Fitness Myths and Misconceptions!

[compleks]

Back by popular demand, well not really, but it's back anyway.

Training & Conditioning
Common Myths & Misconceptions:

Someone asked about this article and I still had it saved on my computer, so I thought I would post it up again for the newcomers to have a browse.

The fitness industry is plagued with lies, scams, myths, ignorance, and misconceptions. Some of these myths have been around for decades without any evidence or truth what so ever, and yet they still seem to be believed by so many. No matter where you go or who you speak to you are bound to hear someone say something that is untrue. Hopefully this thread will help inform you on some of the common myths you are likely to hear, or may have heard already. Trouble is that so many people believe these myths, which cause them spread so fast, and few people actually step back and question their validity.
Below is what I believe to be the 10 of the most common myths and/or misconception surrounding the fitness industry. Most people here are probably well aware of most of these, but occasionally you still hear someone mention them. I got a bit off track at points so excuse any rambling. I don’t expect anyone to read the entire thing (I don’t blame you, I barely even proof read the thing) but atleast browse through the sub-titles to make sure there isn't anything you may have believed. I think there is some useful information in there for most people, even if it is completely off topic.

Now, if you have anything you think should be added then feel free to reply and let me know. If you would like to write something up yourself to be added then PM it to me, or just reply back here and I will cut and paste it into the original post along with the name of the author. I know Maverick said he would like to add something about getting shredded abs I think, so that would be a good addition.
If you have any questions or criticisms or you disagree with anything I wrote then please reply and let me know so I can try to clarify or justify myself.

Toning:
myth-"Doing lots of reps with a light weight will tone up my muscles"
Wrong. Tone, when referring to muscle composition is either a myth or at very least a poor choice or words. The definition of tone is described as "the amount of tension in a muscle", so the easiest and quickest way to increase tone is to contract your muscles - there you go, instant toning without any real work.
Most myths surrounding the fitness industry stem from some minor truth or misguided logic. In this case I assume the myth began when someone decided to use weight training as a form of cardio by doing a ridiculous amount of light weight, high rep training (which really negates the purpose of weight training). Now we know that cardiovascular training is an effective form of exercise, which in this case may have reduced bodyfat in a number of people doing this form of high rep training. This reduction in bodyfat would have increased the visibility, or definition of their muscles which may have been mistaken as 'tone'.
http://www.edward.org/fitness_centers/fitness_images/workoutwoman.jpg
Since then the word has spread and the 'toning' myth has since plagued the fitness industry. Now I don’t have anything against high rep training, as long as you are doing it for the right reasons such as increasing your muscular endurance, practicing your technique etc...
There are a few basic guidelines when it comes to resistance training and rep ranges, but basically training over 15-20 repetitions will primarily work as an endurance exercises, increasing the rate at which your muscles can produce and use energy for extended periods of time. This will also target your slow twitch muscle fibers more specifically, which decreases the likelihood of muscular hypertrophy (muscle growth). Of course this could well be a good thing depending on your goals, and the rep range will also vary depending on the individual and experience.
You will probably have to come to accept the term 'tone' and will probably even find yourself using it, which isn't the problem. The real problem here is the belief that high rep training is an effective way to increase 'tone'.
To summarise, if you want to 'tone up' then your real goal is most likely to increase muscle definition. Increasing definition can be achieved by lowering your bodyfat and/or increasing muscle mass, in which case you will need to adjust your training and/or diet.

Spot reduction:
myth-"Exercising a certain muscle will reduce the amount of fat covering or surrounding that muscle"
eg: Doing situps to decrease stomach fat.
This myth is often blended in with toning, especially amongst the female population trying to loose weight from around their hips, glutes and thighs while trying to 'tone' them up at the same time. Fat is an important energy source used during exercise, especially lower intensity longer duration type training such as jogging, or in this case it's usually high rep training once again.
Using situps as an example, the prime mover is obviously the rectus abdominus, which for men is generally directly below a major storage site for adipose tissue (fat). Females tend to store the majority of their fat in their lower limbs causing the 'pear' shape, where men are more likely to deposit their fat around their torso giving them more of an 'apple' shape. This fat deposition is largely determined by genetics and hormones, and from a health perspective women may have an advantage over men with abdominal and torso fat being a larger health risk factor than fat stored in the limbs.
Back to the issue, it is common to see people doing hundreds of situps in an attempt to burn fat from their stomach. Yes, muscle will utilise fat as an energy source under the right conditions, but fat cannot simply pass directly into the working muscles from its surroundings. The process is alot more complicated than that and the fat must first be broken down into useable molecules before entering the bloodstream and continuing to the desired location. Since your body has to undergo this complicated procedure the location of the fat being used is of little importance, and cannot be determined or manipulated by training different muscles. Your body will most likely burn fat evenly from around your body, breaking down fat from all over. You may notice some difficult fat retention around your main storage sites, even with a low total bodyfat percentage, this is no different to any other form of fat and should be delt with in the same manner as any other fat, which is proper diet and cardiovascular training. Situps are not an effective means of cardio, and will not utilise a significant amount of fat as energy

Muscle to Fat:
myth-"That unused muscle will turn to fat, or that with training fat will turn to muscle"
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/matt2.jpg
Okay, I have no idea where this myth began but if I had to guess I would say it was just simply ignorance. I'm hearing this less and less as of lately which is a good sign that people may finally be wising up to this one. There isn't alot to be said here unless you want to get into the molecular composition or muscle and fat and why it is impossible for one to transform into the other. This statement is just as absurd is implying that bone can turn to muscle, or that wood can turn to steel or that paper can turn to rock etc... You get the idea.
Muscle and fat are two completely different substances, they are divided within the body and don't even make direct contact with one another. It is completely false and illogical to believe that one such tissue or compound can be converted to the other.

Weight training & Hypertrophy:
myth-"Resistance training will make your muscles huge, and the process is irreversible"
eg: "I don’t want to do weights because I don’t want to get huge" or "I'm lifting the light weights so I don’t bulk up"
Many aspiring bodybuilders find this particular myth to be especially frustrating, because they know how much effort, knowledge, discipline and dedication is required in order to increase muscle mass. Bulking up will not happen overnight, you will not wake up one morning, look in the mirror and realise you are massive. Alot of people have seen images of professional bodybuilders and don’t wish to look like that, so they avoid weights all together which is a shame. Adding muscle is a very slow process, it requires a well structured routine and strict diet, aswell as alot of patience. If you do manage to stick it out and actually accumulate this desired muscle you must continue all your hard work in order to maintain it, or it will atrophy (shrink, decrease, waste away). Fact is that very few people have the commitment or knowledge to increase their muscle mass even significantly.
Hypertrophy (enlargement, growth) of your muscles occurs when you consistently apply overload to them while supplying your body with the right nutrients, your body will respond accordingly by increasing your muscle mass and strength. In a reverse scenario if you are not using your muscles consistently or are not supplying them with the right nutrients then your body will be unable and unwilling to maintain them, this will cause atrophy of your muscles.

