The Physics of Fitness

Chapter Ten
The “All or Nothing” Principle
of Muscle Contraction
plus the Myth of “Shaping” a Muscle

When a muscle fiber contracts, it does so from origin to insertion.

It is impossible for only part of a muscle fiber to contract, or for one

end of a muscle fiber to contract more forcefully than the other end of
the muscle fiber, by the selection of exercises.

Either the entire length of the muscle fiber contracts, or it does not
contract at all.

- - - - - -
Like so many human endeavors, bodybuilding is filled with folklore - beliefs that are
based more on wishful thinking, than on fact or logic. People often believe that certain
exercises will change the shape of a muscle - beyond simply making it larger - in ways
that would make it more aesthetically pleasing. Unfortunately, that is physiologically
impossible*.

It is also common for people to assume that every person with an amazing physique,
developed his (or her) body with “advanced” insight. Thus, we often mistakenly assume
that every exercise a “very fit” person performs, has been selected by that person
because it’s 100% effective. We also assume that that person had full control over the
shape his body has taken. These are incorrect assumptions.

This is not to suggest that the person with an amazing physique has not worked hard,
nor that he doesn’t have some degree of insight. However, when a person does a
number of different exercises for each muscle, it’s easy to assume that all those
exercises contributed equally to the end result. But that would be an incorrect
assumption.

1
In fact, exercises are NOT all equally productive. That is an absolute fact. Also, the
ultimate shape of a person’s muscles - after they’ve been developed (hypertrophied) -
is mostly pre-determined by genetics. The shape of our muscles, after they’ve been
hypertrophied by way of resistance exercise, is not of our choosing.

When our muscles grow, they simply become a larger version of what they were when
they were smaller. One analogy I’ve heard, with which I agree, is that a circle is still a
circle, even when it’s bigger. It doesn’t become a rectangle. So it is with muscles.

(Note: * There are only two muscles which could be regarded as “exceptions” to the rule, and
that is only because their fibers travel in such divergent directions. These are the Pectorals and
the Trapezius. Because of this, we can direct movement and resistance toward one group of
fibers, or another group of fibers, within that same muscle. However, the “all or nothing” rule still
applies to the fiber contraction. When each individual muscle fiber contracts, it does so from
origin to insertion.)

- - - - - -
Muscles are similar to ropes or elastic bands. Let’s say you tie a rope around a tree,
and pull on it (example below). The rope will be evenly taught through its entire length.
It cannot be more slack, nor more taught, anywhere between you and the tree. The
tension is evenly distributed along the entire length of the rope. Muscles operate the
same way.

Maybe you’re thinking that that might be true when one end of the rope is anchored to a
stationary object - like a tree - but perhaps it would be different if both ends were mobil.
Okay - let’s see what happens during a “tug-of-war”, where both ends are free to move.

2
If the man on the right (above) were “winning”, would the rope be more taught closest to
him? No, it would not be. It does not matter who’s “winning”. It does not matter
whether the rope is moving more toward the left or to the right. Either way, the rope will
have the same tension throughout, from one end to the other.

It’s “all or nothing”. Either the entire length of the rope has tension, or there is no
tension anywhere on the rope. It is impossible to pull on the rope in any way, such that
more tension is on one end, and less tension is on the other end. If the amount of force
increases, it increases everywhere on the rope. If it decreases, it does so evenly
throughout the entire the length of the rope.

The same is true with muscles. Any muscle that is required to contract against
resistance, will have that muscle tension evenly distributed through the entire length of
the muscle fibers, from the origin (where it begins) to the insertion (where it connects).
The reason a muscle is able to produce skeletal movement, is because of the evenly
distributed contraction that causes the muscle’s origin and insertion to move closer
together.

Let’s look at some examples of how this works in the human body.

“Inner” and “Outer” Pectorals ?

For years, a myth has been perpetuated thought that a Dumbbell Press (below-left)
works the “inner” portion of the pecs, and that a Dumbbell Flye (below-right) works the
“outer” portion of the Pecs. This is completely FALSE.

3
As you can see below, the (Sternal) Pectoral fibers run from the sternum to the
humerus, like continuous “ropes”. Regardless of whether the elbow is bent more or
bent less, the Pectoral muscle pulls the humerus toward the sternum in the exact same
way. In fact, the Pectoral muscle doesn’t even “know” the position the elbow. The
Pectoral fibers simply “know” the amount of load - whether it’s a product of a longer
lever (i.e., fly) or a shorter lever (i.e., press).

4
The only difference between the two versions above, is the “effective length” of the
operating lever (i.e., the upper arm, plus its “secondary lever”, the forearm). A longer
effective lever (elbows less bent) magnifies resistance more, which requires that less
weight be used. A shorter lever (elbows more bent) magnifies resistance less, which
allows more weight to be used. But either way, the Pectoral fibers that are working, are
contracting evenly - from origin to insertion.

There’s simply no way for a person to selectively load (or contract) the “inner” part of the
Pectorals more than the “outer” part of the Pectorals (or vice versa), while performing
any kind of Pectoral exercise.

“Upper Abs” and “Lower Abs” ?

