Emg Mass General Form: Fill & Download for Free

Most likely, yes.Their bankruptcy was caused by their guitars being massively overpriced to the point that no one can afford them… except people with deep pockets and/or old guys with retirement funds. Don’t listen to other people blaming it on marketing problems or anything else. No one can afford their guitars and people aren’t buying them in general. That’s what caused all of this. If Gibson were smart and wanted to save themselves, they’d slash the price of every guitar and then watch as people buy them like hot cakes.If you were to go into a Guitar Center shop for the past decade, there is always a big wall of brand spanking new Gibson Les Paul Standards sitting with a layer of dust on them. Why are they hanging up all dusty? No one tries playing them because no one can afford them. It shouldn’t be like this. Gibson Les Pauls and some of their other guitars like the ES-335 and SG are iconic in music history and should be hard to come across in store. They would be, if only people could afford them without costing an arm and a leg.The Gibson Les Paul is overpriced to the point that it is offensive. It reached a level of insanity back in the 2000’s when it tipped over the 2K mark. But now? It’s over 3 grand. A Les Paul Standard cost more money than American home owners pay yearly on their taxes.It’s the granddaddy of guitar buyer’s remorse and sets the scale of just how much a sucker will pay for a mass produced electric guitar. Remember going into the toy store and seeing the massively overpriced tiger electronics games on the wall? That is what Gibson guitars are to guitar players. You may have really wanted that expensive tiger electronic game, just as many people want a Gibson Les Paul Standard or SG, but in the end, it isn’t worth it.The problems all go back to the late 80’s when Gibson’s management got the really smart (in their case, stupid) idea to market the guitar as a status symbol of wealth. Gibson for the better part of the last 30 years has been a boutique company. The Les Paul isn’t marketed for playability or strengths as an instrument. It’s advertised as a cornerstone of music history and a toy to show off your wealth.Gibson makes few guitars that are affordable (and by affordable, I mean around $900–$1,400 price tag which is still too much for some of us) that would actually benefit a player in some sort of way. The Gibson Les Paul Studio is really just the “cheap Les Paul”. It’s often advertised as “the starter Les Paul before you buy the Standard” (The Standard which cost over 3 grand that you most likely are never going to afford). The Studio is stripped of features that the Standard has. This is completely different compared to Fender, who has ran their Mexican Standard Stratocasters and Telecasters for over 25 years. When you buy a Mexican built Fender, you are getting the same features as traditional built Strats and Teles, meanwhile the American models have a few differences, but only minor (also note the price point. Mexican built Fenders ran for $500 until last year when they went up to $600. Gibson’s Les Paul Studio has always been in the $900–$1,200 range).Epiphone offers better guitar models that are actually designed with player in mind and playing style. One example is the Prophecy Les Paul; a guitar designed for players of Heavy Metal style with a thin neck, 24 frets and EMG pickups among key features.Chances are, given their track record, they won’t learn. They will just put their heads back up their asses where it’s been for the last 30 years and they’ll keep upping the price tags and continue marketing their guitars to wealthier people and hoping there is some old guy who will blow his retirement fund on a toy he always wanted. Gibson made it clear decades ago that they didn’t care about the player and working musician. They are more worried about a potential buyer with deep pockets and the old guy with a retirement fund.There was a time when Gibson used to market the Les Paul as the “working man’s guitar”. It was actually cheaper than the brand new Fender Stratocaster at the time in the late 50’s. That is a sick joke today cause no working man can afford a Gibson guitar today.

There are generally 2 types of biceps training advocates: those who believe in isolation work, and those who say compound movements are better for biceps hypertrophy. Thankfully, science deals in facts, not opinions. Here they are:(As always, TLDR at the end of each section, but you will miss a lot of interesting information)First of all, we need to understand the fiber composition of the biceps, as it may greatly affect the training.In 2004, Dahmane et al. used a non-insavise method of determining fiber composition, and found that the biceps is 61–62% fast-twitch dominant. And then 3 years later Srinivasan et al. were kind enough to cut open a few dead people, and confirmed this finding at 62% (Srinivasan et al. 2007). Since fast-twitch fibers respond optimally to heavy weights (Fry et al. 2004), this is an indicator that you should do twice as much heavy work as light work.But do hypertrophy studies confirm this?Not really.We can be pretty certain that different repetition ranges produce very similar overall gains, which was shown in Schoenfeld's 2017 meta-analysis. But biceps don't contribute that much to the overall lean body mass, so a separate analysis is required.Schoenfeld et al. 2015 found biceps (together with brachialis) to respond to moderate loads (8–12 reps) on average slightly better than light loads (25–35 reps) hypertrophy-wise, and Fink et al. 2016 reported no difference, even slightly in favor of the latter.Mangine et al. 2005 showed 140% difference in favor of heavy loads (3–5 vs 10-12 reps), which is in contrary to Chestnut et al. (4v10), who found no difference. This is the only study to show such a difference. Admittedly, there was a methodological issue (although it's unclear why it would cause such a discrepancy), and Schoenfeld et al. 2016 also found no difference without that slight issue.Lasevicius 2018 also found no difference between about 8, 15, 30 reps with 8 being slightly better, but found more than 50 to be clearly suboptimal.What should you make of this?Well, in almost every study the heavier weight led to greater strength gains. And since total volume + tension are the drivers of hypertrophy, next time try implementing heavier weights and look at the carryover this strength gain has on other rep ranges. In my answer here I mentioned how to test carryover from exercise to exercise, do the same but testing carryover from rep range to rep range.But it seems like heavy and light weights are equally effective for biceps hypertrophy.Ok, but are compounds better than isolation work for biceps?Yes, it seems so. Paoli et al. 2017 showed that compound movements lead to greater strength gains in isolation movements than isolation movements themselves and greater overall hypertrophy. But again, biceps were not measured and there was a limitation.Gentil et al. 2015 compared the two without that limitation and found them to be very similar. (Essentially comparing the lat pull down to the barbell curl)And Gentil et al. 2013 compared one group training with just compounds to one training with compounds and isolation work, and reported similar gains.So, what is the conclusion?Well, given that the Paoli study was the only one comparing trained participants, one may assume that compound movements are superior to isolation work. (Because hypertrophy in novice trainees might be offset by muscle damage, which is detrimental to muscle gain) (also Damas et al. 2017)I have made a point of not including anecdotal experience in my answers to make them objective, but it seems irresponsible not to mention (due to the lack of research) that every CSCS and sports science PhD recommends including biceps isolation in your training.This is all good, but which exercises should I do?Well, comparing exercises in science is also done through EMG (electromyography). It measures muscle activation, which is similar to tension (but certainly isn't perfect).Nonetheless, it gives a picture of which muscles are active, and how much, in any exercise variation. Let's see what EMG says. (There is plenty of research, so I compiled the data from strengthandconditioningresearch.com)Chin ups are similar to pull ups, but activate the biceps more, which is very logicalInverted rows are the best horizontal pull for the bicepsIt terms of isolation work, you should do both incline and decline (preacher) curls for maximum activationAnd Bret Contreras, an expert in EMG, tested over 40 exercises. The best are:Parallel-Grip Pull-up/Chin-upBarbell CurlEZ-Bar CurlIf you want more information on EMG, Jeff Nippard has a great series "Science Explained" on YouTube. (He also interviews lead researchers on his podcast "The Jeff Nippard Podcast".)I wish you all the best, smart gains.

