The Physics of Fitness

Chapter Thirteen
Peripheral Recruitment
Comparing Compound and Isolation Exercises

For decades, the conventional wisdom among many in the fitness and
bodybuilding communities has been that compound exercises build
power and mass, and that isolation exercises are only for “shaping”.

Many trainers and physical therapists believe that compound

exercises are more “functional” than isolation exercises. The
suggestion is that strength gained from compound exercises is more
useful in day-to-day life, than strength gained from isolation
exercises.

Some have even suggested that isolation exercises are

“dysfunctional” - meaning that they have a higher risk of injury, or
cause of a loss of coordination.

Some believe that compound exercises “save time”, because they

work three or four muscle groups at one time, as compared with
isolation exercises, which only work one or two muscles at a time.

This chapter evaluates these beliefs.

- - - - - -

In the previous chapter, we defined a “Compound Exercise” as an exercise that involves

multiple joints and muscles (typically three or more) simultaneously. An Isolation
Exercise is defined as an exercise that typically involves one or two muscles and one
joint. An exercise that involves two joints could go either way, depending on the

1
complexity of the movement. But, as you’ll see, all of this could be considered rather
arbitrary.

Exercises that are commonly referred to as Compound Exercises include Squats,

Deadlifts, Parallel Bar Dips, Chin-Ups, Push-Ups, Bench Press, “Dead Hang Cleans”,
Bent Over Barbell Row, etc..

Exercises that are commonly referred to as Isolation Exercises include Standing Barbell
Curls, Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extensions, Leg Extensions (on machine), Standing
Side Dumbbell Raises, etc..

Assertions
Here are the four primary assertions typically used in support of Compound Exercises.

1. Compound Exercises produce more power and build more muscle mass, than
Isolation Exercises.

2. Compound Exercises are more “functional” - producing strength that is more useful
(applicable) in day-to-day life - than Isolation Exercises.

3. Isolation Exercises are “dysfunctional” - they do not produce strength that is useful in
day-to-day life and they have a higher risk of injury because the body was “not designed
to function in isolation”.

4. Compound Exercises save time, because they work multiple muscles at one time,
instead of just one or two - as would be case with Isolation Exercises.

Reality Check
In brief, here is the “short answer” to each of these assertions.

1. Each muscle that participates during a Compound Exercise works in its “own world”.
It performs its unique function - “unaware” of whether it is working alone, or as one of
several muscles working simultaneously.

If a muscle is working at maximum capacity, with full range of motion, it will derive full
benefit from that effort, whether that muscle is working alone (during an Isolation
Exercise), or in unison with other muscles (during a compound Exercise).

The factors that determine how good the “muscle stimulation” is during an exercise,
include the following: 1) full range of motion; 2) how similar the movement mimics that
muscle’s ideal anatomical function; 3) whether the load is providing an “ideal
resistance curve” for that muscle; and 4) whether that muscle is getting a sufficient
load / fatigue.

2
How much total weight is being moved during a Compound Exercise - as a unified effort
provided by several participating muscles - is irrelevant. This is especially true when
one considers that most Compound Exercises often utilize inefficient levers (i.e., levers
that are not fully perpendicular with resistance, and / or levers that are reduced in their
effective length by a secondary lever).

Also, not all muscles that contribute effort during a Compound Exercise are working at
their maximum capacity. Some muscles work more, and some work less - as a
percentage of their maximum ability.

The degree to which each participating muscle works - during a Compound Exercise -
does not necessarily coincide with that person’s goals. In other words, a muscle that is
working MOST during a compound exercise, may NOT be the muscle that person most
wants to prioritize. And a muscle that person may want to most prioritize, may be the
muscle that is working the LEAST.

There is no such thing as “mass building” exercises and “shaping” exercises. A muscle
grows larger when it is worked with sufficient load and intensity, regardless of which
“type” of exercise provides that load. A individual muscle could be loaded more during
an Isolation Exercise, than it could be from a Compound Exercise. So, the belief that
Compound Exercises build mass, and Isolation Exercises build “shape”, is absolute
non-sense.

2. Proponents of Compound Exercise sometimes argue that “life is not an isolated

exercise”, and that is why Compound Exercises are “better”. However, the fact that
tasks in life often involves multiple muscles working simultaneously, does not require
that muscles be strengthened in “groups”. The strength that individual muscles gain by
way of Isolation Exercises can certainly be used in day-to-day tasks, in coordination
with other muscles.

A person who consistently performs a Compound Exercise, will improve his coordination
in that particular exercise. This is sometimes confused as “functional strength”. The
coordination (skill) gained from a particular exercise would mainly be useful during
motions that are similar to that particular compound lift - thereby utilizing the
coordination gained from that exercise. But that does not mean that the strength gained
by individual muscles during a Compound Exercise is somehow “better” - or more useful
- than strength gained by Isolation Exercises.

For example, the coordination that is gained during “Dead Hang Cleans” (shown
below) would not be so useful during daily activities, unless those daily activities
resemble Dead Hang Cleans. And the strength gained during Dead Hang Cleans can
easily be gained by using other exercises, involving the individual muscles that
participate during Dead Hang Cleans - with less risk of injury.

