The Physics of Fitness

Chapter Seventeen
Assessing & Selecting
Exercises
____________________________________________

Using “Ideal” Biomechanical Parameters

The previous 16 chapters addressed issues that relate to the “ideal”

direction of resistance, based on physics and some physiological
factors (i.e., the strength curve of a muscle, cross-education,
reciprocal innervation, dynamic vs isometric, etc.).

In the following 8 chapters, we’ll discuss the ideal direction of

anatomical movement for each physique muscle. This can be
determined by referencing the origin and insertion of a muscle, the
design of the joint over which that muscle crosses, the direction of
the target muscle’s fibers, and the evolutionary role of that muscle.

Together, these two categories - 1) direction of resistance and 2)

direction of anatomical movement - allow us to identify the exercises
which could be considered “best” for each muscle group.

The criteria that qualifies an exercise as “best”, also informs us of

which exercises qualify as “bad” (less productive, less efficient and
more risky), and those which are in-between. Thus, exercises can all
be rated from “best” to “worst”, in a logical manner.

If one’s goal is to maximize training efficiency (optimal benefit, least

wasted effort, least risk of injury), the wisest approach is to use only
the “best” exercises, and forego the exercises that rate poorly.

1
 - - - - - -
In Chapter 2 (“Active Levers & Neutral Levers”), we discussed how an exercise like a
standard Barbell Squat could be considered “compromised” as a Quadriceps exercise,
due to the fact that the tibia-lever is only about 35% “active”, at best. We also
established how Parallel Bar Dips could be considered “compromised” as a Triceps
exercise, due the the fact that the forearm-lever is only about 11% active, at best.

In Chapter 8 (“Opposite Position Loading”), we discussed how a standard Seated

Cable Rowing exercise could be considered “compromised”, due to the fact that the
target muscle’s origins (Latissimus and middle Trapezius) are not positioned directly
opposite the direction of resistance. We also looked at exercises which are more
efficient because they provide a direction of resistance that is directly opposite the
target muscle’s origin.

The exercises mentioned above are compromised because they lack “efficiency” -
meaning that the target muscle is not getting 100% of the available resistance - despite
you having to produce 100% of the effort required to move that weight. The energy cost
(and injury risk) is high, and the benefit is less than optimal. This happens when the
operating lever of the target muscle does not encounter a perpendicular angle with the
direction of resistance, or because the direction of resistance is not coming from an
angle that is directly opposite the target muscle’s origins. These are issues caused by
an “incorrect” (less-than-ideal) direction of resistance, relative to the limbs of the body.

Other problems that are caused by an “incorrect” direction of resistance include

misalignment, a sub-optimal resistance curve and an incomplete range of motion.
These ultimately compromise the amount of benefit we can achieve from an exercise.

Separate from the compromises that are caused by an “incorrect” direction of

resistance, an exercise could also be compromised because the anatomical motion it
requires is not ideal. If an exercise fails to mimic the target muscle’s primary movement,
or if it distorts and strains a joint, the potential benefits are further compromised and
injury risk increases.

It is important to identify the exact primary movement of each physique muscle. Once
that is established, we can easily see how departures from that specific motion would
result in less efficient loading of a target muscle, and / or joint distortion.

An “ideal” exercise includes the following characteristics:

1. It mimics the target muscle’s primary motion, and has a mostly full range of
motion
2. It utilizes a direction of resistance that:
a. Is in alignment with the direction of motion, and also with the origin and
insertion of the muscle

2
 b. Provides a productive resistance curve, taking into account “early phase
loading” and “mechanical disadvantage”
c. Pulls in a direction that is directly opposite the target muscle’s origin, for
“opposite position loading”
3. Utilizes mostly “active” (perpendicular) levers / limbs
4. Does not load non-target muscles more than the target muscle (usually due to
the incorrect joint being moved, or an incorrect direction of resistance)
5. Does not twist or strain a joint

Exercises that fail to meet these criteria, typically do so in gradations. Some exercises
meet all these criteria, and are - therefore - excellent exercises. Other exercises miss
one or two of these criteria, so they are less than ideal, but still fairly good. Other
exercises fail to meet most of these criteria.

The point is that exercises all have a different value (i.e., level of productivity, energy
cost and injury risk). Those of us who are in the fitness profession, or are competitive
bodybuilders, or are otherwise dedicated to optimally efficient resistance exercise -
should know the principles by which an exercise qualifies as “excellent”, “in-efficient” or
“dangerous”. We should know how two separate exercises for the same muscle are
different, or if they are mostly redundant (the same mechanics). We should be able to
explain - in terms that are logical, factual and scientific - how each exercise works,
mechanically speaking.

