Mind to muscle

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
This is a subject I enjoy. Here is a link to pubmed.com on it. If you don't want to go to the link, read directly under it.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26700744/


Abstract-


Purpose:

This study evaluates whether focusing on using specific muscles during bench press can selectively activate these muscles.


Methods:

Altogether 18 resistance-trained men participated. Subjects were
familiarized with the procedure and performed one-maximum repetition (1RM) test during the first session. In the second session, 3 different bench press conditions were performed with intensities of 20, 40, 50, 60 and 80 % of the pre-determined 1RM: regular bench press, and bench press focusing on selectively using the pectoralis major and triceps brachii, respectively. Surface electromyography (EMG) signals were recorded for the triceps brachii and pectoralis major muscles. Subsequently, peak EMG of the filtered signals were normalized to maximum maximorum EMG of each muscle.


Results:

In both muscles, focusing on using the respective muscles increased muscle activity at relative loads between 20 and 60 %, but not at 80 % of 1RM. Overall, a threshold between 60 and 80 % rather than a linear decrease in selective activation with increasing intensity appeared to exist. The increased activity did not occur at the expense of decreased activity of the other muscle, e.g. when focusing on activating the triceps muscle the activity of the pectoralis muscle did not decrease. On the contrary, focusing on using the triceps muscle also increased pectoralis EMG at 50 and 60 % of 1RM.


Conclusion:

Resistance-trained individuals can increase triceps brachii or
pectarilis major muscle activity during the bench press when focusing on using the specific muscle at intensities up to 60 % of 1RM. A threshold between 60 and 80 % appeared to exist.




I've gotten much better at it over the years using light to moderate weights. When I first started doing it I didn't realize I was even doing it. I was just concentrating on the contraction. Lats were the easiest for me to do in the beginning.


For anyone starting off I have found it's better to start off with isolation exercises. It's easier to focus on a single muscle rather than multiple with a compound movement. Pub Med says it can be achieved at 20% to 80% of our 1RM. Personally I feel it best from 40% to 60% at best guess. Too much weight and it becomes impossible to focus on the squeeze the whole way through the movement. Not enough and it doesn't do enough damage to stimulate proper growth.


I keep everything under control and focus on the squeeze. As the workout goes on and I'm using the same weight, my percentages will go down. If your not sure if you are doing it or not, you probably aren't. You know it when you got it.
 

rawdeal

Elite
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
1,613
Points
113
I hate that you're back. I said something like this about TUT in a post a few days ago, but you said it better. Go away.

#oldguysrule
 

brock8282

Elite
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
810
Reaction score
1,597
Points
0
I do agree that feeling a muscle is important. But there’s a lot I disagree with here. FIrst EMG readings mean absolutely nothing. If they did we’d all have huge quads by just doing leg extensions.

next new lifters should just focus on getting strong. They will be much better served focusing on progressing compound lifts then worrying about doing isolation movements and light weights trying to feel a muscle. No matter what you do, a bench press will work anterior delts, triceps, and chest. Go from benching 100lbs to 250 pounds and you will be noticeably bigger regardless of what you feel when you lift and those that go that route will be much further along then the guys doing isos and lighter work trying to squeeze a muscle. I’d worry more about trying to develop that in the intermediate stages.
 

dreamscraper

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
129
Reaction score
64
Points
0
The null hypothesis would be that there is no mind muscle connection. Then you perform an experiment to gather evidence in order to reject the null hypothesis. If you designed the experiment this way you wouldn't just be able to say there is threshold at 60%, done.

This reads to me, we know there is a mind to muscle connection and we are going to cherry pick evidence supporting this claim.

You could practically write this paper in reverse from the same "evidence".
Most lifts are done over 60% and our experiment shows there is no mind to muscle connection over 60%.
We conclude there is no mind to muscle connection.
 

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
I do agree that feeling a muscle is important. But there’s a lot I disagree with here. FIrst EMG readings mean absolutely nothing. If they did we’d all have huge quads by just doing leg extensions.

next new lifters should just focus on getting strong. They will be much better served focusing on progressing compound lifts then worrying about doing isolation movements and light weights trying to feel a muscle. No matter what you do, a bench press will work anterior delts, triceps, and chest. Go from benching 100lbs to 250 pounds and you will be noticeably bigger regardless of what you feel when you lift and those that go that route will be much further along then the guys doing isos and lighter work trying to squeeze a muscle. I’d worry more about trying to develop that in the intermediate stages.

I'm not seeing anywhere that this is for beginners. It's unfortunate you are unable to see my posts for what they are. You seem to try and find fault. Mind to muscle is a great advanced training principal. I see you are oldschool and believe that the only way to progress is heavy weights. There are a lot of guys out there that feel the same. What you should understand here is there is not one way to do things. Glad your way works for you but it's not everyone's way.

I do respect your opinion but there is more than one way to get things done.
 

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
The null hypothesis would be that there is no mind muscle connection. Then you perform an experiment to gather evidence in order to reject the null hypothesis. If you designed the experiment this way you wouldn't just be able to say there is threshold at 60%, done.