3
Suggesting that a person who does mostly Compound Exercises, will be more capable
of handling day-to-day activities, as compared with a person who does mostly Isolation
Exercises, is illogical. The body can easily coordinate the strength of all its muscles,
regardless of how that strength was gained.

3. The assertions that Isolation Exercises may “cause” dysfunction (the loss of
coordination) and that Isolation Exercises pose a higher risk of injury, are both false. In
terms of injury risk, the opposite is more likely to be true.

A movement that has more moving parts (i.e., like a Compound Exercise) and which
often requires the use of one’s bodyweight (i.e., does not offer the option of using a
resistance level that is less than bodyweight), would naturally have the higher injury risk.

Isolation Exercises - by definition - are exercise that are designed to follow the exact
motion of a particular muscle and its joint, and would therefore produce a more natural
movement for that particular muscle and joint. Conversely, an exercise that involves the
participation of several muscles and joints, may be safe for one or two muscles and
joints, but not necessarily for all participating muscles and joints - as we’ll soon see.

There is no evidence - not even empirical evidence - that Isolation Exercises result in a
loss of coordination. In my 40 years “in the trenches”, I have yet to see anyone become
less coordinated because they used isolation exercises. What exactly is meant by this
assertion? - that a person may become “spastic” (experience a loss of motor skills / loss
of muscle control), because - although they exercised all of their muscles - they did so
“one muscle at a time”? That would be a ridiculous assertion.

4
I have used mostly Isolation Exercises my entire career (40+ years), and have gotten
only positive results. Conversely, many of my contemporaries (who relied heavily on
Compound Exercises) have had numerous orthopedic surgeries, including shoulder
reconstruction, hip and knee replacements, spinal fusion, etc.. I am still competing in
bodybuilding at the age of 56, without any injuries or joint pain. I can also still play
basketball, dance, swim, and do any of the other activities I did when I was younger.

4. In terms of saving time, this would be true if (and only if) each muscle participating
in a Compound Exercise receives the same quality of muscle stimulation as could be
achieved with separate Isolation Exercises. If that were the case, it would eliminate the
need to do any additional exercise for those participating muscles. But that is
absolutely NOT the case.

Most bodybuilders who do Compound Exercises, ALSO do separate exercises for those
individual muscles. In other words, while multiple muscles may be participating in a
Compound Exercise, the participation of each of those muscles is generally not “good
enough” to qualify as the only exercise for those individual muscles. Those muscles still
require another (better) exercise.

On the other hand, a person who does one “good” Isolation Exercise for each primary
skeletal muscle, does NOT need to do an additional exercise for those particular
muscles. Therefore, the person saving time is the one who does only the Isolation
Exercises.

Of course, if a person is content only getting 40%, 50% or 60% as good a stimulation
per muscle, during a Compound Exercise, as compared with an Isolation Exercise -
than that person might consider the Compound Exercise a “time saver”. However, most
bodybuilders want 100% benefit for each muscle, and most Compound Exercises do
NOT deliver 100% benefit to each participating muscle.

For the person who wants optimal results - in terms of muscular development - doing
Compound Exercises would be an unnecessary waste of time and effort.

Comparing the Effectiveness of a

Compound Exercise versus an Isolation Exercise

To be clear, the comparison we’ll be making here, is between Compound and Isolation
exercises, for the primary purpose of muscular development.

Training for physique development is not a purely cosmetic pursuit. It is impossible to

make a muscle larger, without making it stronger. The process by which a muscle is
visibly developed requires the loading of that muscle, and then causing that muscle to

5
stretch and contract against that load. A muscle naturally increases its strength in that
process. It is inevitable.

Stretching and contracting a muscle against an opposing resistance does not require
that a group of muscles be worked simultaneously. In fact, it is easier to focus on the
deliberate stretching and contracting of a muscle, against resistance, when the person
is able to isolate that muscle’s primary function.

In the chapters that preceded this one, we learned that a number of physics-related
factors influence how much load is placed on a given muscle, regardless of the actual
weight being lifted. These factors include lever length, lever position (relative to
resistance), the position of a secondary lever, alignment and mechanical disadvantage.
These factors can cause a muscle to be loaded more, even though the weight being
lifted is not “impressive”. These factors can also cause a muscle to be loaded less,
even the weight being lifted is “impressive”.

For example, we demonstrated how a Triceps can be loaded with only 119 pounds of
resistance, when a 180 pound man performs Parallel Bar Dips. Then we demonstrated
how a Triceps can be loaded with 240 pounds of resistance when a person performs a
Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extension using a pair of 20 pound dumbbells (40 pounds
total). More weight being used does NOT automatically translate to a muscle being
loaded more.

So the question we must ask ourselves, in order to adequately compare exercises, is

this: “What are the bio-mechanical factors that most contribute to muscle
growth?”.

These bio-mechanical factors can then be used as a “check list” for evaluating the load,
efficiency and productivity of any exercise. Without this knowledge, one would be
relegated to judging the productivity of an exercise ONLY by the total amount of weight
lifted - which is a grossly inaccurate method of evaluation.

Here are the bio-mechanical factors that most contribute to muscle growth, efficiency
(amount of weight moved versus amount of load on the target muscle) and movement
safety:

1. Direction of Movement: Ideally, a muscle should pull its operating lever directly
toward its origin. Thus, a “good” exercise would provide a “pathway of movement”
that allows the operating lever to move directly away from, and then directly toward, the
origin of a target muscle. This produces maximum muscle lengthening (stretch) and
muscle shortening (contraction). The more the movement of an exercise resembles a
given muscle’s primary action, the more stimulation that muscle is likely to experience.

