of tight, unpliable fascia, but rather a more elastic and pre-expanded connective tissue! Essentially all bets are off, due to the amount of room you have to grow! More room to grow enables more mass to be accumulated!"

The same also goes for Muscle Memory, but that's a whole nother deal, unless I explained a scenario, which is ALREADY found in Jacob Wilson's great article on Fascial Stretching, along with EVERY other quote I've used in this post.

As I said, this is just a case of Old School theories VS. New School Theories, and the philosophies of one experienced bodybuilder's to those of ANOTHER experienced bodybuilder, so no one can really be proven wrong. I just though I'd share some thoughts though....And I couldn't help but take some quotes from Mr. Wilson's article, seeing as how I was reading it when I came upon this post! [img]/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magaz...stretching.htm

A GREAT article that I had been anxiously awaiting the arrival of...And whaddya know, it had already been finished.

I was gonna add some more about the separation of muscles idea, but one might as well read the article, so I don't go posting the whole **** thing on here! [img]/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

I guess that's it...
  #13  
Old 07-13-2002, 12:51 AM
rianevans rianevans is offline
rianevans should change his/her status!
Middleweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 538
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

Well, new school vs. old school, in this case anyway, IS about right vs. wrong. Now, I don't know who's right or wrong yet, but we are talking science here and with science there is right and wrong.

As far as the great BBers using these techniques, these guys weren't using steriods by any chance, were they? Steroids change A LOT of things. Now, I don't know if steroids do anything as far as fascia goes, but for the sake of the argument let's apply what we say here to natural bodybuilders only, guys like you and me. I really have nothing against steroids (not the point), but steroids overide and change so many things factors, the pros can do a lot of things that we'd never be able to do.

Let's not get into seperation, not yet anyway. Let's stick to fascia and how it affects (or doesn't affect) muscle growth.

You've given me a lot to work with my friend. It may take a day or two, but I will be back! MUHAHAHA!

Looks like I'll have to do some more reading and asking around. Boy, learning is fun! [img]/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
  #14  
Old 07-13-2002, 05:37 AM
LAM LAM is offline
LAM should change his/her status!
National Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sin City, Nevada
Posts: 5,834
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

Regarding your diet...

I would cut down on the milk consumption. Despite popular belief it is not easily digested by human adults due to the destruction of many necessary enzymes in the pasteurization process. It can hamper the absorption of other proteins digested in the meal as the undigested milk proteins putrefies in the human digestive tract, clogging the intestines.

you would do more better adding some complex carbs like soy beans, red lentils and chickpeas. they take longer to digest and do not cause blood sugar or insulin to rise as milk does.

your macros while bulking should be close to 30/50/20 - protein/carbs/fats

good luck !
__________________
As of 01-01-04 - 6'0 242 lbs @ 10% bf 35 years old...
  #15  
Old 07-13-2002, 01:28 PM
Dave. Dave. is offline
Dave. should change his/her status!
Super-Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,367
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

For your back day, now this is just me, but I would suggest putting in some bent over rows. Just to get a good mass builder in there.
__________________
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cant change, the courage to change the things I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference. And while you're at it, please let the Sabres win the Stanley Cup :-D
  #16  
Old 07-13-2002, 02:14 PM
k_koolman k_koolman is offline
k_koolman should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crescent City, CA.
Posts: 399
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

Well, unfortunately, I've quit this journal, and changed most of my workouts and stuff. My meal plan still looks basically the same, with maybe a few little tweaks.

Hey, thanks for checking and sharing your comments though! I've been wondering whether or not I SHOULD incorporate some upright rows into my routine.

As for this whole pectoral debate...

"One of the greatest scientists the sport of bodybuilding has ever known is D.J. Millward. He has made some of the most incredible break throughs in hypertrophy training and like John Parillo and many other experts uses a technique similar to fascia stretching. Only D J Millward calls this revolutionary technique the bag expansion theory. You see, the connective tissue surrounding a muscle is often referred to as a bag, hence the title of the theory."

Well, there's the SCIENCE for ya lol. I'm really not concerned enough with the debate to get much more info, because you can simply read Jacob Wilson's article. BUT, if I get around to it, I may look for some more stuff on these scientists' (see above) studies. Who knows?