[compleks]

Muscle tissue:
myth-"That there is a structural difference between big bulky muscle and lean 'toned' muscle"
eg: "I want to look like Bruce Lee not Arnold, so I'm just going to do bodyweight exercises"
I'll start by letting you know that Bruce Lee lifted weights frequently as part of his routine, and he understood the benefits of doing so and had the knowledge to make weight lifting as effective as possible for his specific goals.
Basically speaking, muscle is just muscle. To quote Maverick, "Bruce Lee and Antoine have the same type of muscle, Antoine just has more.". All I am referring to here is the makeup of muscle on a cellular level, nothing else. No amount of bodyweight, high rep, low rep or cardio training is going to alter the chemical composition of your muscle tissue.
That said, there are things you can do to train your muscle to act in a way you desire. You can train for strength, size, endurance, functionality, speed, power etc... but your muscles will always be just muscle and most of these changes will occur or a neurological level.
Without going into any real detail, because my knowledge on the subject is very limited, it does appear possible to increase muscle density. When it comes to muscular hypertrophy it can occur on two levels, sarcoplasmic or sarcomere hypertrophy. Sarcomere hypertrophy is an increase in the contractile portion of the muscle, which in turn increases the density of a muscle.
"Sarcomere hypertrophy involves an increase in the number and size of the sarcomeres which comprise the myofibrils. These are added in series and/or in parallel with the existing myofibrils. It should be noted that only parallel growth will lead to an increase in the ability to produce tension. In contrast to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, with sarcomere hypertrophy there is an increase in myofibril density and a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength. The type of hypertrophy that you experience from your training depends on the manner in which you train. High volume/moderate rep(8-12) training leads to more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, while lower volume/low rep(1-6) training leads to more sarcomere hypertrophy (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990)."
You cannot single out one type of growth over the other, however you may be able to emphasise the amount at which one occurs. This may be particularly useful for strength training athletes, but regardless the muscle is still just muscle and the previous writing still applies.

Bodyweight V's Weights:
myth-"Bodyweight training will harness different or more functional results than weight training"
eg- "I heard doing bodyweight training will increase functional strength."
Well this may actually be true in a sense, depending on how you look at it. For example, if a break-dancer were to train doing bodyweight exercises then he may benefit from the increase of functional strength. But what makes his strength functional is really dependant on how he intends to use it. A bodybuilder may not typically be referred to as having functional strength, but it depends in what context you are looking at it. His strength is certainly functional for his lifestyle of bodybuilding. But generally when people talk about functional strength they are simply referring to the ability to perform everyday tasks with ease, like picking up a heavy object, or unscrewing a tight lid from a jar. Just simple daily tasks that some untrained people may struggle with. I would also add the ability of your muscles to work co-operatively as a team to perform a required task.
However you choose to look at it doesn't really have any impact on this myth, so don't get distracted by it.
The real issue here is whether or not bodyweight training has any functional advantage over weight training. My answer is, maybe. Now I would be typically inclined to say that there is no advantage, but I would find it very difficult to do many isolation bodyweight exercises, and that's what my argument comes down to. I'm basing everything here on the fact that functionality is defined by the ability of your muscles to perform as one to accomplish a task (which isn't always the case if you are training for something specific).
Now this isn't to say that weight training cant be just as beneficial if not more so than bodyweight training. More importantly here is the selection of exercises, and obviously compound exercises are going to out perform isolation exercises in functionality, based on the previous description.
Why I said bodyweight exercises may have some benefit over weight training is simply because it is very difficult to perform many isolation exercises using just your bodyweight. But if you are using weights and performing compound exercises I see no difference between the two in that sense. Your body cannot tell the difference between weights and bodyweight, so in the end it comes down to how well you know what you are doing.
I believe that if you know what you are doing then you will be capable of planning an effective program regardless of equipment, meaning that you should be able to get a good workout using weights or bodyweight. However I also believe that weights are easier to use effectively and that a good bodyweight routine will require alot more thought and improvisation, depending on your goals.
Okay, well that got a little off topic, but this was particularly difficult to explain because everyone has a different point of view and the myth can vary depending on your definition and goals etc... But basically speaking your body does not differentiate between bodyweight and weights, and neither will increase functionality any more than the other, it all depends on how you train with either option.

Speed and flexibility:
myth-"That weight training will reduce your speed and/or flexibility"
First I will deal with flexibility. Studies dating as far back as the 1960's have been produced to prove that correctly performed resistance training will not negatively effect your flexibility. Resistance training does however has the potential to decrease muscle length when performed in a limited range of motion. But it is always encouraged that you perform any weight lifting exercises through your fullest possible range of motion. So resistance training when performed correctly will not reduce your flexibility. There are even studies that suggest resistance training has the ability to increase your flexibility when performed correctly.
This all makes perfect sense when you break down the essence of flexibility, which is defined as 'the ability to move a joint through its full range of motion".
Speed is in a similar situation as flexibility. Like most things in the fitness industry there are alot of variables to take in, meaning that the answer depends on alot of other factors. Speed is generated by muscle contractions, so the hypertrophy of ones muscles would not negatively impact their ability to produce speed. What may impact their speed is how they are implementing resistance training into their routine.
As I mentioned, speed is generated my the contraction of ones muscles, and what increases speed is the rate at which a muscle can contract. On a physiological level speed is determined by the effectiveness on ones nervous system to recruit the largest number of motor units in the shortest possible time. The physiology of muscles would also indicate that the prime candidate for these fast contractions would be the type IIb muscle fibers, which also happen to be the muscle fibers effected most during resistance training. What I am getting at here is that resistance training can actually be a great tool for increasing ones speed, if performed correctly.
Specificity is one of the fundamental principles of resistance training, or any type of training. Meaning that if you want to be able to jump higher then practice jumping, want to run faster then practice running etc... Of course this can have it's limits, muscle mass and strength being one of them. There is also merit in using variation and alternative training to accommodate your goals, and in this case it happens to be resistance training. Basically if you want to be faster at a certain activity, then you should practice that activity with speed. But if you want to enhance your speed further or faster then resistance training may be what you are looking for. Now using that principle of specificity it may be of even more benefit to lift with explosive speed, in order to train your nervous system to recruit more motor units quicker. Though I don’t believe even slow resistance training would negatively impact your speed anyway.