2. Range of Movement: Ideally, an exercise should provide a mostly full “range of

motion” for the target muscle. Full Range of Motion is more productive than “Isometric”
contraction, and more productive than partial Range of Motion.

6
3. Alignment & Opposite Position Loading: The direction of resistance for a
muscle should be on the same plain as the direction of movement. The resistance
should originate from a point that is directly opposite the target muscle’s origin. The
muscle origin and insertion of the target muscle should be on the same plane as the
movement and the resistance. This would provide the most efficient delivery of the load
to the target muscle (i.e., the least amount of misdirected resistance), and would also
minimize the risk of injury.

4. Resistance Curve: Ideally, the direction of resistance would provide “early

phase loading” to the target muscle - “heavier” at the beginning of the movement, and
“lighter” at the end of the movement.

5. Ideally, an exercise would utilize a mostly “active” lever (the limb interacting
perpendicularly with the direction of resistance) during the range of motion. This would
load a greater percentage of the resistance being used, onto the target muscle -
requiring less wasted effort.

6. Ideally, an exercise would allow for natural joint motion - without any unnecessary
joint contortion, spinal compression or tendon / bursa impingement.

7. Ideally, an exercise should provide relief from any “mechanical disadvantage”,

where ever it may present a heightened risk of injury. In other words, where mechanical
disadvantage would occur, relief in the form of a less perpendicular operating lever,
would be employed.

8. Ideally, an exercise should be performed with deliberate muscle force, rather than
with momentum (“swinging” / “cheating”).

- - - - - - - - - -
The amount of weight being lifted during an exercise matters, but not at the exclusion of
the above criteria. Lifting weights that are very heavy, while not complying with the
above factors, will still lead to some muscle loading and growth - but not in the most
efficient manner possible, and with a much higher injury risk. The “cost” (energy
required and injury risk exposure) will be higher, and the benefit is likely to be lower.

When evaluating a Compound Exercise, we should look at every lever (limb) that is
involved in the movement. We can readily see which ones interact perpendicularly with
gravity, and to what degree they do so. We can then determine whether our priority
muscles are most loaded, or the non-priority muscles are more loaded (once we are
familiar with the musculoskeletal system….chapters 18 through 25).

Very often - during a Compound Exercise - a muscle that we do not want to emphasize
is more loaded than is our target muscle. For example, when doing Parallel Bar Dips,

7
the Anterior Deltoids are most loaded - more so than the Pecs or Triceps. Yet, no one
does Parallel Bar Dips with the goal of working their Anterior Deltoids.

As another example - during (any kind of) Leg Raises, the Hip Flexors are working
much harder than are the Abs. And yet another example - when doing a Bent Over
Barbell Row, the Lower Back and Posterior Deltoids are more loaded than are the Lats
or middle Trapezius. During these (and other) Compound Exercises, the benefit is
compromised, while the injury risk and the energy cost are elevated.

When evaluating an exercise - whether it’s a Compound Exercise or an Isolation

Exercise - we should do so without any bias. We must be like a jury in a courtroom that
looks only at the facts. We must ignore any preconceived notions or traditional beliefs
that exist about an exercise. Then, we can evaluate what each lever (limb) is doing,
and determine whether the mechanics of that exercise are favorable or not.

- - - - - - - -

What Is Peripheral Recruitment ?

Peripheral Recruitment refers to muscles that participate during a given exercise, but
may not be the primary “target” of that exercise. Peripheral Recruitment happens
during all Compound Exercises, but it also occurs during many Isolation Exercises.
Sometimes the peripheral recruitment that occurs during an exercise is acceptable, and
sometimes it is problematic.

As an example, let’s look at the Standing Barbell Curl. It is generally considered an

“Isolation Exercise” for the Biceps. However, the Biceps are not the only muscle that is
working. The Lower Back (Erector Spinae) is also working, because it is preventing the
person from falling forward, while the Biceps bend the elbows. The Erector Spinae are
working isometrically, while the Biceps are working dynamically. In addition, the
Glutes and Hamstrings are also participating - “peripherally” - in maintaining posture,
during this exercise. All of this is acceptable.

However, when a person does a Hanging Leg Raise, the circumstances are not
acceptable. A person typically holds onto a Chinning Bar with their arms straight. Then,
both knees are brought up toward the chest (below-left), or the exercise is done with
straight legs (below-right).

8
The intended “target” of this exercise is the Abs (i.e., Rectus abdominus), but there are
a number of other muscles that are being “peripherally recruited”. The muscles of the
hands, and of the forearms, are working isometrically - holding tension without
movement. The hip flexors are working quite a lot - dynamically. The Quadriceps are
working to a degree (more so when the legs are straight) - Isometrically. In addition to
these muscles participating, there may also be a degree of strain to the shoulder joint.

A proponent of Compound Exercise would argue that a Hanging Leg Raise is “good”,
because it is working a number of different muscles. They would suggest that this
saves time, and also creates a greater caloric demand, as compared with doing an
isolated abdominal exercise. That may SOUND appealing. However, upon closer
inspection, we’ll see that the Hanging Leg Raise has some serious problems.