Laterz..
  #17  
Old 07-13-2002, 02:27 PM
k_koolman k_koolman is offline
k_koolman should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crescent City, CA.
Posts: 399
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

Um, I found this:

http://www.musclemedia.com/training/abcde/v59_abc2.asp

Just do a "find" when you get there, under the name D.J. Millward.

If you begin reading from that paragraph, there's some very interesting info on Millward and Parillo's studies.

I'd like to point this out, though...Although it's basically taking a shot at myself, it pertains to this discussion.

"Parillo's theory is that you stretch the fascia around the muscle which, according to him, is limiting muscle growth. However, research supports the idea that the endomysium and perimysium are involved in this limitation of growth--not necessarily the fascia."

Now, he says not NECESSARILY the fascia. But each of those tissue are layered anyway, so we're still pretty much talking the same thing here.

Anyway, there's so much good stuff in that article, I didn't wanna quote the whole **** thing, so everyone'll just have to check it out for themselves.

All for now.
  #18  
Old 07-13-2002, 08:44 PM
rianevans rianevans is offline
rianevans should change his/her status!
Middleweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 538
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

<blockquote><font class="small">posted by k_koolman:</font><hr /> Um, I found this:

http://www.musclemedia.com/training/abcde/v59_abc2.asp
<hr /></blockquote>

Oh c'mon man...referring me to Muscle Media! You've got to be kidding me, right? What's next, MuscleTech ads for Cell-Tech and Hydroxycut as a source? Muscle Media is probably the number one source of pseudo-science in all of the world. I don't really consider Wilson to be an authority on the subject either, though I suppose he could be when you consider it is more of a non-subject.

Alright now, back to our discussion/debate about fascial stretching...

[ QUOTE ]
"These bundles or fascicles are then placed together in an orderly arrangement (which determines the shape and functionality of the muscle )"<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, the overall shape of the muscle is determined by the point of origin and insertion. Each muscle has a classification as to the arrangement of the individual fibers and that determines how it can place an action on a bone. So yes, the fascicle orientation has an affect on the specific direction of a muscle group. i.e., the bicep vs the "feather like" muscle of the quads.

Secondly, this type of connective tissue has nothing to do with its contractile properties. Z-lines, h zone, sarcomeres, actin, myosin, tryptosin, Ca+ channels, etc. (this isn't something we want to get into), but the orientations of the fibers affect how it acts on a bone and that's it.

[ QUOTE ]
"Fascial stretching allows for a greater capacity for growth, a fuller muscle, and greater separation between body parts" <hr /></blockquote>

As I said before, it is stretchy. It is not a fibrous connective tissue at all. By now we should all know that separation of muscles and muscle fibers is a matter of lower body fat. Think for a second, how do stretching a tissue make muscles separate? Fascia is not restrictive, its connective.

[ QUOTE ]
"The important thing to understand is this: Connective tissue is not only a tuff material, but also hugs tight to its surrounding area, almost constricting it!"<hr /></blockquote>

This is so far off the ball. There are literary dozens of classifications of connective tissue and they all range in how "hard" they are. It goes from Bone to blood. Yes blood is a connective tissue and you can imagine how many types are in between that range. It has to do with the amount of collagen in the particular tissue.

[ QUOTE ]
"With fascial stretching, "You were no longer fighting the restrictions of tight, unpliable fascia, but rather a more elastic and pre-expanded connective tissue! Essentially all bets are off, due to the amount of room you have to grow! More room to grow enables more mass to be accumulated!"<hr /></blockquote>

Again, fascia is elastic in nature, and if you were some how able to over stretch it, your muscle would come apart at the seams. If this theory is really true, anyone could be a 400 lb. monster in no time.

[ QUOTE ]
"More importantly, it enhances separation between muscles." <hr /></blockquote>

Could you explain how a membrane a couple nanometers thick would affect muscle separation more than the skin or the multiple layers of adipose (fat) cells on top of all of that muscle?

[ QUOTE ]
"Think about it for a moment. In order for a muscle to hypertrophy( grow ), what needs to take place if it is restricted by this tight binding girdle?" <hr /></blockquote>

Tell that to someone with a pituitary tumor. Whoever is writing this garbage seem to think that all connective tissue is hard and constrictive, and simply put, it's not.