- - - - - - - -
There are several very logical ways of identifying a muscle’s primary function.
The origin and insertion points of a muscle provide us with the primary clue. When
looking at an anatomical illustration of a muscle, we can clearly see where these two
points are located. We can also see the joint(s) over which that muscle crosses. When
that muscle contracts, the muscle insertion moves directly toward its origin, which
causes the joint in between those two points to move (flex, extend, rotate, etc.).

All muscles pull toward their origin

A muscle fiber is like a rope, which pulls its insertion toward its origin. For example, the
Pectoralis major participates in numerous functions, even when we’re just washing
dishes over the kitchen sink. However, there are specific movements that can be
designated as the Pectoral’s “best” or “ideal” motions. Likewise, there are various
movements that can be designated as varying degrees of “NOT ideal”.

A muscle might “barely participate” in a task, because the motion being performed
does not closely mimic that muscle’s primary motion. Or it might be “engaged a little
more” in a different task, because that task is slightly more similar to that muscle’s
primary function. Or it might “participate substantially” in another movement, because

3
that motion is much more similar to its primary function. Or it could be “fully engaged”
because the motion is precisely what that muscle is designed to do.

One of the ways to understand this concept is to imagine yourself holding the end of a
rope, of which you have tied the other end to a heavy box. When you pull that rope, the
only direction in which you can pull that heavy box is directly TOWARD you. You cannot
pull that heavy box in any direction OTHER than toward you. Muscles operate the
same way. The origins of a muscle are in a fixed location on the anatomy, and they
pull the insertion point on their corresponding limb, directly toward that origin.

In the illustration below, we see this concept applied to the anatomy. The man below is
“standing” on a human sternum, where most of the Pectoral muscle fibers originate.
Imagine he is holding a Pectoral fiber - like a rope - pulling a loaded humerus. The only
direction in which he can pull that humerus is toward him. Of course, a number of the
other Pectoral fibers may also pulling, so the humerus moves in the direction of the
combined efforts. But the combined efforts still move the humerus toward the collective
Pectoral origins on the sternum (or clavicle or ribs).

4
Since each muscle fiber’s origin pulls directly toward itself - and only toward itself - the
first step in knowing “which direction a muscle pulls” (or what motion a muscle ideally
produces), is knowing where these origins are. These will all be reviewed in next eight
chapters.

It’s worth noting - in regards to the Pectorals - that once the arms are raised so that they
are perpendicular with the torso, ALL the Pectoral fibers are either parallel with the
humerus, or below the humerus. None are above the humerus.

There are NO Pectoral fiber origins above the shoulder, nor above the clavicles. So, it
is impossible for the Pectorals to participate much in pulling the arms (the humerus’) in
a direction that is above the clavicle line. Yet, one of the most common exercises
performed in the gym is an INCLINE press - which moves the arms in a direction where
there are NO Pectoral fibers. The illustration below shows from where the Pectorals
would have to pull, in order to produce an “incline” movement.

5
You would have to have Pectoral fiber origins on your chin or on your neck, in order to
be directly engaging any Pectoral fibers during an Incline Press. But you don’t have
Pectoral fiber origins on your chin or on your neck. In other words, Incline Presses do
NOT work the upper Pectorals very well - even though we’ve been told for years that
“The best exercise for the upper pecs is an Incline Press”. This has been the
conventional wisdom for decades. But it’s been wrong, as you can clearly see.

This is one example of how understanding that “muscles always pull toward their
origin” (and knowing where the muscle origin and insertion points are) allows us to
determine what the ideal anatomical motion for each muscle might be. It also allows us
to see how a decades-long belief (that Incline Presses “target” the upper Pecs) can be
proven false.

- - - - - - - -
Evolutionary Need
Another way of getting a sense of what might be considered the “ideal” anatomical
motion of a particular muscle, is to consider our evolution. The anatomy we have - our

6
skeletal design and its muscular connections - has evolved over millions of years, based
on the frequent and consistent physical movements that our ancient ancestors needed
to do in order thrive.

Although none of us were alive a million years ago, we can make reasonable
assumptions about what our early ancestors probably needed to do from day to day. It’s
reasonable to assume that there were no “incline benches” during those days. Any
“weights” that were lifted were logs and heavy rocks, and those could not possibly have
been moved in a direction that was 45 degrees upward from the torso and opposite
gravity (i.e., an “incline” angle) - certainly not on a regular basis, if at all.

We evolved from quadrupeds and gradually began walking more upright - using our
Pectoral muscles and shoulder joints in increasingly more downward (“decline”)
directions.

The fact that our Pectoral muscle is entirely below our arm line (where the arm
connects to the torso), demonstrates that it evolved to push in directions that were
straight forward and in various degrees of “downward” (decline), over millions of years.

It’s safe to surmise that pushing / moving the humerus in an “incline” direction
(upward / diagonal to the torso) was not an evolutionary “need” for survival. Neither the
shoulder joint, nor the position of the Pectorals in relation to the shoulder joint, have the
apparent design of evolving to accommodate that motion.