The “All or Nothing” Principle of Muscle Contraction also applies to the Abs, although
not to the same degree as it does in all the other skeletal muscles. This will be
explained in more detail in Chapter 24, where we specifically discuss the Rectus
abdominis.

We often hear people talk about the “lower abs”. If you were to do an internet search on
“lower abs”, you would find thousands of articles discussing “how to work the lower
abs”. However, there is no “Lower Ab”, as a separate muscle. And, even if we could
emphasize that lower region, it would not produce the result most people want.

Below, we see a side view of the Rectus abdominis. It is a single sheet of muscle, that
originates at the pubic bone of the pelvis, and attaches onto the frontal part of the lower
ribs. When the muscle contracts, it pulls the front of the ribs toward the pelvis - or the
pelvis toward the ribs. The muscle does not “know” which end is moving toward which
end. This is analogous to the Tug-of-War mentioned above. It does not matter who is
“winning” the Tug-of-War. Either way, the “rope” has tension throughout.

5
The purpose of muscle contraction is to pull the origin and the insertion toward each
other, thereby producing skeletal movement. The function of the Rectus abdominis is to
produce “spinal flexion”. This skeletal movement would not occur unless the entire
Rectus abdominis - from origin to insertion - contracted.

We cannot only contract the “upper abs”, nor only the “lower abs”, nor can we contract
the “lower abs” a bit more than the “upper abs”. There is no such thing as an exercise
that allows us to do that.

Further, it is impossible to add another “row” of abs, and it is equally impossible to

selectively “dissipate” the fat that has accumulated in that lower region, by way of any
exercise. So the effort to emphasize “work” on the lower region of the midsection is
misguided anyway.

Note: The upper area of the Abs always contracts with a bit more force than the lower area of
the abs. This will be further explained in Chapter 24. Still, this is not something over which we
have any control.

Making Biceps More “Full” ?

In the 1960s, a man named Larry Scott dominated the bodybuilding scene. He won Mr.
California in 1960, Mr. America in 1962, Mr. Universe in 1964. He then won Mr. Olympia
in 1965 and again in 1966. Although he had an excellent overall physique, he was
especially known for his arms - his biceps, in particular. They were big, of course - but
they were also unusually “full”. By this, we mean that his Biceps went all the way into
the crook of his arm, whereas most people’s Biceps stop about a half an inch before the
crook of the arm.

6
People assumed that Larry Scott must be doing a special exercise, to cause his Biceps
to be so full. Interestingly, he did have a “favorite” exercise, which is known as the
“Preacher Curl” (photo below). So, many people assumed that this particular exercise
was responsible for the fullness of his Larry Scott’s Biceps. In fact, the exercise became
known as “Scott Curls” - a term which is still used today by some of the “old schoolers”.

However, Larry Scott’s Biceps were shaped exactly as his genetics had predetermined.
Regardless of which exercises he had chosen to do, his Biceps would have had the
exact same shape, notwithstanding fluctuations in overall size.

Of course, some people might ask, “How do you know Larry Scott’s Biceps would have
looked the same if he had NOT done those curls?”. Very simply, it has never been
duplicated again, despite thousands of people - if not millions - having done the exact
same exercise. No one has ever developed arms like those of Larry Scott’s.

But that is not the only reason we can be assured that it was not “Preacher Curls” that
produced those arms. From the perspective of physics, there is simply no way that any
part of a continuous muscle fiber - anywhere between its origin and its insertion - can be
made to experience more tension than the rest of the muscle fiber.

Preacher Curls have a resistance curve that is different than that of the Standing
Barbell Curl. Preacher Curls cause the Biceps to experience more resistance at the
beginning of the range of motion (when the elbow is mostly extended, and the arms are
nearly straight), than does the Standing Barbell Curl. However, this does not influence

7
the shape of the Biceps. It simply causes there to be more resistance earlier in the
range of motion, and less resistance toward the end of the range of motion.

Did Mr. Scott believe “Preacher Curls” influenced the shape of his Biceps? Unless he
was familiar with physics and bio-mechanics, he may have actually believed that. On
the other hand, he might have also been aware of how many others had used that same
exercise, trying get the same result, but failed. That would have been the first clue that
“it’s not the exercise” which created the shape of those arms.

Mr. Scott DID try to capitalize on people believing that this exercise would make their
Biceps more “full”. After all, people were willing to pay him money for the “secret” to his
extraordinarily full Biceps. And, just like Charles Atlas in the previous chapter, business
does not require that one be truthful, nor accurate. In general, the fitness industry has a
long history of untruthful (or misinformed) marketers, and products that are marketed by
way of unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims.

- - - - - -
The Myth of Muscle Shaping
Normally, when we speak of the “All or Nothing Principle of Muscle Contraction”, we
are referring to “ends” of a muscle fiber - the fact that the entire length of a fiber
contracts, if it contracts at all. However, the “all or nothing” principle could also be used
to mean that a muscle which has multiple “heads” (parts) which all contribute to one
single function in unison, cannot have its parts emphasized by way of exercise.

For example, the Biceps is comprised of two “heads”, but both produce the same
primary function: elbow flexion.