[compleks]

Post exercise stretching reduces doms:
myth-"That stretching after exercise will reduce the effect of DOMS."
DOMS, or delayed onset muscle soreness is still somewhat a mystery. Most people believe it is cause by a combination of things, such as micro trauma to the muscle, lactic acid and tearing of the muscle fibers. There isn't yet any real solid evidence on the cause of this soreness experienced after an intense workout, but there are plenty of theories on how to reduce the effects, stretching being the most common one. I'm sure you have all heard that you should stretch after exercise to reduce the soreness, well there isn't actually any evidence to prove that stretching has any effect on soreness what so ever. Stretching does has numerous other benefits when performed after exercise, or even performed on it's own but reducing DOMS is not one of them.
There is one study I know of carried out many years ago that may have been the beginning of this myth. This particular study apparently 'proved' that stretching reduced soreness in the subjects the following day, however the study was shown to be tainted and results were discarded as simply a placebo effect. More recent studies have been conducted which have indicated stretching to have no effect on DOMS at all.

Resistance training stunts growth:
myth-"That resistance training will stunt growth in children, or anyone not finished growing"
This has been a major problem surrounding resistance training for as long as anyone can seem to remember. I have no idea where it began, but even today you constantly hear of and meet people that believe this.
Before I get started, some background information on how we grow: There are different classifications for different types of bones in our body, but the majority of them are classified as 'long' bones, and these are the bones which will have the greatest effect on our height. Our bones begin as simple cartilage models which later will be transformed into bone, this process is called ossification (the formation of bone). Most of this ossification will occur before or shortly after birth, and for the next 18-23 years your bones will continue to develop and grow.
http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/lapsansk/348/endoch_bone.jpg
Bone can grow in a number of ways, appositional growth and endochondral growth being the primary ways affecting height. In 'long' bones it is endochondral growth which will determine the length of a bone, which inevitably effects a persons height. At both ends of a long bone there is an epiphyseal plate, which is a layer of cartilage separating the epiphysis (end) from the diaphysis (shaft). This epiphyseal plate is what allows the bone to grow in length (endochondrial growth). This layer of cartilage is continuously growing and expanding, as new cartilage is formed nearest the diaphysis the old cells are ossified (turned to bone), and this process is what makes our long bones grow.
http://academic.wsc.edu/faculty/jatodd1/351/endochondral_bone_growth.jpe
The two main effectors of bone growth are nutrition and hormones. Nutrition is important for providing your body with the necessary energy, nutrients, vitamins and minerals to continue growing. In times of illness or malnutrition children can show signs of arrested growth, which is a line of increased bone density caused by a period of slow growth. Hormones are obviously vital for bone growth, growth hormone, thyroid hormone, and sex hormones are all vital for normal bone growth, these hormones can also be effected by diet. Females tend to stop growing earlier than males due to an increase in estrogen levels. Bone growth will cease when the epiphyseal plate becomes completely ossified.
Now if you happen to fracture a long bone at a young age then there could be some complications, especially if the fracture occurs at the epiphyseal plate. A break at the epiphyseal plate will result in damage to the cartilage which can interfere with the growth of that particular bone. These injuries are quite common amongst children and often result in one arm or leg being shorter than the other. This can largely impact the entire balance of a persons body and distort the positioning of their back, all leading to possible future difficulties. Especially those spinal related.
Back on topic. Now the forces generated with heavy weight lifting can be enormous, but it is highly unlikely that these pressures will have any significant effect on bone growth at all. If you do plan on avoiding resistance training for these reasons then it would be advised that you avoid physical activities all together, since the forces generated in jumping or running can be far greater than those of resistance training.
There are no studies or evidence what so ever that show resistance training to have any effect on height, though many people still believe this myth without question. One common argument is the size of professional weightlifters, who are generally all of very short stature. This has nothing to do with their weightlifting or training, rather the process of natural selection. A 5"1 80kg person would have a large advantage over a 5"10 80kg person when it comes to professional powelifting. Why? Because the shorter person has much shorter levers, meaning they can generate more power and need to move the weight a shorter distance. These people are not short because they are professional weightlifter, they are professional weightlifters because they are short.
In my opinion resistance training is often a great way to encourage growth when performed correctly, because participants are often interested in getting their diet and lifestyle in order aswell. If they do the proper research then I think they will have the knowledge to live a healthy lifestyle and grow to their fullest potential. It is sports like dancing, gymnastics and wrestling which can have a negative impact on height. This is due to the weight categories and calorie restricted diets put in place to encourage these athletes to stay small and light, which can have a huge impact on their development.

Muscle shaping and emphasis:
The following information is very poorly worded and the information is misleading. However I left it in because there is some relevant discussion on the following pages, particularly page 7 which I think some people may be interested in. So be open minded when you are reading, and remember not everything I say is correct.
myth-"That you can isolate or emphasise different areas of a muscle along the same fiber"
Just to clarify what I am talking about here are a few common examples. Trying to isolate or emphasise upper and lower abs, inner and outer pecs, upper and lower bicep etc... this cannot be done!
http://www.physioroom.com/images/anatomy/abdominal_muscle_strain_1.gif
Now to understand why this is not the case you first need to understand some of the anatomy and physiology of your muscles. Skeletal muscle, as the name implies is muscle attached to your skeleton, it makes up the majority of your muscle mass and is the type of muscle being targeted with resistance training. Skeletal muscle is responsible for all movement involving your joints. This movement is achieved by the contraction of the muscle fibers. All skeletal muscle has at least one origin and insertion, which are the apposing points where the muscle attaches to bone via its tendons. Between these two points the muscle is arranged like a rope, with all the tiny threads (fibers) running the entire length of the muscle from origin to insertion.
http://academic.wsc.edu/faculty/jatodd1/357/muscleanatomy.jpg
Now your muscle contracts when your nervous system sends a message to the muscles motor unit(s), which is a nerve attached to a bunch of muscle fibers. When a muscle fiber receives the message to contract, it will contract along the entire length of the fiber from origin to insertion. This is why is impossible to emphasise one end of a muscle when the fibers are oriented in that same direction.
I'm not going to go into any detail on all the muscles, but if you are interested here are two files with all the muscles you will need along with their origin, insertion and a picture.
ftp://tricks:tricks@67.18.198.27/Muscle origin-insertion.zip
With those files and the information above you should be able to figure out yourself which muscles can or cannot be emphasised in different areas.

[compleks]

Okay, the following material has been stolen from http://www.johnberardi.com/ . The article covers 5 'common' myths about training. I say 'common' because they are slightly more complicated issues than many other myths you will hear, and they are heard more within the weight lifting community. If you haven’t heard these myths before, then count yourself lucky, but still read the article because you should learn something new and it is an excellent piece of literature.

Direct link to article: http://www.johnberardi.com/updates/jan312003/na_myths.htm

Anyway, here it is. Enjoy.

Fitness Mythology
Challenge the Dogma
By Marc McDougal
First published at www.johnberardi.com, Jan 31 2003.