The fact that the shoulder joint is ABLE to produce that movement, does not prove that
our Pectoral muscles were designed to perform that task, nor that the Pectorals will

7
benefit from that task. We are also able to put our forearms behind our backs, yet there
was probably very little evolutionary need for that.

In addition to there being a correlation between the way our muscles perform today and
the evolutionary needs of our early ancestors, there is also a correlation between the
way our joints operate today, and the evolutionary needs of our early ancestors.

For example, it is not likely that our early ancestors needed to push a heavy log or rock,
directly over their heads, up and down, repeatedly. What could possibly have been the
purpose of that? Of course, that is the movement that today we call an Overhead
Press.

They may have needed to push or throw a heavy log or rock, in a forward direction, in
battle. But having to push a heavy object in a straight upward direction (vertically,
overhead), or in an “incline” direction - repetitively - is extremely unlikely.

This is corroborated when we examine the shoulder joint. We can see that
“impingement” (pinching) of the Supraspinatus tendon - and also of the bursa - is
inevitable when moving our arms directly overhead. It’s obvious the shoulder joint did
not evolve to allow that motion, repetitively, without consequence. There was no
evolutionary need for it, and the anatomical structure of the modern shoulder joint
seems to clearly demonstrate that.

8
So, in the following chapters, we will consider the original purpose of a particular muscle
and its joint, and compare that to whatever the common exercise for that particular
muscle is today. You’ll see that doing this helps shed light on whether a current
exercise’s motion is “ideal”, and whether there is another movement (exercise) which
more closely resembles that muscle’s intended purpose.

- - - - - - - -
Movements that are most “natural” are best
Instead of assuming that a muscle would most benefit from a complex movement, it’s
more logical to assume that a simple movement would be best.

For example, let’s look at the Lateral Deltoid (shown below-left). Consider the simplicity
of the insertion point on the humerus (“A”) moving directly toward the origin point on the
scapula (“B”), as the muscle contracts. That would raise the arm to the side - a
movement called “Lateral Abduction” (aka “Side Raise”). It is the purest, most natural
function of the Lateral Deltoid.

9
Performing this muscle’s most natural function - a Side Raise - with the ideal direction
of resistance and sufficient load, is all that is required to maximally stimulate muscular
development of the Lateral Deltoids. Nothing more complicated is necessary.

However, despite it being obvious that “Lateral Abduction” is this muscle’s most natural
movement, and despite the fact that many people develop shoulder pain from doing
Overhead Presses, some people still believe that the Overhead Press (shown below-
left) is either a “good” shoulder exercise or “the best” shoulder exercise.

The Overhead Press requires an extreme degree of shoulder joint rotation, just to
assume the starting position. In the illustration above-right, we see the degree of
external humeral rotation - a full 90 degrees from its “normal / natural” position - that is
required in order to do this exercise correctly. For many people, this much external
rotation is impossible.

For the many who are unable to position their humerus vertically, the forward slant of
their forearm will strain the external rotator cuff muscle (the Infraspinatus), when using a
heavy weight.

In addition, moving the arms directly overhead, repeatedly, with resistance, is the most
common cause of impingement syndrome - where the Suprasinatus tendon and / or
Bursa are squeezed between the humerus and the acromonion process, causing
inflammation and sometimes a rupture.

As if these two potential risk factors are not enough to disqualify the Overhead Press as
a “good” exercise, there is also the fact that the external rotation of the humerus moves
the target muscle (the Lateral Deltoids) out of alignment with the direction of resistance.

10
Rather than getting 100% of the downward resistance, the Lateral Deltoids only get
about 40% of the downward resistance.

The point is that the Overhead Press is not a “natural” motion - not for the muscles
involved, nor for the shoulder joint. It does not mimic any motion for which we have
evolved. Thus, it has a much higher injury risk than does “Side Raises”, and also has a
much more compromised benefit.

It’s a movement that was “inherited” from turn-of-the-century circus performers whose
primary objective was simply to move an impressive amount of weight, for the
entertainment of observers. It was NOT “designed” with proper biomechanics in mind.

Upright Rows is another exercise that requires an unnatural motion. People often
describe them as being “uncomfortable”, but they do them anyway because they think
the discomfort might be their own unique problem, and they believe the industry would
not mislead them. But, Upright Rows forces us to bend our wrists sideways and also
forces an internal rotation of the shoulder joint (two skeletal strains), and then provides
the Deltoids with less loading than do simple Side Raises.

Another unnatural motion is Overhead Triceps Extensions. The Triceps muscle extends
the elbow the same, whether the arms are down alongside the torso, or overhead.
Having the arms down alongside the torso is the more natural position for the shoulder
joint. So why would we do a Triceps exercise overhead, if the Triceps works the same
either way? Of course, there are those who would argue that Overhead Triceps
exercises stimulate the Triceps differently, than do the exercises performed with the
arms down. But, as you’ll soon see, there is no logic nor science behind that belief.