The muscle that is working the most, during Hanging Leg Raises, is the Hip Flexor
group, and that is not likely the muscle you want to prioritize. The muscles of the hands
and forearms are working, but not necessarily in a way that is productive. If your
objective is to visibly develop the forearm muscles, you will need to do “wrist flexion”
and “wrist extension”. The Abs are mostly producing isometric tension - which causes
fatigue (i.e., a burning sensation), but is not nearly as productive as dynamic Abdominal
contraction (i.e., “Crunches”).

When analyzing any exercise, one of the primary questions to ask ourselves is this:
“Is the insertion of my target muscle being moved toward the origin of that
muscle?”. In regard to Hanging Leg Raises, the question could be asked more
specifically: “Is the pubic bone being moved toward the base of the ribcage?”. That
would produce “spinal flexion”, which is the the primary function of the Abs. But, clearly
there is less spinal flexion occurring - during this exercise - than there is hip flexion.

9
And understandably so. It is nearly impossible to focus on spinal flexion, while trying to
lift the weight of the legs.

Yes - the “Hanging Leg Raise” is a Compound Exercise, but it’s mostly a waste of time
and energy. The “cost” is far too high, and the benefit is much too low.

Note: The use of straps (attached to the chin-up bar, by which a person can then support their
bodyweight without the use of their hands) does eliminates the potential hand and forearm strain.
However, these straps do not change the fact that the Hip Flexors are working significantly more than are
the Abs.

Conversely, a standard Ab Crunch (shown below) is considered an Isolation Exercise,

and it’s much more effective for developing the Rectus abdominis (the Abs). It loads the
Abs better - without the shoulder strain, hand and finger strain, and forearm strain. It
does not waste energy unproductively by engaging the hip flexors, and does not
produce “Abs interference” caused by engaging the Hip Flexors at the same time as
the Abs contraction (this will be explained in Chapters 23 and 24). It also allows a
dynamic, full elongation and full contraction, of the target muscle (the Abs).

Proponents of Compound Exercise often recommend Planks (shown below) as a

“better” alternative to Ab Crunches. They would say that Planks is a “Compound
Exercise”, and that it’s good because it involves the Hip Flexors and Quadriceps, as

10
well as the Abs. Again, this may sound good, but it’s not exactly accurate, and not
exactly good.

Yes, Planks do “involve” the Hip Flexors and Quadriceps, as well as the Abs, but not in
a very productive way. Muscle tension without movement is “Isometric”, which has been
proven to be less productive (for most purposes) than dynamic muscle tension - with
movement. So, actually, none of the muscles that are participating in Planks are getting
as much benefit as they would get if the person were to work them each of those
muscles separately, using dynamic exercises: knee extension for the Quads, spinal
flexion for the Abs, and hip flexion for the hip flexors.

- - - - - - - - -
In Chapter 2, we discussed “Active Levers and Neutral Levers”. We talked about how
the standard Barbell Squat causes the Tibia to barely arrive at an angle that is
approximately 30 degrees from the “neutral” (vertical) position. This means that only
about 30% of the “available resistance” is loading the Quadriceps - while 100% of the
weight that is on your back is pushing downward on the spine.

11
Conversely, you could do Cable Squats (shown below) using half as much weight - load
your Quadriceps with as much resistance as Barbell Squats (with twice the weight) -
and NOT have a metal bar pressing straight downward on your spine. The only
difference is the source and the direction of resistance. The general movement is the
same.

Both of these exercises are a type of “Squats”, so both are Compound Exercises. Both
exercises involve the same joints and the same muscles. However, the average person
is more likely to choose Barbell Squats, over Cable Squats, because he (or she) is able
to use more weight. That choice would be based more on ego than on actual exercise
value.

What this tells us, is that people often conflate the concept of a “multi-joint / multi-
muscle exercise” with the concept of performing an exercise that allows a heavy weight
to be used. People seem to favor Compound Exercises, in part, because they
associate them more by the use of heavy weight, than they do with the fact that they are
multi-joint /multi-muscle exercises. This is misguided thinking, if the goal is general
fitness and physique development.

The two versions of Squats depicted above require the exact same motion, and involve
the same joints and muscles. The only difference is the direction of resistance, and
therefore the percentage of the resistance which loads the Quads, the Glutes and the
Erector spinae. Yet, because Cable Squats are more efficient (they force us to use a
lighter weight), people question whether it’s a “Compound Exercise”. In fact, it is a
better (and safer) Compound Exercise, for the purpose of working the Quadriceps,
Glutes and Adductors.

It’s a mistake to regard ALL Compound Exercises as either “good” or “bad”. It depends
entirely on the mechanics of each individual exercise.

12
Regular Squats - without the addition of a holding a barbell on one’s shoulders - is
generally a very good Compound Exercise. The fact that the Tibia only interacts with
gravity at an angle of about 30 degrees from neutral, is fine - especially for the person
who finds bodyweight Squats challenging enough. But once the user finds it
necessary to add resistance, it’s a mistake to load the additional weight on the spine.

The better angle by which to do it is with a slightly frontward-pulling Cable. This does
not convert Squats into an Isolation Exercise. It is still a Compound Exercise, but with a
more productive, more efficient, direction of additional resistance.