Allow me to first ask you to let go of your ankles, stand up straight, and pull your pants up. Don’t worry; it’s not your fault. You may not have even realized that you have been “taking it” from the fitness industry for a long, long time. Why should you even be suspicious, the people that teach college courses about weight training do this for a living! The personal trainers at your gym are “certified” which equates to fitness omniscience, right? So how can anything be amiss in the weightlifting universe?

My friends, amiss it is. And I’m here to expose some truths. But first, I must warn you. Much of the following information is contrary to popular opinion. So if you’re offended by anything that Oprah’s trainer doesn’t endorse - get out while you can, lest the waters of your fragile reality be stirred.

Myth #1: The Knee Shall Never Cross The Line Of The Toe

Every new trainer loves to spout this one off as a display of his or her biomechanical knowledge. They constantly scour the gym-goers movements on a noble quest to ensure patellar safety across the land. Unfortunately this unsubstantiated notion is perpetuated and accepted as fact in gyms everywhere. These are the same trainers that allow a gross deviation of the patella to the medial or lateral aspect during an exercise (the knee pointing a different direction than the foot), which actually is dangerous and degenerative.

If one were to assess knee injuries in athletic (read as: sport) environments, it becomes apparent that a high percentage of patellar trauma cases are sustained while the knee is beyond the all-sacred toe-line. In a misguided attempt to avoid knee injuries, the exercise community has therefore made this knee position taboo. In reality, the opposite reaction would have been preferential. Since this knee position is unavoidable in sports, or even in everyday life (try walking up or down stairs or a hill without your knee crossing your toe line) the proper way to prevent injuries is to strengthen the musculature around the joint by allowing the knee to travel into the “unsafe” zone in a controlled environment.

All joints contain feedback mechanisms inside the connective tissue and joint capsules called proprioceptors. These communicate with your nervous system to tell your brain what position your joint is at. This is how you can close your eyes and be aware of exactly what angle all of your joints are at without actually seeing them. To simplify a complicated issue, the more time you spend with your knee past your toe-line, the more you teach your nervous system to activate the protective soft tissue around the joint therefore PREVENTING injury during athletic situations (Supertraining, Siff & Verkoshansky, 1993). Close your eyes and think of a highly succesful strength coach. Yep, he agrees. Somehow, this news just doesn’t buy column space in Muscle and Fatness.

So remember this - the “golden rule” that the knee should never cross the line of the toe during any type of lunging exercise should be buried in the ocean with the lost city of Atlantis. (Of course, if this position causes consistent pain, then you should avoid this particular variation of the exercise).

Myth #2: Full Squats (below parallel) Are Bad For The Knees

More squat myths?!?

We’ve all heard it, if you dip below parallel during a squat, your kneecap will blow off and land in the front desk girl’s mocha latte. Well it just ain’t true! What’s that, you need a little more evidence? Ok boys and girls, its time for today’s episode of Fun With Musculoskeletal Anatomy.

The knee has four main protective ligaments that keep the femur from displacing on the tibia (ACL, PCL, MCL, LCL). These four ligaments are most effective at their protection during full extension and full flexion. Full extension would be when you are standing; full flexion would be when there is no daylight between your hamstring and your calf. When the knee is at 90 degrees of flexion (the halfway point), these four ligaments are almost completely lax and cannot exert much if any of a protective force at the knee (Zatsiorsky V. Kinematics of human motion. 1998 - published by Human Kinetics - p.301).

Unfortunately, the position where the protective ligaments of the knee are not doing any protecting is the common recommended stopping point of a squat. Therefore, as it as it turns out, this is the exact worst place you could reverse the motion under load.

If flexibility allows (heels staying planted, torso not flexing forward past 45 degrees), then a full squat where you lower yourself all the way to the ground is far safer on the knees than the traditional half squat. Guess what joint angle most leg extension machines start at? If you said 90 degrees, give yourself a pat on your healthy knee. This makes a full squat even safer than a leg extension machine (Wilk K et al. A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open and closed kinetic chain exercises. Am J Sports Med; 24(4):518-527).

So am I telling you never to do parallel squats? No! Am I saying that you’ll injure yourself on a parallel squat? No, again! What I’m trying to do is simply make an argument for the safety of full squats, thereby relegating squat myth #2 to the fiery pits of hades.

Myth #3: It Is Unsafe To Squat, Deadlift, Bench Press, Or Pick Your Nose Without A Lifting Belt

It has been brought to my attention that certain companies require their employees with labor-intensive positions to wear back braces/lifting belts.

When I run a company some day, whether we do labor intensive work or not, I plan to have my employees use standard issue bone files to grind away at each other’s spines.

Am I a monster? Maybe. But I’m being facetious in order to make a point. The point is that two scenarios above are about equally beneficial to overall back health!

You see, every man, woman and child on this planet has been given a lifting belt. That’s right; you arrived on this planet with one that was factory installed! It’s called a transversus abdominus or TVA. Unfortunately, most people haven’t used theirs since they were on the merry-go-round as a child. This muscle, the TVA, wraps all the way around your midsection like a corset, attaching to the thoracolumbar fascia, which then connects to your lumbar vertebrae or “lower back”. When contracted, it pulls at both sides of your spine creating something called hoop tension, which then sets off a waterfall effect of contracting the deep musculature of your torso. Once this has happened, your spine is rigid and fully protected, and your pelvic floor muscles contract, transferring stability to your lower body. Simply by contracting this muscle, you go from a noodle to a tank.

Now, since our TVA likes its very important job, it takes great offense to our silly attempts at replacing it. Therefore when we put on some sort of brace or lifting belt, our TVA decides to relax, robbing us of stability and spinal rigidity. (This has to do with the relaxation of our abdominals). Therefore, not only is wearing a belt unecessary, it can cause your nervous system to chronically inhibit your built in protective musculature. This can lead to spinal degeneration!

There, I said it! Wearing a belt can be worse for your back than not wearing one! So, if you take heed and decide that I may know a thing or two about back health, get rid of your belt. Or better yet, give it to one of your enemies. But do so gradually. If you’ve been wearing a belt for years, gradually taper yourself off of it, and get used to using your own muscles. Have someone knowledgeable teach you how to contract your TVA and you will be significantly better off.

[compleks]

Continued...

Myth #4: Pressing Movements Should Stop At 90 Degrees To Protect The Shoulders

Ok, let’s talk upper body. This pressing myth is one is propagated by trainers at a certain health club that is gradually taking over the planet (hint, hint…they are open ALL day and ALL night).

It all started when an article was written with good intention by exercise therapist Paul Chek entitled “Big Bench, Bad Shoulders”. Chek referred to stopping the bench press movement at an individual’s passive range of motion (as low as you can bring your arms without holding any weight) while rehabbing a shoulder, instead of lowering the bar all the way to the chest. Unfortunately, Chek’s excellent recommendations for the injured were misapplied to a healthy population.