Across the board, you’ll see that the less contorted an exercise is - the more closely an
exercise resembles the way our body naturally moves and has evolved - the better the
exercise. There is no advantage, in terms of muscle building benefit, in over-
complicated a resistance exercise. Simple and natural are best.

- - - - - - - -
Joint Design
Another clue that informs us of a muscle’s “ideal” motion, is the design of the joint over
which that muscle crosses. By understanding that joint’s natural function, we are better
able to understand the muscle’s ideal motion. We can also better understand what is
not an ideal motion when we see the limitations of a joint, and the consequence of
expecting a joint to move in a direction it was not meant to move.

For example, when we examine the elbow joint, we can easily see that it only moves in
one direction - it “opens” and “closes” like a hinge. The Biceps crosses the elbow joint,
and is the primary elbow flexor. Since the elbow only bends in ONE direction, and both

11
Biceps “heads” merge into one tendon, both heads of the Biceps must participate
simultaneously, any time “elbow flexion” occurs. There is simply no way you could
preferentially activate the “inner head” or the “outer head” of the Biceps, because the
elbow joint cannot bend in more than one direction.

Examination of the shoulder joint is also very revealing. It’s easy to see how “pushing”
the humerus directly overhead, repeatedly, is very likely to irritate, inflame and possibly
rupture the Supraspinatus tendon (and bursa) in the shoulder joint. This is known as
“Impingement Syndrome” (below).

Some people never develop Impingement Syndrome, despite doing Overhead Presses
regularly, for many years. But this is like the cigarette smoker who never develops lung
cancer. There’s plenty of evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, just as there’s
plenty of evidence that frequent, repeated, weighted overhead pressing movement
tends to cause Impingement Syndrome. The few exceptions to the rule do not prove
that Overhead Pressing is perfectly safe.

Yes, our shoulder joint does allow us to lift and place a heavy box on a high shelf, or
hold an object over our head for short periods of time - without consequence. But, this
is considerably different than doing heavy Overhead Presses on a regular basis. More
importantly, the Deltoids can be developed perfectly well without Overhead Presses. It
is not a “necessary” exercise for Deltoid development.

12
Examination of the scapula (the shoulder blade) reveals something else that’s
interesting. The motion of pulling the arms downward, from an overhead position, is
much more safe than pushing a weight upward. The reason for this is that the upward
pull of resistance (coming from Chin-Ups or Pulldowns) pulls the scapula upward,
which allows there to be more space between the humerus and the acromion process
(illustration below).

Conversely, the downward resistance used during Overhead Presses, holds the
scapula down, while the humerus moves upward underneath it. This helps create the
circumstances which lead to the pinching of the Supraspinatus tendon and bursa.

Again, this should not be surprising, in light of our evolution. It’s easy to imaging our
early ancestors climbing and pulling downward on tree branches - even if the angle of
that pull was slightly different than a Pulldown or Chin-Up. It’s not so easy to imagine
an early human having to push a heavy object straight upward on a regular basis. The
evolutionary need to pull downward (with frequency) was present, but the evolutionary
need to push upward (with frequency) was not.

- - - - - - - -
The Direction of a Muscle’s Fibers
Sometimes, the direction of a muscle’s fibers indicates the direction of movement that
would constitute the ideal movement for that particular muscle. In those case, it’s
obvious that those fibers would be pull their operating lever in a direction that is parallel
to those fibers.

13
For example, the Pectoral fibers almost “point” in the direction they pull - toward the
sternum, clavicles and ribs. Thus, the movement would be parallel to those fibers. This
is also true with the Latissimus dorsi and the Biceps. However, not all muscle fibers are
“straight”, like those of the Pecs, Lats and Biceps (shown below, left to right).

In fact, there are seven types of “muscle architecture”. Three of these have fibers that
run in straight lines; three have fibers that run diagonal to the origin and insertion of the
muscle; and one is circular (and is irrelevant here).

The illustration below shows all seven types of muscle architecture. “Fusiform”,
“Parallel” and “Convergent” (the three below left) all have fibers that could be
considered “straight”. They run in the same direction as the line that can be drawn
between the muscle origin and insertion. The primary difference between these three is
the way they converge with their tendon.

14
The next three (above, moving right to left) have fibers that cross diagonally to the line
that can be drawn between the muscle origin and insertion. These are called
“Unipennate”, “Bipennate", and “Multipennate”.

The seventh type is called “Circular” (above, far right), and is only found at the opening
of the eyes, mouth and anus. It’s irrelevant in the discussion of biomechanics.