The ability to use a heavier weight, should NOT be the deciding factor in regard to
exercise selection, when the goal is muscle building or general fitness. The better
choice would be the exercise which provides the same “net” load to the target muscles,
but with less “cost” - less energy spent, less load on non-target muscles, and less
skeletal strain.

- - - - - - - - - -
Using a “Heavy Weight” Is NOT Always Better

As mentioned above, people often justify their preference of Compound Exercises by

using the claim that they are able to use more weight. Thus, the concept of an
exercises that allows the use of a “heavy weight”, and the concept of a “Compound
Exercise”, are often melded into one. But, from a mechanical perspective, there are a
number of ways to LIFT a heavy weight, without the participating muscles being any
more loaded than they would be when using different mechanics.

In the photo below, we see a large, metal safe (box) being lifted, with the help of a Pry
Bar. Clearly, these two men are not extraordinarily muscular - so it’s reasonable to
assume that they’re not exceptionally strong. In fact, it’s safe to assume that they would
not be able to move that safe WITHOUT the Pry Bar. It would be foolish for these two
men to believe that the advantage gained by using the Pry Bar (which allows them to lift
a heavier object), is benefitting their muscles more, than it would be if they tried to lift a
lighter object, without the advantage of a Pry Bar.

13
So it is with exercise mechanics. Lifting a very heavy weight with inefficient levers,
allows one to appear stronger (allowing them to lift a heavier weight), than lifting a
lighter weight with efficient levers. But it does NOT mean that the participating muscles
are working any harder than they would, if they lifted a lighter weight with more efficient
levers.

When we do Barbell Squats and Leg Presses, the levers involved are magnifying the
resistance LESS - because of the angle of the Tibia in relation to the direction of
resistance. That angle allows more weight to be moved. But, moving more weight does
NOT automatically translate to loading the target muscles more.

As was discussed in the previous chapter, most of us have a subconscious bias in favor
of using exercises that allow us to use a heavy weight, because it fools us into believing
that we are “very strong.” How many of us have had a friend take a photo while we’re
doing a set of very heavy Squats, or a set of very heavy Leg Presses - and then posted
them on our Facebook or Instagram? This is self-deception. In fact, we can load our
Quadriceps and our Gluteus with as much (or more) resistance, USING LESS WEIGHT,
but with more efficient mechanics (better exercises).

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that we are “super strong”, nor concern ourselves
with how strong we are perceived to be. Let us only concern ourselves with training
efficiently and avoiding the unnecessary risk of using more weight than is necessary.

14
Weight training WILL make us significantly stronger. We’ll gain plenty of strength for
daily activities and sports. Don’t assume that abstaining from exercises which allow you
to use a heavy weight, will stifle your strength gains. Strength is gained whenever a
muscle is made to work hard, regardless of how much weight is actually being used.

- - - - - - - - -
As mentioned above, one of the 8 bio-mechanical factors that most contributes to
muscle growth, is how closely an exercise’s movement resembles a target muscle’s
ideal anatomical motion.

The Pectoralis major moves the humerus toward its various points of origin, which are
located mostly on the sternum. A small percentage are located on the ribs (the “costal”
fibers) and another small percentage is located on the medial part of the clavicles (the
“clavicular” fibers). For this reason, a “good” Pectoral exercise would produce a
movement that moves the humerus parallel to those fibers, and toward those muscle
fiber origins (arrows below).

Given this knowledge, let us compare Parallel Bar Dips and Decline Cable Press -
and see which one allows a better anatomical movement for the “Sternal” and “Costal”
Pectoral fibers.

In the comparison photos below left (both photos on side “A”) - you can see the
conclusion of both exercises (Parallel Bar Dips and Decline Cable Press). On the
right (both photos on side “B”) - you can see the beginning of both exercises.

15
Notice that the Decline Cable Press provides a direction of resistance that moves
parallel with the Pectoral fibers. This allows a movement (of the humerus) that starts
from an “outside” angle, and moves INWARD, toward the center - toward the Pectoral
origins. In contrast, the movement of the humerus during Parallel Bar Dips runs
vertical - in a straight downward direction. This downward movement is not toward the
Pectoral origins. So, although the Pectorals participate during Parallel Bar Dips, the

16
movement does not mimic the ideal humeral motion of the Pectorals - which is inward,
toward the Pectoral origins.

Of course, “traditionalists” favor Parallel Bar Dips - over the Cable exercise - because it
is regarded as a compound exercise. But you can clearly see that is not as good in its
effectiveness for Pectorals contraction.

Yes, Parallel Bar Dips involve “other” muscles - but not very productively. It loads the
Triceps, but with only about half as much resistance as a simple Supine Dumbbell
Triceps Extension would (due to the mostly vertical forearm). Parallel Bar Dips also
load the Anterior Deltoid - too much, actually, and with excessive stretch and insufficient
range of motion on the contraction end.

Should we favor this Compound Exercise (Parallel Bar Dips) because it works multiple
muscles, even though none of the three muscles involved are working as well as they
each could work while doing other, more isolated exercises? Do we accept the
inadequate Pectoral contraction, the inefficient load on the Triceps, and the risk of
Anterior Deltoid injury (plus its compromised benefit to the Anterior Deltoids), and ignore
the fact that it forces us to use bodyweight (possibly too much) - JUST because it’s a
“Compound Exercise”?