The Triceps is comprised of three “heads”, but all three parts produce the same primary
function: elbow extension.

The Quadriceps is comprised of four “heads”, but all four parts produce the same
primary function: knee extension. (Note: One part also assists in a secondary function,
but that secondary function is not primary. It still mostly performs knee extension.)

The Calf muscle is comprised of two “heads”, but both produce the same primary
function: plantar flexion.

People have long believed that these muscles can be “shaped” - suggesting that one
“head” (part) of the muscle can be emphasized more during a particular exercise, than
another other part. However, because the function of these muscle groups is singular
*, causing one part of a muscle to be preferentially emphasized is physiologically
impossible.

8
This will be further discussed in Chapter 17, and also in each chapter dealing with the
individual muscle groups. Muscles operate on an “all or nothing” basis - both in terms of
the ends (origins and insertions), and also in terms of their separate “heads”. When
muscles perform their respective functions, the entire muscle (all parts of it) participate
in the movement, in unison. The only exceptions to this are the Pectorals and the
Trapezius. These two muscles are unique in the sense that their fibers run in different
directions, and can produce movement in different directions.

(* Note: The muscles mentioned above - with the possible exception of the Calves - do have at
least one other function in which they assist. This does not negate the fact that these muscles
have a “primary” function - and that is the function that most contributes to hypertrophy. The
“assist” function of these muscles is not primary enough to cause significant hypertrophy in
those particular muscles.)

Our individual genetics determines the shape of our muscles.

If our Triceps are “short” - meaning that they do not appear to sweep all the way down
to the elbow - there is no exercise that can cause the muscle to be, or appear, longer.
No exercise will change its genetically determined shape.

If our Lats are “high” - meaning that they do not sweep all the way down to the waistline
- there is no exercise that will cause the Lats to change how they attach to the spine
and the pelvis. This is also genetically determined.

If our Quadriceps have a “boxy” appearance to them, and we would like for them to
have a more graceful “sweep” - there is no exercise we can do which will produce that
shape. When the Quadriceps contract, they do so in the one-and-only manner they can
(knee extension), regardless of the exercise which causes its activation.

Here are the two exceptions, and their limitations.

When we work the Pectorals, we can select a direction of humeral movement - using
a directly opposing resistance - and “favor” some fibers more than others. We can
direct our arms more toward the sternum (for the Sternal fibers); we can direct our arms
more toward the ribs (for the Costal fibers); and we can move our arms more toward the
clavicle (for the Clavicular fibers). This will be discussed further in the Pectoral section
of this book. But we cannot effect the “inner” or “outer parts”, preferentially.

When we work the Trapezius, we can select a direction of scapular movement - using
a directly opposing resistance - and favor some fibers more than others. We can move
our scapula straight upward (for the Upper Trapezius fibers), or we can move our
scapula in various degrees of “backward”. But we cannot preferentially effect the outer
ends of those fibers, nor the inner ends of those fibers.

All other muscles typically move their corresponding lever / limb in one primary
direction. This not only hints at the fact that that particular muscle cannot be “shaped”

9
according to one’s wishes, but also suggests that there is one “best” direction of
anatomical movement for those muscles. Thus, we can begin the process of selecting
exercises that are most productive for the development of those muscles, as compared
with other exercises.

- - - - - -
Summary
As with any endeavor whose followers are very passionate (if not obsessed), there is
often a great deal of myth and folklore. This is certainly true in bodybuilding and the
pursuit of physique development. These myths and folklore have lead many people to
believe that there are “secret” exercises which can produce the exact muscle shape we
desire. Unfortunately, there is no truth nor science behind these beliefs. Sometimes,
the beliefs are entirely illogical.

Weight lifting, bodybuilding, calisthenics, yoga - all have their passionate followers.
Each of these fields has its share of pseudo experts (gurus), who claim to have an
understanding of that field beyond that of others. In many cases, these “leaders” have
demonstrated apparent success within that field, even if that success was achieved
more by chance than by scientific knowledge. More often than not, that success is a
result of excellent genetics, a great deal of effort, and doing enough “very productive"
exercises to offset the exercises that are less productive.

This is not to suggest that these “experts”, gurus and champions do not deserve any
credit at all. They likely have often made positive contributions in their respective fields,
even if they inadvertently perpetuated some false beliefs. Also, it very likely that they
know some aspects of their field, but are wrong about other aspects. Even medical
doctors have been wrong about certain beliefs.

Many of these champions have appeared in magazines, where they are seen
demonstrating exercises that are less than optimally productive, accompanying an
article which states that “This exercise works one part of (a muscle), and this other
exercise works (a different part) of that muscle”. That may seem innocent enough
to most readers, and it’s not that these champions have deliberately intended to mislead
readers. Nevertheless, those false statement have contributed to the massive degree
of mis-information that currently exists.

Suggesting that exercises are all equally productive, or that a muscle’s shape can be
altered by way of certain exercises, is incorrect and misleading.

A muscle that contracts against an opposing resistance, does so from origin to insertion.
It is not possible to preferentially contract one end of a muscle, more than the other end
of a muscle.

10
A muscle’s shape is genetically determined. It cannot be influence or altered by using
specific exercises.

11