Pennate muscles have a stronger ability to contract, as compared with straight muscle
fibers. This is because Pennate fibers pull on their tendon from an angle, so they don’t
need to move their tendon as far as straight muscle fibers do. This is similar to the
physics of a bicycle that has a “low gear” for hills, and a “high gear” for flats. Pennate
muscles are essentially “low gear” muscles. They trade distance for power (torque).

A Pennate muscle also packs more muscle fibers into a given space, because they’re
angled. This adds more strength capacity, as compared with a parallel muscle of the
same size. The more muscle fibers, the more myofibrils and sarcomeres, which also
translates to greater power.

You have probably noticed that Triceps and Quadriceps have “cross hatching” striations,
while Pecs, Lats, Biceps and Hamstrings have straight muscle striations. Notice that
Triceps and Quadriceps are “extension” muscles, and Pecs, Lats, Biceps and
Hamstrings are “flexion” muscles.

15
In Chapter Three, I explained that muscles which “flex” a joint (Pectorals, Biceps,
Hamstrings, etc.) are more vulnerable to tearing and rupture, as compared with muscles
that “extend” a joint. Here is the apparent reason for this.

Muscles that extend a joint have adapted to the fact that they ALWAYS operate with a
Mechanical Disadvantage - they always require more force. Thus, they have evolved
as Pennate muscles to accommodate that need.

Conversely, muscles that flex a joint have the frequent “advantage” of being able to pull
perpendicularly on their respective bones, which allows them to produce anatomical
movement with less muscle force. Thus, they evolved as straight muscle fibers.
However, this also makes them more vulnerable to injury when they enter Mechanical
Disadvantage, at certain angles.

In any case, we cannot always use “muscle fiber direction” as an absolute indicator of
the “ideal” direction of motion for an exercise - but it is convenient, when available.
However, when we are examining the function of a Pennate muscle, the line that can be
drawn between the muscle’s origins and insertion serves equally well.

- - - - - - - -
Bad, Good, Better and Best
Once the ideal anatomical motion has been identified for a particular muscle, we must
then identify the ideal direction of resistance for that motion. Combining these two -
the ideal anatomical motion and the ideal direction of resistance - reveals the exercises
which can be classified as “best” or “excellent”.

The ideal direction of resistance provides proper alignment, an optimal resistance curve
(early phase loading and relief from mechanical disadvantage if necessary), opposite
position loading, and the use of mostly “active” (perpendicular) operating levers.

As you can imagine, this combination of mechanical characteristics greatly narrows

down the number of exercises that can be classified as “ideal”. It also allows us to have
a sense of which exercises are farthest from “ideal”, and which ones would fall
somewhere in between.

A person could, theoretically, use a “check list” of these mechanical requirements, and
issue each exercise a ranking. This could be done either on the basis of, “first best,
second best, third best”, etc., or by giving each exercise a rating between 1 and 10, with
10 being best. This would be a “judgement call”, to some degree - although a very well
informed judgment call.

For example, you now know that Parallel Bar Dips load the Triceps with approximately
HALF as much resistance as a Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extension (“DB Skull

16
Crushers”), even though four times more weight is used during Parallel Bar Dips. This
would qualify Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extensions as being “better than” Parallel Bar
Dips - as a Triceps exercise. We could call Supine Dumbbell Triceps Extensions a “10”,
and we might call Parallel Bar Dips a “4” (as a Triceps exercise).

So, here’s a good question: “If a person is truly dedicated to physique development,
and wants maximum efficiency (i.e., the most benefit, the least wasted effort, the least
injury risk), why would he bother using exercises that rate lower than a 9 or a 10 ?”.

I am not suggesting that an exercise that rates a “5” should never be used. I believe a
person should be aware that they are using a less efficient / less productive exercise,
and the choice to use an exercise that rates a “5” should be an informed decision. He
should not be oblivious to this fact.

People should not assume that all exercises have equal productivity, equal energy cost
and equal risk. If they want to “mix it up” (use a wide variety of exercises) for the sake
of fun or convenience, it’s fine - provided they understand that many of those exercises
are less productive, less efficient and have a higher risk of injury.

Of course, doing only the exercises that are rated highest, may make workouts seem
more repetitive or monotonous - at least for some people. This may make some people
nervous, because they’ve heard for so long that they need to change exercises
frequently. But that’s simply not true. That is unsubstantiated speculation.

People mistakenly believe that certain exercises “shape” muscles differently, and that
changing exercises frequently provides “necessary variety” to prevent “stagnation”. But
these beliefs are entirely false, as we’ll soon see.

Also, some of the exercises that are most dramatic to watch are NOT the most
productive for muscular development. And, the exercises that are most productive, are
usually not very exciting to watch. Those exercises are also much less dramatic to
photograph or to video-record. But these “less dramatic, but mechanically superior”
exercises absolutely WORK better, despite being less visually interesting or impressive.