- - - - - - - - -
The Bench Press is considered a “foundational” exercise by many people, and is one
of the most popular Compound Exercises. It works mostly the Pectorals, along with the
Triceps and the Anterior Deltoids. In addition to being used for the purpose of muscular
development, it is also considered a “strength builder”. But, how does it compare with
other similar exercises, in terms of safety, effectiveness and efficiency?

17
From the standpoint of developing the Pectoral muscles, the range of motion is
obviously not as good as an exercise which allows the hands to come together in the
center (above the chest). That would allow for a more complete contraction of the Pecs
- a full range of motion. Also, since both arms are sharing the same instrument, each
arm is not working independently - so there is a loss of “cross over” benefit as well.

Of course, we often see men with well developed Pectorals and Triceps, performing this
exercise. But, this is not evidence that Bench Press is an “excellent” exercise for
muscle building - as compared with other exercises. We can easily identify the flaws in
the mechanics of a Bench Press - in regard to lack Pectoral contraction and insufficient
range of motion for the Triceps.

We also know that most muscular people typically do other Pectoral exercises, in
addition to Bench Presses, and other Triceps exercises. So, in reality, what we are
seeing is a person who has done the Bench Press as only one of many exercises. We
then make the assumption that the Bench Press was responsible for his superior
Pectoral development.

Imagine that we conducted an experiment which involved two people with the exact
same genetics. “Person # 1” does only Bench Press, and “Person # 2” does only Flat
Bench Dumbbell Press and Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extensions. What we would
discover is that Person # 2 achieved better Pectoral and Triceps development, as
compared with Person #1. There is no muscular benefit that is achieved by doing the
Bench Press, that cannot be achieved more successfully with other exercises.

Some people do the Bench Press, because they believe it “builds more power” than
using dumbbells. It allows them to “measure” their strength - and compare it to others.

The Bench Press has been regarded as a standard “barometer” of strength, for many
years. The statistics below - provided by The American College of Sports Medicine -
references how much weight men “should” be able to Bench Press. This depends on
several factors, which include their age and their “condition level”, in relation to their
bodyweight. 50th percentile is considered “average”. 70th percentile is considered “very
good”. 90th percentile is considered “excellent”. These stats are for a ONE REP MAX,
meaning that it’s an all-out effort, for only one repetition.

18
So, according to this chart, a 50-year old man “should” be able to Bench Press 150
pounds, if his bodyweight is 200 pounds. A 25-year old man “should” be able to Bench
Press 296 pounds, if his bodyweight is 200 pounds.

As stated in the previous chapter, people seem to care quite a bit (far more than they
should, in my opinion) on how their strength in this one lift, compares with the strength
of others.

Frankly, I would say that the American College of Sports Medicine should not be
making recommendation about how much weight a man “should” be able to Bench
Press. That might be more the realm of the Strength & Conditioning Association,
given that they’re more dedicated to the Power Lifts and the power sports, like Football.
Recommending that people perform the Bench Press at all - given it’s potential risk
when a heavy weight is used - is somewhat irresponsible. And suggesting that men
reach for a heavier Bench Press, so they can qualify as “acceptable” is even more
irresponsible. “Exercise” should not be about maximum amount of weight lifted, as
much as it should be about optimal health, optimal development and safety.

It’s not as common now, as it was in years past - but the standard question to ask
someone who apparently “lifted weights” was “How much do you Bench Press?”, or
more simply “How much do you Bench?”.

I always thought that was such a ridiculous question, because it’s only one exercise,
which only involves (primarily) two muscles - the Pectorals and the Triceps. Why would
that one exercise be used to represent anyone’s “total strength”? And - since I was a
bodybuilder - “Why would it matter how much I Bench Press?”.

In addition to placing too much emphasis on “power” (assuming one’s goal is physique
development, optimal health and overall fitness), it’s also extremely difficult to account
for different anatomical structures. Taller people with longer arms will have more
difficulty, than shorter people with shorter arms. This is due to the increased
magnification effect of longer levers.

There are also several categories of “somatotypes” (anatomical frame size and muscle
type - “fast twitch” / explosive versus “slow twitch” / endurance), as well as various
endocrine (hormone) levels. These factors all play a role in determining the amount of
weight a person is able to lift. So, concerning ourselves with whether we are able to
meet a certain “strength standard” (i.e., amount of weight lifted, as a “one rep max”), is
rather foolish - unless we are competing in Power Lifting.

If our goal is muscular development, we never need to perform a ONE REPETITION

MAXIMUM lift, of any kind. It’s completely unproductive for the goal of muscular
development. The lowest number of reps that is likely to be “productive” for muscle
growth is 4, although - realistically - it’s probably closer to 6. Meaning that doing an
exercise with a weight that is heavy enough to only allow four to six repetitions, is the
heaviest we ever need to use, for the purpose of muscular development. Fewer reps

19
than that, with heavier weight, produces less muscular growth, with a much higher risk
of injury.
- - - - - - - - - -
Unfortunately, given our society’s obsession with extraordinary strength, some people
feel a need to know how their “strength” compares with the strength of others.
Certainly, it’s important to have enough strength for practical purposes. However,
having more strength than your gym buddy is largely irrelevant, once your strength level
reaches a reasonable level. Unless a person is competing in Power Lifting, and there
are monetary rewards at stake, being MUCH stronger than most other people has very
little practical value beyond ego gratification. Plus, the pursuit of “awesome” strength is
NOT without consequence. There is a price to be paid, in terms of injury risk and joint
health, and those consequences may last a lifetime.

