i read this on http://www.true-natural-bodybuilding.com/exercises.html

it totally conflicts with frankie ny's routine and the concept of doing compounds to build up strength rather than isolations.


Therefore isolation exercises, which allow you to put all your energy and intensity into only one single target muscle at a time, are preferred over compound power movements that put stress on many muscle groups simultaneously, and lead to exhaustion before maximum muscle growth stimulation of the target muscle has occured.

compounds

enough said

<insert text here>

see my profile for my pb's



I have a journal if you can find it please pop in to say ey up

this guy has a point though. i can understand that concentrating all your energy and focus into targeted muscles will help them grow rather than spreading this weight out over other muscles.

Even he lists compounds as the best for back and legs. He is wrong in saying that dumbbell flyes are superior for chest, and I prefer dumbbell presses for shoulders. Targetting muscles and using compounds is not a contradiction.

Isolation exercise certainly have their place, though. I wouldn't be without heel/calf raises for one.

http://www.undergroundmuscle.co.uk

For strength: compounds.

For bodybuilding: compounds first, then isolation but both.

In order to illicit a reaction you need to make a muscle do work and you need to put tension through the muscle. This gives it the push to adapt. You just don't put as much tension through the muscle using isolation movements - you can't use as much weight.

Yes compounds are fatiguing but that is why they work! A properly constructed BB'ing program will leave you with a little in the tank after the compound movement to do a couple of isolation exercises.

Just a thought, but one way to make a name for yourself in this industry is to say the complete opposite from the received wisdom.

Drew Price BSc MASc CSCS
Registered Nutritionist &
Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist
 

ORIGINAL: drewsky

Just a thought, but one way to make a name for yourself in this industry is to say the complete opposite from the received wisdom.

I agree. But I think its a short lived thing. In the short term, someone with a conflicting view makes everyone stand up and think, but in the long term I think they generally get proven wrong, or find it hard to consistently justify their standpoint.

back on topic, I can't see how you can really progress without compounds. Maybe it works for building size, but certainly not strength.

at the risk or drifitng way off topic...

ORIGINAL: Omario

ORIGINAL: drewsky
Just a thought, but one way to make a name for yourself in this industry is to say the complete opposite from the received wisdom.

I agree. But I think its a short lived thing. In the short term, someone with a conflicting view makes everyone stand up and think, but in the long term I think they generally get proven wrong, or find it hard to consistently justify their standpoint.

That's the wonder of the internet though, there's always a new person to sell it too. I'm in the business, I see a lot of people making money this way over a long period of time.

Drew Price BSc MASc CSCS
Registered Nutritionist &
Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist
 

ORIGINAL: drewsky

at the risk or drifitng way off topic...

That's the wonder of the internet though, there's always a new person to sell it too. I'm in the business, I see a lot of people making money this way over a long period of time.

I agree. The internet has given people instant access to national/international base of potential clients. So there is no need to work hard to establish yourself in your local area first, or to have proven methods. Just use the right words and the world is your oyster...

I still believe that doing things the right way will make you more money in the long run, but maybe I'm just naive.

To be fair, he does advocate compound movements like the barbell pench press (recommending a wide grip), wide-grip pulldown, and barbell squats. He also mentions parallel bar and bench dips. The only compound exercise he argues against are deadlifts and leg presses, specifically for pro bodybuilders - not neccessarily that everyone should avoid them. He doesn't argue against the squats, and points out that one-legged hack squats worked best for him due to a back injury he had when he was younger.

He also argues against some isolation exercises as well, like leg extensions. And to be fair sissy squats in and of themselves are not recommended by a fair number of people, not just him.

Other things. He does argue for some of the most basic exercises, using free weights. He does argue isolations are more important than compounds, but on the virtue that they typically work the muscles at their greatest ranges. But the focus seems to be, do a few compound exercises, but focus on the isolations.

I think what should be gained from the article is the importance that isolations have, not that compound movements in and of themself have no value. I don't think he even says that, only that isolations have more value.