Most people immediately feel the advantage of using better exercises, in terms of the
quality of muscle contraction, muscle soreness, muscle gain and relief from joint pain.
Others, however, will be afraid to use only the more highly rated exercises, and will
combine them with other, less productive exercises. Those people will unfortunately not
know which exercises contributed more or less to their results. So they’ll continue
wasting time and energy doing the less productive exercises, mistakenly believing that
their contribution was greater than it actually was.

Some people will declare with absolute (but misguided) certainty that, “It is essential for
us to change exercises every four to six seeks, so that our muscles don’t adapt to the
exercises.” Despite their dedication to that notion, it has never been proven. Be
assured, the person making the statement has never personally tested that theory. And

17
the people from whom he (or she) “learned” (heard) this theory, also have never tested
it. Everyone just embraces it without requiring proof, and without skepticism.

- - - - - -
Is It Really Necessary to Change Exercises Regularly ?

While there are some advantages to changing exercises occasionally, physiological

benefit is NOT one of them. Yes, it’s more fun to change exercises, and sometimes
it may be more convenient. For example, the station or equipment you want to use
may not available. But the claim that a muscle benefits from changing exercises, is
false.

Let’s start with the simplest question: What does a muscle “sense” from an exercise?

Imagine that you are Pectoral muscle, for a moment. Imagine that one end is holding
onto the origin point (on the sternum), and the other end is holding onto the insertion
point (on the humerus). You have no eyes, so you cannot see anything the person is
doing. All you can do is feel.

Here are the things you (as the muscle) cannot possibly “know” (sense):

1. You do not know what the resistance source is (free weight, cable, machine, etc.).

2. You do not know the position of the person (standing, sitting, lying supine, facing
north, facing south, etc.)

3. You do not know whether you (the muscle) are working alone (i.e., “isolated”), or with
the help of other muscles (“compound”). You are just performing your function.

4. You do not know whether the resistance you feel is comprised of a heavy weight with
less magnification (i.e., a short lever, mechanical advantage and a mostly neutral lever),
or a lighter weight with greater magnification (i.e., a longer lever, mechanical
disadvantage and a mostly active lever). All you know is the amount of “net” resistance
you’re feeling.

Here are the things you (as the muscle) DO “know” (sense):

1. You know whether you’re performing a full range of motion, a partial range of
motion, or a static contraction (no range of motion).

2. You know whether the resistance is greater at the beginning of the range of motion,
and lighter at the end of the range of motion. Or vice versa. (i.e., the “Resistance
Curve”, “Early Phase Loading” versus Late Phase Loading)

18
3. You know whether the load you are lifting is “heavy”, thereby limiting you to six
repetitions…or whether it’s “light”, allowing you to perform 20 or 30 repetitions.

4. You know whether you are working at near maximum capacity, or not….whether
you’re feeling a high degree of fatigue, or not.

5. You know whether your insertion is moving directly toward you origin during the
concentric phase, or not.

Each of these five factors are “biomechanical components”. As such, each of these
characteristics have a “better than” or “worse than” value. Any change of exercise that
effects the biomechanical components will be perceived by the muscle as either “better
than” or “not as good as”, the biomechanical components of another exercise. They will
not simply be perceived as “different”.

For example, it is better to use full range of motion, rather than partial range of motion.
It is better to use Early Phase Loading, rather than Late Phase Loading. It is better for
a muscle to contract dynamically, rather than isometrically. It is better for a muscle to
pull its operating lever directly toward its origin, than not. It is better to have the
resistance pulling directly away from the muscle’s origin, than from a different direction.

It is never advantageous to change from an exercise that has “good biomechanical

components” to an exercise that has “inferior biomechanical components”. And any
change that does not alter the biomechanical components of an exercise, will not be
perceived by the muscle as a change at all - which is fine, if those components are
“good”.

- - - - - - - -
Does the Body Really Adapt to the “Same” Exercises?
This belief is without logic or common sense, let alone scientific evidence. Let’s look at
a couple of comparative situations, and see if they make sense.

Exposure to UV light produces stimulation of pigment in the skin, which results in a TAN.
A person gets darker, little by little, until they reach a limit, in terms of skin darkness.
When that happens, should a person switch to a different type of light? Incandescent?
Fluorescent? Infrared? No, because UV light is BEST for the stimulation of pigment.
The other types of light are “inferior” versions, for the purpose of tanning.

Of course, a person can only get so tan. Likewise, a person can only get so muscular.
But, skipping a week of sun exposure, makes UV light “new” again, and a person will
not only resume the tanning process, but may also be susceptible to burning. Likewise,
skipping a week of exercise makes all exercise “new” again - even when the same

19
exercises are used. A person will resume the muscle stimulation process, and may
even be susceptible to over-training.

Another example is the food we consume. If we were to eat the 50 most nutritious food
on a daily basis, would we ever become “accustomed” to those foods, such that we are
unable to extract the nutrients from them? Of course not. Should we consider changing
to less nutritious food occasionally? Would that benefit us? Of course not.