Both bodybuilders shown below, tore their right Pectoral muscle - as evidenced by the
deformity. As mentioned in Chapter 3, there is a tremendous mechanical
disadvantage that occurs in the fully descended position of the Bench Press. That
mechanical disadvantage is made much more dangerous by the effort to lift the heaviest
weight possible, for one repetition. What would the “upside” be to taking that risk?
Gaining the admiration of a few friends in the gym is hardly worth the possibility of a life-
altering injury.

The other potential consequence of doing a very heavy Bench Press, is illustrated
below. This injury is called “Anterior Dislocation of the Humerus”.

20
The illustration above-left, shows a normal shoulder joint. The humeral head sits
comfortably in the Glenoid socket. The illustration above-right shows the humeral head
pulled forward, out of the Glenoid socket.

When doing a Bench Press, and the barbell is at the level of the chest (or close to it),
the Pectoral muscle is pulling the humerus mostly “inward” - toward the sternum -
because that is where the Pectoral origins are situated. As you can see below, this
causes the Pectoral muscle to pull on the humerus from an almost completely parallel
angle. This mechanical disadvantage dramatically increases the force required, such
that the Pectoral muscle can actually pull the humeral head forward - out of the Glenoid
socket.

21
If the humeral head is pulled forward, all the tendons that are attached to the humerus -
the Infraspinatus, Teres major, Latissimus, Posterior Deltoid and Lateral Deltoid - all get
pulled forward too. Some of these tendons may rupture, as a result of being pulled
beyond their stretch capacity. So, the remedy for this type of injury may not simply
putting the humeral head back in place.

Needless to say, this type of injury would be extremely painful, and would likely result in
some degree of permanent shoulder pain and dysfunction, for the rest of that person’s
life - even after surgical repair.

The Bench Press can be used safely, with some degree of benefit, when using
moderate weight - but it is still not an especially “good” exercise for physique
development. There are better Pectoral exercises, and there are better Triceps
exercises.

This is not an indictment of the Bench Press. However, this is another example of a
popular Compound Exercise, which is not as “good” as we’ve been lead to believe,
when examined bio-mechanically.

- - - - - - - - -

22
The exercise below - known as the Deadlift - is perhaps the most revered of all the
Compound Exercises. It has often been referred to as a “foundational” exercise. Let’s
examine this exercise a bit more closely, and see what’s good about it, and what’s not.

In the starting position (above-left), we can see that the torso is in a mostly horizontal
position - perpendicular to gravity. Therefore, the torso (as a lever) is mostly (or
completely) “active” - once the weight is lifted off the floor. The muscles which operate
the torso-lever, would be fully loaded. This would include mostly the Erector Spinae and
the Gluteus. The Adductors would also be engaged to a degree, from this position.

The lower leg (the Tibia) is mostly vertical - mostly parallel with gravity - and therefore
mostly neutral.

The dynamic movement is mostly a Hip Extension. The hip joint is the primary “pivot” in
this movement, and it is crossed by the Gluteus maximus and the Adductors.
Therefore, the majority of the dynamic work is performed by the Gluteus and the
Adductors. The Erector Spinae are certainly working, but mostly isometrically. They are
preventing the front-loaded spine from folding forward. The Quadriceps operate the
lower leg, and - since the lower legs are mostly parallel with gravity - the Quadriceps are
not loaded very much by this movement.

23
So, we have an exercise that works mostly the Glutes and Adductors, although there
are better Glute and Adductor exercises. It isometrically loads the Erector spinae -
excessively so, if the weight being used is very heavy. It compresses the spine when
we reach the upright position - for which there is no benefit, only risk. Why would this
be considered a “good” - or “foundational” - exercise?

This is a Power Lifting movement, plain and simple. The only people who perform this
movement with heavy weight should be people who are seriously pursuing competitive
Power Lifting. It should not be considered a “fitness exercise” nor a “physique
development” exercise. For people pursuing either of these two goals, there are far
more productive exercises, which are also much safer.

This adulation this exercise is typically given illustrates how the line has gotten blurred
between “Power Lifting” and “Physique Development” / “General Fitness”.

Men’s Fitness magazine apparently encourages the use of this exercise, and provides
the following rating system (for men), as to the amount of weight that “should” be used
during a DeadLift.

Less than your body weight = “damn, you’re weak”

1.25 x your body weight = “you’re average”
1.5 x your body weight = “you’re pretty strong”
2.0 x your body weight = “you’re a beast”
(Note: Article entitled: “Deadlift: Test Your Strength”, by C.J. Murphy)

The question that everyone should be asking - in regard to the above recommendations
- is, “for what goal?” This magazine is ostensibly dedicated to “fitness” for men, but
their primary objective is selling magazines to men who are not quite clear on how
“fitness” is defined. Most men are wired to believe that “fitness” means being tough,
strong, “beastly” (in the magazine’s own words). So it’s easy to convince a reader that
lifting a large amount of weight is “good” - even if it’s in the form of an exercise that has
a very high risk and very little reward.