This reads to me, we know there is a mind to muscle connection and we are going to cherry pick evidence supporting this claim.

You could practically write this paper in reverse from the same "evidence".
Most lifts are done over 60% and our experiment shows there is no mind to muscle connection over 60%.
We conclude there is no mind to muscle connection.

I have never heard such a closed minded response to mind to muscle.

Just because your lifts are above 60%, doesn't mean everyone's is.

Ever try mixing it up?
 

brock8282

Elite
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
810
Reaction score
1,597
Points
0
I'm not seeing anywhere that this is for beginners. It's unfortunate you are unable to see my posts for what they are. You seem to try and find fault. Mind to muscle is a great advanced training principal. I see you are oldschool and believe that the only way to progress is heavy weights. There are a lot of guys out there that feel the same. What you should understand here is there is not one way to do things. Glad your way works for you but it's not everyone's way.

I do respect your opinion but there is more than one way to get things done.

my response was based exactly on and in disagreement to what you said you believe someone starting off should be doing. Starting off = beginner
 
Last edited:

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
my response was based exactly on and in disagreement to what you said you believe someone starting off should be doing. Starting off = beginner

No sir, you are wrong again. You have posted in three of my threads and have gotten two wrong.

On this one, the thread isn't about new people, it's about a mind to muscle connection. Hell, that's even the title.

Starting off= Giving mind to muscle a try. Do you think someone starting off is going to know their percentages right off the bat? It's the same paragraph as "starting off".

The other thread was about advanced training, "Training by feel". The second sentence in the thread says-

"This is something that works if you are advanced in your training"

This was your response-

"I don't want to come off as trying to disagree with you on everything HDH, but there's a lot of beginner and intermediate level people here so I just want to chime in."

Then you went on and explained it.

I told you I respected your opinion because I can see you know what it takes to put it on. But, I'm slowly losing that respect as you are just looking like a troll on my threads.

Have a good day sir and please take the time to read posts correctly before responding to them.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
32
Points
3
I have never heard such a closed minded response to mind to muscle.

Just because your lifts are above 60%, doesn't mean everyone's is.

Ever try mixing it up?

To be fair, if you're training for hypertrophy you're probably above that 60 percent. If I push weight at 60 % or lower my rep range will be definitely above 20 and not ideal for hypertrophy.
But I do believe strongly in mind muscle connection . And what helped me and how I help a few of my buddies is by filming them while training and showing them during the exercise what you should be focusing on.
For example at any chest press if ppl are just focusing on pressing the weights instead of squeezing you can almost always see the chest flattening out in the top part of the movement.
 

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
To be fair, if you're training for hypertrophy you're probably above that 60 percent. If I push weight at 60 % or lower my rep range will be definitely above 20 and not ideal for hypertrophy.
But I do believe strongly in mind muscle connection . And what helped me and how I help a few of my buddies is by filming them while training and showing them during the exercise what you should be focusing on.
For example at any chest press if ppl are just focusing on pressing the weights instead of squeezing you can almost always see the chest flattening out in the top part of the movement.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, are you saying you can't achieve hypertrophy below 60%?

Why do you think above 20 reps isn't ideal for hypertrophy? I understand if it's just an opinion.

I haven't tried to max weight out in years but my rep range goes over 20 reps quite a bit, sometimes 30 and even 40 depending on how bad my body is creaking. If I get to that many reps I put music on, get lost in it, keep everything slow and controlled, squeeze at the top then pump em out. I wouldn't suggest that many reps unless you have a good idea of when you have torn down the muscles enough.

I really do this stuff because of the many things that are wrong with me. I can't and don't do anything heavy anymore.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
32
Points
3
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, are you saying you can't achieve hypertrophy below 60%?

Why do you think above 20 reps isn't ideal for hypertrophy? I understand if it's just an opinion.

I haven't tried to max weight out in years but my rep range goes over 20 reps quite a bit, sometimes 30 and even 40 depending on how bad my body is creaking. If I get to that many reps I put music on, get lost in it, keep everything slow and controlled, squeeze at the top then pump em out. I wouldn't suggest that many reps unless you have a good idea of when you have torn down the muscles enough.

I really do this stuff because of the many things that are wrong with me. I can't and don't do anything heavy anymore.

I never said you can't achieve hypertrophy above 20 reps just said it's not ideal. And it's not a opinion if it's a subject that's been researched as much as this subject.
 

Adrenolin

Bad Daddy
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
3,477
Points
153
HDH signature pretty much says it all. My rep range stays in the 8-30 zone, more often then not in the 20-30 rep range. Slow your reps down and focus on the target muscle's contraction if you need them to do more "damage" to the target muscle in comparison to using a higher weight.
 

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
I never said you can't achieve hypertrophy above 20 reps just said it's not ideal. And it's not a opinion if it's a subject that's been researched as much as this subject.

Yes sir, I'm always up for learning something new. 90% of what I do is over 20 reps.

What makes them not ideal and maybe I can apply that to my training for improvement?