Likewise, it is foolish to change from a highly efficient exercise (like Decline Dumbbell
Triceps Extensions) to a less efficient exercise (like Triceps Kickbacks), and expect to
load the muscle more, or expect better development. The muscle will simply perceive
that change as “inferior”, and will benefit less from it - even if it results in muscle
soreness.

For a number of years, I went along with the belief that I needed to use a variety of
exercises, and that we should change our exercises frequently. But eventually I
realized that this did not make sense. Once I understood what constitutes “superior
biomechanics” of an exercise, and I identified the best one or two exercises for each
muscle, I began using only those one (or two) exercises for each muscle, every time I
worked those muscles.

The result has been better development, less wasted energy and less joint soreness
(less joint strain). It also has not resulted in my muscles changing their genetically
determined shape. I have successfully trained for competition using those same
exercises - without any sort of “variety” - and my results are better than when I did rotate
my exercises.

We can vary the intensity of an exercise (more weight / more repetitions / less rest
between sets, etc.), and we can increase the overall volume of work (more total sets) -
both of which do benefit the muscle. But there is no real benefit to doing multiple
exercises, per body part, per workout, nor in changing exercises every four to six
weeks.

Pectorals and Trapezius are the only two muscles do benefit from two exercises / two
angles. All other muscles only require one exercise. This is not meant to suggest that
doing two or three exercises per workout, per muscle, would be less productive -
although it may be. It is meant to suggest that two or three exercises per muscle, per
workout, is not necessary. It is not more advantageous, than doing one good exercise,
per muscle, per workout, and it may result in some wasted effort and/or a higher risk of
injury. Of course, this assumes the same number of sets in both scenarios.

- - - - - - - -
Testing the Theory

20
The reason I can say with confidence that “no one has ever tested the theory” is
because few people are willing to do only one exercise, for each physique muscle, for
an extended period of time (six months or more), as an experiment. Even fewer would
know how to conduct the test properly.

To be clear, the test would not be comparing the results of performing one random
exercise for a six month period of time, against the results of performing four other
random exercises in rotation, for a six month period of time.

The test should be designed to compare the results of doing one single exercise that
rates a 10 (in terms of efficiency) for a given muscle, against the results of doing four
different exercises - that rate less than 10 - in rotation, for that same muscle. So a
person needs to know what constitutes a “10”, in terms of exercise efficiency.

Here’s how the experiment would be done wrong. A “random” Triceps exercise is
selected for the first six months - and that exercise happens to rate a “5”. The other four
Triceps exercises that are randomly selected for the next six months rate a 4, 6, 7 and
8. This outcome would be very predictable. The results would be better (in terms of
muscle growth) during the second half of the experiment. However, it would not be
more successful because the exercises were rotated. It would be more successful
because the four exercises used for the second half of the experiment had an average
rating of 6.25 - which is higher than the 5 rating of the exercise used for first half of the
experiment.

Conversely, if the Triceps exercise selected for the first half of the experiment rates a
10, and those same other Triceps exercises (4, 6, 7 and 8) were used for the second
half of the experiment, the result would be very different. The single Triceps exercise
that rated a “10” (the first six months), would produce a better result than the four
Triceps exercises that averaged a 6.25 rating. But very people would know how to
select an exercise that rates a “10”, so the test would be flawed and the outcome would
be misleading.

Efficient exercises (those that rate a “10”) load the muscle most, waste the least amount
of energy, have the most productive resistance curve, do not strain the joints, and
create the least risk of injury - even when used exclusively. It is NEVER more
productive to switch from an exercise that rates a 10, to an exercise that rates a 5 or 6.

- - - - - - - -
Summary
Assessing an exercise from the perspective of biomechanical efficiency (maximum load
on the target muscle, minimum wasted / unproductive effort, minimal injury risk) requires
knowledge of three categories:

21
1. “Ideal” anatomical motion for each physique muscle, based on:
a. Target muscle insertions moving directly toward target muscle origins
b. Movements occurring in ways that are most “natural” to muscles and joints
c. Sufficient Range of Motion / Dynamic Muscle Contraction

2. “Ideal” direction of resistance, in order to provide:

a. Alignment
b. Opposite Position Loading
c. Early Phase Loading / optimal resistance curve
d. Relief from Mechanical Disadvantage, where necessary
e. Mostly “active” levers working for target muscle / mostly “neutral” levers
working for non-target muscles

3. Basic muscle physiology

a. Selecting a resistance curve that matches the muscle’s strength curve
b. Utilizing dynamic exercise instead of isometric exercise
c. Utilizing “independent” / uni-lateral exercise whenever possible
d. Working “with” reciprocal innervation - avoiding it when necessary, and
incorporating it when useful

An exercise that complies with all of the above prerequisites, is more productive, more
efficient, and more safe. The degree to which an exercise fails to comply with the above
prerequisites, results in a commensurate loss of efficiency, compromised productivity,
and/or tendency to cause injury or strain. In other words, the more “imperfect” the
exercise is (in terms of its biomechanical components), the less beneficial it is, and the
more risky it is.