Somehow, this turned into “everybody should stop their bench press at a 90 degree shoulder angle, or the shoulders will be damaged and the chest muscles will shut off”.

Now, say it with me: “That just ain’t true!”

Once again, this little myth can actually do more harm than good. Here’s how: from personal experience with hundreds of clients and from statistical analysis, most people have some degree of internal rotation of the humerus along with protracted shoulders.

Go ahead, check yourself. Stand sideways to a mirror; relax your arms down to your sides. Now check yourself. Do your palms face directly towards each other, or do they face behind you? This is an indication of the internal rotation of your humerus. Too much internal rotation (hands facing back) indicates that your internal rotators are either much stronger than your external rotators or it indicates that the internal rotators are tight (and potentially shortened in their resting position) and the external rotators are potentially stretched in their resting position.

Also look at the position of your arms relative to your legs. Do your arms fall directly down the midline of your thigh, or in front of your leg? Can you see any of your upper back in the mirror? These tests are an indication of shoulder position (retraction or protraction). When standing relaxed, your arms should fall directly down the midline of the thigh and you should only be able to see your chest and shoulder, no upper back. The more of your back you can see, the worse off you are, you primate you.

Getting back to the point of this passage, these postural conditions can be exacerbated by stopping your pressing movements short of full range. This occurs due to your body’s adaptive mechanism of shortening the fibers in accordance with the range of motion you contract them in.

Take a look at powerlifters; their careers depend on their healthy shoulders. They lower the bar to their chest, sometimes even below the chest line using a cambered bar. A recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning research listed powerlifting below badminton on injuries sustained per hours of participation. To make a long and complex story, if you have healthy shoulders and want to keep them, lower the bar all the way to your chest, slow and controlled. Most people would save their shoulders simply by adding in some external rotation work for the teres minor and infraspinatus instead of revamping their entire pressing program.

Myth #5: You Shouldn't Train Abs Before Legs

Didn’t know this one was a myth? Good! However, let’s discuss it anyway since I think this is an erroneous piece of fiction that my soon gain mythical status within the circle of infallibility known as the accredited personal training associations.

Credit Strength Coach Ian King for being the first one to really shed light on this one being a fallacy. At first glance, the theory holds water; if your abdominals are fatigued then they won't be able to stabilize the body or the spine, therefore leaving yourself open to possible injury, or at the very least weakness, during leg training.

But incorrectly assuming that the abs are one unit is the governing body behind this misnomer. The core of the body can be divided into two distinct groups of musculature; the outer unit, and the inner unit. The outer unit is made up of what you can see in the mirror, i.e. the rectus abdominus, external obliques, and spinal erectors. Traditional abdominal exercises such as curl-ups, knee raises etc. target the outer unit musculature almost exclusively.

The inner unit is made up of the transversus abdominus, the multifidus, the diaphragm, and the pelvic floor muscles. Spinal stabilization is provided almost entirely by the inner unit musculature, therefore any ab exercises done before a leg workout will cause no significant impairment of form or function. One should, however, avoid excessive inner unit work to the point of fatigue before a workout for said reasons. Inner unit work would include any woodchop type exercise, forward or transverse ball-rolls, or most stability drills, etc.

I'm sure some of you out there are saying "...but when I do abs before legs, I feel weaker, so now what do you have to say, you pickle kisser"? This very well could be the case, but that is due to your nervous system’s inability to preferentially activate your inner unit musculature during stabilization needs, and an over-reliance on using the outer unit muscles to perform this function. This is a problem that needs to be addressed!

Referred to as "Sensory-Motor-Amnesia" (Chek, P. 1998, Scientific Core Conditioning. Correspondence Course. Paul Chek Seminars), this dysfunctional inner unit can come from heightened tension due to hypertonic muscles, from an overreliance on external apparatus (see myth #3), or from a series of musclular imbalances that can be determined through postural analysis and other soft tissue testing.

In other words, get your core in order, dude! Learn to activate your inner unit musculature with control drills and exercises designed to hit those deep muscles. Then, when training outer unit musculature, you won’t be fatiguing your inner unit. In addition, you wont impair the function of the inner unit for stabilization purposes. Whether you choose to do abs before squatting or not, it’s important to recognize how the abdominal muscles are arranged and how to use the arrangement to your training advantage.

In conclusion, if one thing can be taken away from this article, let it be to question advice. Blindly accepting the advice of “experts” can lead to mental atrophy and apathy. You become a slave to other people’s advice and never learn to think critically for yourself. Dig deep, do some research, and come to your own conclusions. Or just keep reading articles at johnberardi.com and let us do the work for you.

--

Marc McDougal is the founder and fitness director of Evolution Training Concepts, a company that takes cutting edge training and nutrition practices into the corporate environment. Marc studied Exercise and Sports Science in college, and has been working in the training/strength coaching field for the last 8 years. He is an experienced fitness writer, with many published articles in the area of strength training, nutrition, and performance enhancement. Marc can be reached via email at
marc@evolutiontrainingconcepts.com,
and you can visit his site at:
www.EvolutionTrainingConcepts.com (coming soon)

[compleks]

No worries. I reserved a few extra spots incase I decide to add anythin, or if anyone else decides to make an addition.
Is it just me or has the character limit per post been reduced? Oh well, that's all good, it will probably stop me rambling on too much.

[compleks]

you are wrong on one part, weights vs bodyweight, if you use 5X5 on the weights with good compound lifts you will gain strength and not gain much size
That would be entirely dependant on your diet, and how you personally react to different rep ranges. It is very difficult to completely isolate strength and size gains from one another, especially at an advanced level of training.
I wrote this a long time ago so cant remember everything in there, so I re-read the weights V's bodyweight and didn't see any mention of that in there anyway.

also you cannot work your upper,mid,lower pec seperatly,only together
I agree, you cannot isolate the upper, middle or lower pec from each other. You can however put more emphasis on the different regions using various exercises.

and you cannot train your lower abs seperate from your tops because they are all one muscle.
I agree here also, I think you misread the post because that was the point I was trying to make.

[Jujimufu]

Salvaged.

[compleks]

From the depths of hell.

[compleks]

Man, the amount of spelling mistakes, typos, and grammatical errors in that was a disgrace. I actually went back through it to fix most of them up.

[Dobi]

very nice.
what about a downloadable/printable version as a pdf-file?

[TETSUJINX3]

wow man thanks compleks ur posts have been thoroughly enjoyable and beneficial to read as a lot of these myths i had believed in such as the one bout post work out stretching relieving DOMS

[Frostbite]

very cool:smile:

[NatsuGaijin]

Nice. Very In-depth explanation. Thank you

[Rayzer]

very nice.
what about a downloadable/printable version as a pdf-file?
Why not Copy/Paste it into Word?! That way you can print it and save it to your pc. Not as .pdf but as .doc, or does it have to be .pdf:smile:

and yes: very nice indeed.