Bart Loews answer is excellent.However, realistically speaking I find bodyweight exercises to be pretty limiting in a bodybuilding specific context like this, particularly because the pec major is predominantly high in fast twitch muscle fibers (60%ish) and pushups (and other bodyweight exercises) will inevitably be done with high repetitions -- or the opposite of what the muscle group might respond best to, <12 reps.So you need external load somehow, someway, to create ideal stress for this muscle group.A weight vest, some weight plates to put on your back, bands, etc...Or your top out very quickly how much muscle building you can generate, without considerable knowledge on how to cycle your training.This is what makes the barbell bench press such an effective chest builder. And what makes the guillotine press often claimed as king of chest building (though incredibly stressful on 66% of people's shoulders).The alternatives to load are to drastically mess with the leverage. As in something like this wide slider push-up:Which mimics pec deck or a fly in a closed chain kinetic position and is brutal on the chest, though also a fairly risky position for the shoulders. Should be used sparingly and be mindful of joint stress.That's the problem with long lever movements, they are harder to do, thus typically done more in rep ranges above 6 and they create more joint stress.If you go by traditional bodybuilding lore then a low cable pronated crossover would yield the most activation in the area you speak of. Mimicked on the floor (or an incline bench type position), a pronated (thumb to thumb) fly would also theoretically yield the most activation in the area you speak of. The slider push up is probably the next closest thing without using weights of some kind. It can also be done from the elbows to reduce some joint stress on the elbow. You could change hand position even to create a similar challenge to one of the fly examples above.The other thing about targeting specific portions of a muscle is that most of the positions can be risky for certain joints. The guillotine press agrees with maybe 1/3rd of people's shoulder structure. Wide push-ups have a similar effect.In the above example (and as is the case with many 'fly' movements) wide like that is stressful on the shoulders and can often only be done for so long in a program (3-6 weeks before giving the joint involved some time off with a different variation).In the case of the supinated pushup (or supinated bench) try it out and you'll notice quite a bit of stress on the wrist and elbows with this position. It puts the tricep in a bad line of pull (which is why pec stress increases, it has to do more work to pick up the slack), which would normally provide extra stability to the elbow.Unrack a barbell in the supinated position and you'll find that you're quite a bit weaker in that position as well. That means you won't be able to load it to the same extreme as a regular powerlifting stance bench press (there is a reason they use a specific technique, and it isn't supinated!).Unfortunately muscle growth isn't just about EMG, where you feel it working (pump) or lore. It's mostly about mechanical stress, which means you have to consider how much load you can use. Flies, though EMG might suggest they should be an excellent chest builder, don't permit for as much load, which is what makes the bench press still considered such an effective chest builder. You might not get the same EMG response, but you can load the hell out of it. That mechanical stress is important. More load generally translates into more muscle mass, and is very correlated to the process of gaining muscle mass.Or as Ronnie Coleman once said:Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder with big muscles but nobody wants to lift heavy ass weights!Or something to that effect...Add to that the transition between eccentric and concentric (the bottom of most lifts) seems to be one of the primary drivers in hypertrophy, so choosing exercises that have a heavy quasi-isometric component at the eccentric transition point is often a good idea too. Meaning pushups from a dead stop at the bottom don't make for as good a muscle builder as a quick turnaround push-up in all likelihood.Step ups, not a great muscle builder, but single leg squats can be (if you can load them).So do your pushups (with a variety of grips) and try your slider push-up every other phase of training, but realize that once you're doing 12-15+ of these regularly, their effectiveness drops considerably and you need to keep pushing your stress tolerance -- keep going higher and higher in reps, and with greater and greater volume more and more frequently -- or you're going to have to find a way to add load or adjust levers -- raise your feet, go to one arm versions, etc...