We can thus determine which exercises are “best” for each physique muscle, which
exercises are compromised, and to what degree they are compromised. This allows us
to establish which exercises are “bad”, “good”, “better” and “best”.

A compound exercise can also be evaluated the way. The exercise could be deemed
“good”, if its individual components (its various moving parts) are each optimally
productive and safe.

Conversely, a compound exercise that combines two or more motions, of which one or
more motions are contorted, out of alignment, not 100% natural, or have a
compromised resistance curve, must be valued less, for that reason.

A muscle typically produces one primary “ideal” motion - it moves its muscle insertion
directly toward its origin during the concentric phase, and directly away from its
origin during the eccentric phase. This literally defines the pathway of the limb which is
operated by that muscle. An ideal motion does not contort the joint which that muscle
operates.

22
When an ideal anatomical motion is combined with the ideal direction of resistance, it is
not necessary to use more than one exercise for that muscle, per workout (or ever).
That one exercise stimulates that muscle as well as that muscle can be stimulated. A
second exercise would either be inferior or redundant.

There are not “multiple ways” a muscle needs to be worked. The entire muscle is
stimulated, when it contracts. The exception to this (and only to a degree) are the
Pectorals and the Trapezius, because these two muscles are fan-shaped, with fibers
running in multiple directions. But even in these two cases, only two different directions
of movement are required.

A muscle cannot change its genetically-determined shape, regardless of which

exercises are used.

A muscle does not get “accustomed” to an exercise, such that it no longer benefits from
that exercise. If an exercise has excellent biomechanical components, a muscle will
always benefit from that exercise - even if that exercise is used exclusively. Switching
from an excellent exercise, to an exercise that has inferior biomechanical components,
will benefit the muscle less.

A muscle “super-compensates” (improves) to accommodate the stress it experienced

from a recent exercise session. Super-compensation results in increased muscle
strength, muscle fiber thickness, muscle endurance, etc. This process only takes three
to six days. After that, the muscle begins its “de-conditioning”, if not exercised again. It
returns to its baseline after approximately 14 days. This is why we need to work a
muscle again every three to six days, so that the hypertrophy continues.

For this reason, there’s no need to “shock” the muscle with a new exercise. A muscle is
“shocked” every time it is exposed to the stress of an exercise - whether that exercise is
different or not. The muscle is constantly adapting up, and de-conditioning down, from
its last exercise-induced stress. If you want more “shock” to a given muscle, simply
allow it to rest for a week or two, and the same exercise will be perceived as “new”
again. That’s more productive than switching to an inferior exercise.

What benefits a muscle most (from the perspective of hypertrophy / development), is

that the biomechanical components of an exercise be optimal. These include the
following:

1. An exercise that moves the target muscle’s operating lever toward the origin of
that muscle (during concentric contraction), is BETTER than one that does not.

2. An exercise that provides full (or relatively full) range of motion, is BETTER than one
that only provides static muscle tension for that muscle, or insufficient range of
motion.

23
3. An exercise that provides alignment of the 1) direction of movement, 2) direction of
resistance, and 3) the origin / insertion of the target muscle - is BETTER than
an exercise that does not provide that alignment.

4. An exercise that allows simple and direct muscle contraction without joint contortion
(twisting / straining), is BETTER than an exercise that over-complicates the
movement and contorts (twists / strains) the joint.

5. An exercise that provides a direction of resistance that is directly opposite the target
muscle’s origin (“Opposite Position Loading”), is BETTER than an exercise that
provides a direction of resistance that is not directly opposite the target
muscle’s origin.

6. An exercise that provides “Early Phase Loading” is usually BETTER than an

exercise that does not provide that. The exception would be exercises that
coincide with an “unusual”* Mechanical Disadvantage.

(Note: * “Unusual” because it only occurs with flexion muscles, and only during part of its range
of motion. Muscles that always work with Mechanical Disadvantage - extension muscles - are
not in this category.)

7. An exercise that involves a mostly “active” (perpendicular) operating lever

(limb), is BETTER (more efficient) than an exercise that utilizes a partially active
lever, or a mostly neutral operating lever (limb moved by the target muscle).

8. An exercise that employs a longer lever (not diminished by the “doubling back of a
secondary lever”, like a forearm or lower leg), is usually BETTER than an
exercise that provides a shorter lever length / less resistance magnification.

The chapters that follow will establish the ideal anatomical movement of each physique
muscle. They also suggest ideal directions of resistance for those movements, and
explain why certain exercises are inferior for those particular muscles.

24