From a physique development or general fitness perspective, this exercise

(performed with heavy weight) is horrible. The amount of load that is placed on the
spine and the Erector spinae - when using a substantial weight - is tremendous. Yet,
the only muscle that is significantly loaded, and which moves dynamically through a full
range of motion, is the Gluteus maximus. Yes, the Adductors participate, as do the
Hamstrings (to a lesser degree). But, there are far better exercises for each of these
muscles, without the risk to the spine.

The Deadlift is one of the three lifts used in Power Lifting competitions. So, for those
who compete in that sport, this lift is “required”. For those who play competitive football,

24
(“American Football”) and whose goal is primarily “power”, this lift might also be a useful
for them. But for those pursuing physique development or general fitness, it’s absurd
to perform this exercise with heavy weight.

The only sensible way of doing this exercise - if one’s goal is general fitness - is with a
moderate weight (not more than 100 pounds, for men) and with absolutely perfect form.
Even then, I would question the need to do this exercise, versus other (better)
exercises. However, what we see frequently, is people doing Dead Lifts like the person
pictured below.

Notice the degree of torso forward flexion (curling forward of the spine) in photos A and
B, above. This is very dangerous. He is failing to use his Erector spinae to keep his
posture straight and protect his spine. The result of this is a “squeezing” together of the
inner edges of his vertebrae, and a subsequent “opening” of the outer edges of his
vertebrae - which could easily cause a posterior rupture of an intervertebral disc.

Some weight lifting veterans might say that using bad form during a Dead Lift is a
“rookie mistake”. They would say it’s easy enough to keep the spine straight. Yet we
often see veteran bodybuilders and weight lifters using similarly bad form (below). In
fact, it is very common to see people using this form, in the gym. I see it all the time,
and I cringe whenever it happens. I also see those people demonstrating back
discomfort, after performing a strenuous set with bad form. It’s not my place to correct
everyone I see doing it, but I believe those people will regret it later. And what is their
reward for jeopardizing their spine this way? Very little.

25
Every one of the people performing this lift (above) has excessive forward flexion of
their spine. And the reason it happens is because they are more concerned with the
amount of weight being lifted, than anything else.

Spinal compression and herniated discs are prolific problems, especially as we get
older. There are millions of people who struggle with back pain, who never pulled a 300
barbell (or more) during a Dead Lift. We don’t need any help adding to the spinal

26
compression / herniated disc problems. The less spinal compression and hyper flexing
of the spine (while loaded) we cause in our lifetime, the better.

The belief that a Dead Lift is “foundational” for everyone who lifts weights simply does
not make logical sense. Not only is the Dead Lift not “foundational”, it can hardly be
regarded as even “moderately productive”, when we consider its mechanics.

- - - - - - - - -
Summary
The idea that Compound Exercises are always better than are Isolation Exercises,
regardless of the goal, is simply illogical. If the goal is physique development and
general fitness, the objective should be to load specific target muscles as efficiently as
possible. This requires precise anatomical movements that mimic each muscles most
natural motions, as identified by their origins, attachments and joint design.

Most Compound Exercises fail to mimic the precise movements of the various muscles
and joints involved. They also fail in providing proper alignment, the ideal resistance
curve, or a proper range of motion, for each of the muscles and joints involved.

The belief that lifting a heavy weight, by way of engaging multiple muscles at one time,
and using inefficient levers, is somehow more beneficial than having those same
muscles working individually, using efficient levers, is nonsense.

A muscle can be loaded as much, or more, using a lighter weight during an Isolation
Exercise, than it can be as one of several participating muscles in a Compound
Exercise.

A Compound Exercise that allows a very heavy weight to be used, typically involves the
use of inefficient levers (reduced length levers and non-perpendicular levers), which
minimize the magnification to the muscles involved. This has an effect that is similar to
using a Pry Bar to lift a heavy object. It allows more weight to be lifted, but without
loading the muscles involved any more than a lighter weight would, using efficient
levers. The heavier weight, however, still strains the skeleton, as well as the smaller,
non-target muscles.

Every exercise, whether it’s a compound exercise or an isolation exercise, has its own
individual set of biomechanical circumstances. Understanding how to identify them
allows us to see what the benefit is (or isn’t), and what the degree of risk is. We can
then compare that to the benefit and risk of other exercises, and select the exercises
which have higher benefit and lower energy cost and injury risk.

Engaging several muscles with one single exercise, virtually guarantees that each
participating muscle will NOT be getting the most productive stimulation, as compared

27
with working those same muscles separately. So, the argument of “saving time” is
misguided.

If saving time is your primary objective, and you don’t mind a compromised benefit for
each participating muscle, and you are willing to accept a higher risk of injury - then
selecting Compound Exercises makes sense. But if the primary objective is getting the
optimal degree of benefit for each muscle, then Isolation Exercises are the better
choice.

Strengthening each individual muscle separately is at least as “functional” (useful and

productive) - if not more so - than working a group of muscles with one exercise.

We should stop thinking of certain exercises as “foundational”, which is how we have

come to regard Compound Exercises. Rather, we should regard every exercise as a
set of biomechanical circumstances, which can be - and should be - evaluated logically,
mathematically and with an awareness of “natural” anatomical motions.

28