[Dobi]

Why not Copy/Paste it into Word?! That way you can print it and save it to your pc. Not as .pdf but as .doc, or does it have to be .pdf:smile:
ok, you are right.

[Paul]

very nice.
what about a downloadable/printable version as a pdf-file?

A pedephile?

I never knew that using a weight belt had a negative effect on your spine.

I just started using one...a $30 one at that.

[Matthew.]

Damn man, that cleared up a lot of questions I had. Didn't know there were so many misguided myths. Thanks a lot.

[frankinstine]

if you guys dig john berardi you might want to check out tom venuto.

[miltiad]

Very nice. Who said Mythbuster ?

[kancerzx]

awsome thnx 4 d indepth explanation

[Karlnold]

Myth #2: Full Squats (below parallel) Are Bad For The Knees

More squat myths?!?

We’ve all heard it, if you dip below parallel during a squat, your kneecap will blow off and land in the front desk girl’s mocha latte. Well it just ain’t true! What’s that, you need a little more evidence? Ok boys and girls, its time for today’s episode of Fun With Musculoskeletal Anatomy.

The knee has four main protective ligaments that keep the femur from displacing on the tibia (ACL, PCL, MCL, LCL). These four ligaments are most effective at their protection during full extension and full flexion. Full extension would be when you are standing; full flexion would be when there is no daylight between your hamstring and your calf. When the knee is at 90 degrees of flexion (the halfway point), these four ligaments are almost completely lax and cannot exert much if any of a protective force at the knee (Zatsiorsky V. Kinematics of human motion. 1998 - published by Human Kinetics - p.301).

Unfortunately, the position where the protective ligaments of the knee are not doing any protecting is the common recommended stopping point of a squat. Therefore, as it as it turns out, this is the exact worst place you could reverse the motion under load.

If flexibility allows (heels staying planted, torso not flexing forward past 45 degrees), then a full squat where you lower yourself all the way to the ground is far safer on the knees than the traditional half squat. Guess what joint angle most leg extension machines start at? If you said 90 degrees, give yourself a pat on your healthy knee. This makes a full squat even safer than a leg extension machine (Wilk K et al. A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open and closed kinetic chain exercises. Am J Sports Med; 24(4):518-527).

So am I telling you never to do parallel squats? No! Am I saying that you’ll injure yourself on a parallel squat? No, again! What I’m trying to do is simply make an argument for the safety of full squats, thereby relegating squat myth #2 to the fiery pits of hades.



You're right, man is shaped for going all the way in squats, but 95% of the people will take a risk doing so.

The ligaments are not the reason why you shouldn't go lower, it's because that the cartilage doesn't fully cover the surface where the bones connect at that angle on "civilized" man. This is mainly because we sit on chairs from an early age, and it simply disappears, we don't sit down like the nature folks, squatting all the time. They keep their cartilage on that whole surface simply because they use it and their knees are comfortable in that angle all of the time. Even their femur has a slightly different shape, our gets much more "straightened out", "mis-shaped" because we live our lives totally upstraight and our knees pretty much seldom passes the parallel angel with any load. So this is why doing full squats all of sudden(and with weights even) and letting our femur and tibia surface grind eachother at that angle without any "lube" is risky. It's eventually bound to result in injury. So unless you are a amazon indian or still a very young child, you shouldn't do full squats.

This is the truth, but it's just the facts, I do full squats myself of course but I just wanted to correct this because it would be wrong for people to belive that it would be safer to go all the way down and dangerous to stop at parallel. And no, reversing at that angle won't be dangerous for the ligaments.

There are also some other reasons I won't bother to mention.

But again "half-squats will give you half legs", so I'd never dream about doing half squats or 1/4 ones. I just wanted to say that this is not really another myth.

Edit: I can't belive that I haven't read this thread before...

[dark_knight_will]

with regards to resistance train stunts growth i would say that it is true because testosterone is the hormone that matures the bones and by doing resistance training it will increase the amount of testosterone in the body thus making the hormone more available to the bone. i assume you believe it is a myth so could you tell me where i am wrong?

[compleks]

Just the fact that no credible study ever done has found any link between resistance training and stunted growth.

[dark_knight_will]

but still... if testosterone is know to mature bones and resistance training increases testosterone then doesnt it seem logical that it would?

[Rahf]

You do not mature in a linear fashion so it wouldn't make sense.

[compleks]

What about growth hormones?

[pwsn]

About knees and shoulders going past 90 degrees:
Whenever I train beginners I always tell them to not go past 90. I always add in that as they progress and become more flexible, they'll have a greater range of motion and be able to go beyond that. Thing is, you'll always get that one person that'll hurt themselves if you tell them you can go beyond 90. It's better to tell them that we'll start at 90, and as you progress, you'll be able to go beyond that.

Lower and Upper Abs:
Here's my take on how this got started. Yes to all that stuff about no working a specific region of the muscle. Eg. crunches for upper abs, leg lifts for lower abs. but there are also other muscles around the lower part of the abdomen other than the rectus abdominis. Like the transverse for example.

[chicanerous]

Thing is, you'll always get that one person that'll hurt themselves if you tell them you can go beyond 90. It's better to tell them that we'll start at 90, and as you progress, you'll be able to go beyond that.
Yes. That's why they are called beginners.

Personally, I would never tell a beginner where to stop on the squat. They have enough things to worry about beyond where to stop. They also have a poor sense of their own body. So, I place a box underneath them at an appropriate height and have them squat, touch it lightly, and return to standing. As their flexibility increases over time, I lower the box until they can work with a sufficiently deep ROM and have mastered all the cues needed to safely perform the movement. Then I remove the box and have them self-limit their squat depth.

Lower and Upper Abs:
Here's my take on how this got started. Yes to all that stuff about no working a specific region of the muscle. Eg. crunches for upper abs, leg lifts for lower abs. but there are also other muscles around the lower part of the abdomen other than the rectus abdominis. Like the transverse for example.
The transverse abdominis is located underneath the other muscles of the abdomen and cannot be independently isolated either. Around the lower abdomen, the only significant superficial muscles are the rectus abdominis, obliques, and the (mostly non-superficial) hip flexors. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[DraKe]

Thanks for clearing up the "stunt growth"-myth.
My sister keeps bugging me about that.

[pwsn]

Yes. That's why they are called beginners.