This is a load of crap in the crock pot and it is stewin' big time! Sure you don't want to try only isolation exercises and fascial stretching for 12 weeks and watch your chest explode with newfound gains!?
  #19  
Old 07-13-2002, 09:51 PM
k_koolman k_koolman is offline
k_koolman should change his/her status!
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crescent City, CA.
Posts: 399
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

If you took the time to read Jacob Wilson's article, you'd have noticed that the results of fascial stretching (among other techniques) have been PROVEN to work. And I'm sure Mr. Wilson himself would be insulted at the fact that someone sees his work was a bunch of poppy****. The time, the money, and all the energy he's put into ABCbodybuilding.com far more than proves the man knows what he's talking about.

And the fact that I MYSELF, among others have seen results from having flys in my routine has got to me something....Hasn't it? Or maybe the truth is that NO exercises work! Maybe training hard, and eating right has NOTHING to do with muscle growth! [img]/forum/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Unfortunately this post has turned into a discussion about fascial stretching, and questioning the validity of shocking techniques and Jacob Wilson's philosophies, rather than keeping with the original topic of the benefits of performing dumbell flys. OBVIOUSLY dumbell flys aren't as beneficial as say bench press...BUT saying that an exercise just doesn't work? THAT's poppy****. We could sit around and bench all day, we could sit around and do barbell curls all day. But is that going to be as beneficial for the chest, and for our biceps as adding dumbell flys, and hammer curls to the routine? Of course not. It's just smart training to hit muscles from every possible angle. And there are different exercises that do it....Dumbell flys is just one of those exercises.

Jacob Wilson says one thing....Eric Satterwhite says another. Who's to say who's right? Neither one is going to give up, and the same goes here. I hope I've settled the Old School/New School thing in both posts it's involved in....'Cause the truth is, for all we know, NO ONE IS RIGHT. Dumbell flys have worked for me and others, it's been proven through scientific electromiography, and MRI scans...AS has fascial stretching..Thus, deeming them both beneficial, AND scientifically possible.

"Can a person with 12 inch arms get 16 inch arms without stretching the connective tissue? Exactly, it is not only possible, but again a fact."

A guy once told me "All techniques that have had success, have merrit"...So I'll stop attacking new school philosophies.....At this point, I think I've successfully MIXED UP my thoughts on this post with my thoughts on the "Stirring Things Up" post...So I'm done. No more posts on here for me.

I'm also tired of looking stuff up!! [img]/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Later.


  #20  
Old 07-14-2002, 04:13 AM
rianevans rianevans is offline
rianevans should change his/her status!
Middleweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 538
Default Re: k_koolman\'s neverending bulk journal

Agree to disagree, I guess. And no, I don't take most of what Jacob Wilson writes to be worth a thing. Nothing personal, so please don't kick me off ABC Jake! [img]/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] I love these forums too much.

I guess the views really are two different to really be discussed. I mean, I guess we are both kind of extreme in our "beliefs" and extremists aren't really ever going to see eye to eye or even attempt to see the other side.

For the record, and I guess this is obvious, I don't believe one bit of this fascial stretching stuff. I think it is nothing but pseudo-science that sounds impressive to joe weightlifter. However, you and I are both way out of league here, so for now I guess we can let the big boys argue it and get back to this when we ARE the big boys. [img]/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

As for flys, I never said they didn't work, I just think they have no place in the routine of a person who's goal is maximal muscle gain. Once again, it is old school vs new. I read about all these "shocking techniques", super-sets, drop-sets, etc., etc., and I just think it is utter crap. I don't believe we need to awkward exercise to hit the muscles at awkward angles to produce growth, we need maximal fiber recruitment. Flys have their place in sport specific training and rehab, but I don't see the point in doing a set of flys when you could put a set of bench press in their place. Of course, that is just ME and my new school guns.

Thanks for the good debate. I wonder if anybody else read this stuff besides for you and me. [img]/forum/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

You should start the journal up again, just with whatever routine you are using now. Mine is gonna start up soon, I figure it will be easier to update then the Geocities one (it take soooooooo long to load on my comp).

Alright, have a good one bud.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.