I'm a technical lifter and always look for better ways to improve.
 

HDH

Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
447
Points
83
HDH signature pretty much says it all. My rep range stays in the 8-30 zone, more often then not in the 20-30 rep range. Slow your reps down and focus on the target muscle's contraction if you need them to do more "damage" to the target muscle in comparison to using a higher weight.

Ya man, that slow and controlled allows for better mind to muscle. You can really feel the muscles fill to a pump. It also save's energy for me which allows for multiple sets without rest.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
32
Points
3
Yes sir, I'm always up for learning something new. 90% of what I do is over 20 reps.

What makes them not ideal and maybe I can apply that to my training for improvement?

I'm a technical lifter and always look for better ways to improve.

So I probably need to take my words back. This is a very interesting article about rep range and hypertrophy.

strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
If you don't want to read it all scroll down to the bottom and read the conclusion. Hypertrophy rep range is bigger than I thought it was.
 

Charger69

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
371
Reaction score
339
Points
43
The null hypothesis would be that there is no mind muscle connection. Then you perform an experiment to gather evidence in order to reject the null hypothesis. If you designed the experiment this way you wouldn't just be able to say there is threshold at 60%, done.

This reads to me, we know there is a mind to muscle connection and we are going to cherry pick evidence supporting this claim.

You could practically write this paper in reverse from the same "evidence".
Most lifts are done over 60% and our experiment shows there is no mind to muscle connection over 60%.
We conclude there is no mind to muscle connection.



I like the way you analyze things. I always look at the opposite too. The thing that had me puzzled was how they evaluated the extent of the mind influence. Where was a control group? To me, this study did provided more of a conclusion to the rep range than anything else.
With that being said, I do believe in the mind muscle connection...:: just that this study proved little to validate it.
As far as reps go. I did chest today and I used different rep ranges. It is rare that I just use one rep range across the board.
It seems the greater mind to muscle connection, the faster the lactic acid buildup. LOL
 

Charger69

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
371
Reaction score
339
Points
43
So I probably need to take my words back. This is a very interesting article about rep range and hypertrophy.

strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
If you don't want to read it all scroll down to the bottom and read the conclusion. Hypertrophy rep range is bigger than I thought it was.

The article says nothing about hypertrophy. You are making an assumption that electronic signals from the muscle mean increased hypertrophy.
I am not saying that it doesn’t, just that the study shows no proof of hypertrophy.
I look at studies critically because they take things totally out of context and make claims that are not supported.
I remember someone used a study of hundreds of people and said it was the largest study ever and it prooved that caloric intake doesn’t effect the los or gain of weight.
If you look at the study, the conclusion. Had nothing to do with the claim. Furthermore, the population used fir the study was post menopausal females in their 40’s only!!!! LOL.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
32
Points
3
The article says nothing about hypertrophy. You are making an assumption that electronic signals from the muscle mean increased hypertrophy.
I am not saying that it doesn’t, just that the study shows no proof of hypertrophy.
I look at studies critically because they take things totally out of context and make claims that are not supported.
I remember someone used a study of hundreds of people and said it was the largest study ever and it prooved that caloric intake doesn’t effect the los or gain of weight.
If you look at the study, the conclusion. Had nothing to do with the claim. Furthermore, the population used fir the study was post menopausal females in their 40’s only!!!! LOL.

It's referring to 20 different studies and some of them referring to increase in muscle size which sounds like hypertrophy in my ears. And i can't recall reading anything about electronic signals. Especially if you click the links in the article where he goes a bit deeper in the studies.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
32
Points
3
Pooling all the studies together, high reps caused measures of muscle size to increase by 9.17±5.10% on average. Before adjusting for differences in sets and rest periods, moderate reps in those same studies caused measures of muscle size to increase by 12.00% on average. After adjustments, moderate reps caused a 10.67±8.5% increase. Neither of those increases were significantly different from those caused by high reps. (The p = 0.15 for unadjusted, and p = 0.32 for adjusted values; one-tailed t-test.

To me the measures in muscles size is referring to hypertrophy
 

Charger69

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
371
Reaction score
339
Points
43
Pooling all the studies together, high reps caused measures of muscle size to increase by 9.17±5.10% on average. Before adjusting for differences in sets and rest periods, moderate reps in those same studies caused measures of muscle size to increase by 12.00% on average. After adjustments, moderate reps caused a 10.67±8.5% increase. Neither of those increases were significantly different from those caused by high reps. (The p = 0.15 for unadjusted, and p = 0.32 for adjusted values; one-tailed t-test.

To me the measures in muscles size is referring to hypertrophy

I just read the pub med study that was linked and my comments weee all based solely on that study ..
The other ones may substantiate that. Just one word of caution....: when you have a tolerance greater than 1/2 of the nominal value, be careful at arriving to conclusions... that means the data was all over the place. 10+|- 8.5 is a huge range.
Once again, not drawing a conclusion because I didn’t read the other articles.
I agree muscle size is hypertrophy. I would be silly if I didn’t agree.
 
Top