Personally, I would never tell a beginner where to stop on the squat. They have enough things to worry about beyond where to stop. They also have a poor sense of their own body. So, I place a box underneath them at an appropriate height and have them squat, touch it lightly, and return to standing. As their flexibility increases over time, I lower the box until they can work with a sufficiently deep ROM and have mastered all the cues needed to safely perform the movement. Then I remove the box and have them self-limit their squat depth.



Personally, I think most beginners can't do a squat properly for it to be effective. They get scared. Then again I work a lot with middle aged woman that wouldn't even want to get on the leg press.


The transverse abdominis is located underneath the other muscles of the abdomen and cannot be independently isolated either. Around the lower abdomen, the only significant superficial muscles are the rectus abdominis, obliques, and the (mostly non-superficial) hip flexors. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Just saying that you can't contract the lower part of a muscle and not the upper part of it. and that there are many muscles around the abdomen. when people say lower abs the should mean the lower abdomen muscles and not the lower part of the rectus abdominus.


I also like to teach people the squat to bench at first. Makes them feel safer and sorta gives them the idea it's like getting out of a seat.

keep going with the little tricks to teach people.

[SuperChimp]

Chuck Noris Machines are the answer (FALSE)

[Surge]

A very good a detailed selection there Compleks
Thank you for sharing.

[Honken]

Spot reduction works, at least in theory.

Aerobic exercise increases whole-body adipose tissue lipolysis, but is lipolysis higher in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SCAT) adjacent to contracting muscles than in SCAT adjacent to resting muscles?

Ten healthy, overnight-fasted males performed one-legged knee extension exercise at 25% of maximal workload (Wmax) for 30 minutes followed by exercise at 55% Wmax for 120 minutes with the other leg and finally exercised at 85% Wmax for 30 minutes with the first leg.

Subjects rested for 30 minutes between exercise periods. Femoral SCAT blood flow was estimated from washout of (133)Xe and lipolysis was calculated from femoral SCAT interstitial and arterial glycerol concentrations and blood flow.

In general, blood flow as well as lipolysis was higher in femoral SCAT adjacent to contracting than adjacent to resting muscle (time 15-30 min: blood flow: 25% Wmax: 6.6 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 0.8 ml 100 g(-1) min(-1), P < 0.05; 55% Wmax: 7.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 5.0 +/- 0.6, P < 0.05; 85% Wmax: 6.6 +/- 1.3 vs. 5.9 +/- 0.7, P > 0.05; lipolysis: 25% Wmax: 102 +/- 19 vs. 55 +/- 14 nmol 100 g(-1) min(-1), P = 0.06; 55% Wmax: 86 +/- 11 vs. 50 +/- 20, P > 0.05; 85% Wmax: 88 +/- 31 vs. -9 +/- 25, P < 0.05).

In conclusion, blood flow and lipolysis are generally higher in SCAT adjacent to contracting than adjacent to resting muscle irrespective of exercise intensity. Thus, specific exercises can induce "spot lipolysis" in adipose tissue.

[anfeyd]

Really with how big that sample size is and how there is only one study, in my opinion trying to spot reduce is useless.

[Honken]

The visual effect is low, but the regional fat *word similiar to reduction* is almost twice as high as normal.

[chicanerous]

SCAT is another word for shit -- enough said.

[compleks]

Does this mean I owe Matt Fury an apology?

[Karlnold]

I'm a Scat-man! skvidisikisvkivlvsklvoovilskovopopom, skvidilididilidviskivilidopodopom!

[Urban_Juggernaut]

Got every point possible, but you missed the one about pushups being only a toning excercise. Pushups can build incredible strength and doesn't make your muscle any smaller or weaker.

[compleks]

I haven't heard that one, but I figure it's covered in the toning section anyway.

[anfeyd]

I've never heard of that myth.

[NightHunter]

I've never heard anyone say that any exercise will make your muscles smaller and weaker.

[AndyLeTerrible]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguD23Jwo0w

[compleks]

Haha, Andy.

[compleks]

When are you going to get yourself a dog?

[chicanerous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguD23Jwo0w

Oh man. This one is even better:

BpJHElYIp34

[Skilzat85X]

I WANT ONE

[AndyLeTerrible]

When are you going to get yourself a dog?
i think as soon as i finish redecorating my bedroom haha

Oh man. This one is even better
haha the guys voice annoys meeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I WANT ONE
hahawhat a wise man you are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDz0QWxcGDI

[Ashtar]

A lot of people take time to debunk the 'fat into muscle myth' but is there even anyone who believes that crap anymore? It seems like something that might have been necessary a decade ago maybe...

Spot reduction works, at least in theory.I remember reading this study before. It may be true, but up until what point? It might be that lipolysis in general sucks if you have circulation problems, and working muscles helps to fix those circulation problems. However, with that, you'd get diminishing returns, up until a point where lipolysis doesn't increase anymore in response to further increases in blood flow from working the muscle harder. They were only showing small increases in response to small workloads. If it is only limited to that, it won't have the huge impact people are looking for.

A pedephile? I never knew that using a weight belt had a negative effect on your spine. I just started using one...a $30 one at that.It's not a direct negative effect, but essentially you don't learn to use stabilizer muscles for your spine which is negative in the long run. Weighted belts, similar to weighted vests, or dip belts, on the other hand, are cool ways to increase leg work without compressing the spine more than normal.

The transverse abdominis is located underneath the other muscles of the abdomen and cannot be independently isolated either.What about when we suck in our bellies? Sadly, you can't apply resistance to that, lol.


Thanks for clearing up the "stunt growth"-myth.
My sister keeps bugging me about that.Your sister wants you to be tall? Perhaps she is afraid of being taller than you?

Does this mean I owe Matt Fury an apology?NEVER

[AlienWebguy]

First off I want to say that was an excellent read man - lots of effort obviously went into that and there's a wealth of info in there. As a personal trainer myself most of it was stuff I've personally encountered with clients in the past.

There are a couple things I disagree with, however, and not so much a disagreement, but more of a clarification.

I know personally that going past 90 degrees on a bench press is a horrible idea when one is lifting for gains. Now, someone training for overall muscular endurance or basic body maintenance shouldn't have a problem going all the way to the chest because the weight will never be heavy enough for any problems to occur. That being said, when I was strength training I had a 335lb max bench and I weighed 179lbs. When your elbow bends past that sweet 90 degree (give or take a few degrees) spot it drastically takes the load off the pec major and puts it directly on the the pec minor and anterior delt. The triceps don't really stress much more because it's not too acute of an elbow angle to put the load too high on the distal tri. 335lbs NEEDS TO (AS IN MUST) be shared across the chest/shoulder/tricep complex with the pec major being the prime mover or else there's no way I'd ever be able to get that weight back up without overexerting my shoulder and losing my form. It's the same with over-head shoulder press (military press); going past 90 takes the load off the delts and puts it almost all on the levator scapula and supraspinatus. SAME THING with squatting past 90- the load is no longer shared among the quads and hams and you're basically relying on your distal quads to do all the work for you to get back up. With a heavy enough squat you're bound to lose form and stress out your knees.

Now, all that being said, I have nothing against full range of motion training with an adequate weight. The problem is that when one is lifting a weight heavy enough to require all their muscles to work in the most efficient spots, you have to adapt your form and range of motion to ensure that the largest muscles remain the prime movers or else you're setting yourself up for failure. Again, I'm referring to 1-3 rep max loads, which is quite often how younger kids train anyway cuz they want to lift the most weight.

I also disagree with your muscle tissue writeup (bruce lee vs arnold). There's an obvious difference between Type 1 and Type 2 A & B muscle fibers in that Type 2 B is primarily anaerobic and grows in size, whereas Type 1 is the opposite. As you know type 2 A can go either way, but it's something to be said that a muscle just isnt a muscle - there's a physiological reason sprinters suck at distance and that marathon runners suck at high jump.

[Papa Lazarou]

I also disagree with your muscle tissue writeup (bruce lee vs arnold). There's an obvious difference between Type 1 and Type 2 A & B muscle fibers in that Type 2 B is primarily anaerobic and grows in size, whereas Type 1 is the opposite. As you know type 2 A can go either way, but it's something to be said that a muscle just isnt a muscle - there's a physiological reason sprinters suck at distance and that marathon runners suck at high jump.

I've read that muscle cells can undergo at least one sort of physical change which could affect their capacity for explosive contraction and endurance. (Bear in mind I'm just an amateur). Basically, a fast fibre can use either oxygen or glycogen as fuel. Those fibres which use glycogen are presumably "faster" than those which use oxygen, though both are still relatively "fast". Fast gylcolytic fibres can apparently change (permanently) to become fast oxidative fibres, which have a better blood supply and fatigue more slowly. This could be the structural part of the basis for the performance difference between sprinters and marathon runners for instance.

However, it's probably important to consider the neurological aspect too. The neuro-muscular pathways reinforced by sprinters are different from those reinforced by marathon runners.

So the question really is "how much of the difference between endurance athletes and sprinters/etc of the same weight is due to muscle structure, and how much to neurology?"

[AlienWebguy]

I've read that muscle cells can undergo at least one sort of physical change which could affect their capacity for explosive contraction and endurance. (Bear in mind I'm just an amateur). Basically, a fast fibre can use either oxygen or glycogen as fuel. Those fibres which use glycogen are presumably "faster" than those which use oxygen, though both are still relatively "fast". Fast gylcolytic fibres can apparently change (permanently) to become fast oxidative fibres, which have a better blood supply and fatigue more slowly. This could be the structural part of the basis for the performance difference between sprinters and marathon runners for instance.

However, it's probably important to consider the neurological aspect too. The neuro-muscular pathways reinforced by sprinters are different from those reinforced by marathon runners.

So the question really is "how much of the difference between endurance athletes and sprinters/etc of the same weight is due to muscle structure, and how much to neurology?"

From my understanding, the "speed" of the muscle fiber is simply the actin and myosin filaments twitch speed and has nothing to do with the fuel consumption, even though physiologically speaking your body naturally prefers to use glycogen over fat because it's easier to take the oxygen out of the chemical reaction. Since the Type II B (fast twitch) tend to be larger in mass, they have more glycogen stores and can generally utilize said glycogen and ATP more readily and therefore are prone to being anaerobic. If you train your metabolism to utilize oxygen more efficiently during a heavy load just shy of your anaerobic threshold, you can train those Type II A fibers to take on the role of Type I fibers and really score a high caloric burn with a high (70-80%) fat utilization.

[compleks]

Keep in mind I wrote this thing over two years ago. Most of it is piss poorly written and I probably disagree with myself on many points.
That said, I really can't be bothered re-reading it at the moment or making any changes to it. I would much rather write a new article, but I don't feel as though that is necessary.

[compleks]

I know personally that going past 90 degrees on a bench press is a horrible idea when one is lifting for gains. Now, someone training for overall muscular endurance or basic body maintenance shouldn't have a problem going all the way to the chest because the weight will never be heavy enough for any problems to occur. That being said, when I was strength training I had a 335lb max bench and I weighed 179lbs. When your elbow bends past that sweet 90 degree (give or take a few degrees) spot it drastically takes the load off the pec major and puts it directly on the the pec minor and anterior delt. The triceps don't really stress much more because it's not too acute of an elbow angle to put the load too high on the distal tri. 335lbs NEEDS TO (AS IN MUST) be shared across the chest/shoulder/tricep complex with the pec major being the prime mover or else there's no way I'd ever be able to get that weight back up without overexerting my shoulder and losing my form. It's the same with over-head shoulder press (military press); going past 90 takes the load off the delts and puts it almost all on the levator scapula and supraspinatus. SAME THING with squatting past 90- the load is no longer shared among the quads and hams and you're basically relying on your distal quads to do all the work for you to get back up. With a heavy enough squat you're bound to lose form and stress out your knees.

What you basically said is that lifting too heavy is bad. This applies to all rep ranges, and ranges of motion.
Personally, I encourage I full ROM on most exercises, in most circumstances. I just make sure that the load is appropriate and that form is not compromised.

[Ashtar]

When it comes to difference in slow/fast twitch muscle fibres, and how training affects them (especially intermediate fibres, 2B wasn't it?) they talk about how endurance increases their ability to do that, whereas strength makes them do that. But is it a tradeoff, or can they just gain a net benefit altogether without tradeoffs (besides available training time and calories spent in training).

[AndyLeTerrible]

A lot of people take time to debunk the 'fat into muscle myth' but is there even anyone who believes that crap anymore? It seems like something that might have been necessary a decade ago maybe...
nah, lots of people still believe itttttt

[rock_eleven]

Hi Andy, I miss you a bit

[AndyLeTerrible]

yes the feeling is mutual, joseph. do you still go on msn much dear? i don't recall seeing you, perhaps you should say hello next time

[Ohlovely]

thanks for that compleks, real advice and everyone should read that, great work!

[Swartz]

3+ years later...

[ShApEsHiFt3r]

3+ years later...

I'm sitting here in front of my pc and thanking compleks for taking the time to make/find those articles, because I(sadly) completely believed in 3/4 out of those 10 myths even though I have been training for so long...

[Dave C]

That's why it's stickied, foos!

[Martial Way]

Wow, when I started reading that I didn't think it was going to be as extensive as it was. The first half was pretty basic but the second half had a lot of issues that I suppose I never really considered as being major issues in the fitness injury. Some I didn't even know were myths!! So yeah that was a really fun read! Thanks for posting.

The abs before legs thing at the end was good and so was the issue on squats all the way down will make your knee caps explode, ha!