Hi.
It’s my first post in this forum, hope not the last.
My opinion regarding the issue as follow: I think that pros of compound exercises are overrated.
Lets take the bench press as example.
The “best” exercise for pecs.
Guess what? It so wrong. Except pecs there are front deltoids and triceps are participated in movement.
But how can you be sure that muscle you want to work on “gets” the load it deserve?
In compound exercise you can’t be sure.
Do a “Pec Deck” +  some exercise for triceps.
In this case you can be sure to load properly pecs and triceps.
Same about almost every muscle group.

What do you think?
Thanks

Hi Anatoly,

It’s my first post in this forum, hope not the last.

Don’t worry. One day we all have to die. Just jk

Welcome anatoly to Exercise Biology.

My opinion regarding the issue as follow: I think that pros of compound exercises are overrated.
Lets take the bench press as example.
The “best” exercise for pecs.
Guess what? It so wrong. Except pecs there are front deltoids and triceps are participated in movement.
But how can you be sure that muscle you want to work on “gets” the load it deserve?

I wouldn’t disagree.

And it mainly depends on your bench technique . If you take a wider grip, lower the bar to the upper chest, expand the rib cage at the bottom to get a greater stretch, make a pause at the bottom, keep you elbows flared out, you will definitely hit your chest more than if you just push the bar up. Most people do the latter.

As you said, that’s the problem with compounds; there is no way to know how the load is getting shared. Most people have dominant tris and shoulders and hence their body naturally tends to adopt a technique which uses more of those muscles and less of the chest. Body always takes the path of least resistance.

In compound exercise you can’t be sure.
Do a “Pec Deck” +  some exercise for triceps.
In this case you can be sure to load properly pecs and triceps.
Same about almost every muscle group.

I think when people say compounds are good , they just mean for overall mass or size. And I am not sure if there is some increased EMG activity with compound exercises than single joint exercises.

Some people talk about increase GH production with compound exercise. But that’s a load of bullshit anyways.

Good first post.

hmm
from what i’m getting, isolation exercises are better because you can control the load
so, screw compound exercises and do a bunch of isolation exercises instead. (Do a “Pec Deck” +  some exercise for triceps.)
i couldn’t disagree more.

both of them should be used, as they have their benefits
but having compound exercises is crucial- you can’t be okay with just isolation exercises!

first of all, you’re simplifying it way too much
bench press is not just “shoulders, triceps, chest)
compound exercises involve plenty of stabilizers that isolation misses
more muscle groups are worked
not to mention this is certainly a plus in functional lifting

second of all
it’s faster.
seriously. i can take 19283791273 hours and do isolation exercises
or push the muscles to the limit in short time and add some isolation afterwards for lagging parts

third of all
strength goals:
have fun gaining strength with just isolation exercises
think about it. your whole body’s moving when you use your strength. again: FUNCTIONAL LIFTING
size goals:
you’re lifting more. more intensity
and anoop’s certainly right- you hit the chest with those elbows out bench press

fourth
Pek deks? a single machine just for the chest?
hit the free weights.

in conclusion, loading is an issue but don’t just rely on numbers
i guarantee with compound movements your numbers and size will be going up better than with just isolation
again: i’m not totally throwing out isolation
they have their use in direct work to muscle groups and the like
but they’re just the gravy on the compound exercises which are your real meat and potatoes.

Thanks for the comments

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

hmm
both of them should be used, as they have their benefits
but having compound exercises is crucial- you can’t be okay with just isolation exercises!

Actually you can, it depends on your goals
If you came to gym to save your health, you don’t have to perform compound exercises.

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

compound exercises involve plenty of stabilizers that isolation misses
more muscle groups are worked
not to mention this is certainly a plus in functional lifting

The question: What do you want to achieve?
Pecs mass or stabilizers mass?
About functional lifting you right: if you want to lift more in bench press, you have to bench.

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

it’s faster.
seriously. i can take 19283791273 hours and do isolation exercises
or push the muscles to the limit in short time and add some isolation afterwards for lagging parts

No, it’s not.
Compound exercises exhaust you, since they are complex.
You can do bunch of isolation with no rest between sets and in this way to short you workout.

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

your whole body’s moving when you use your strength. again: FUNCTIONAL LIFTING

I don’t want my “whole body’s moving”. I need to know exactly what to load each time.

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

size goals:
you’re lifting more. more intensity

Not exactly.
The reason you push on bench more then on “pec deck” machine it’s because you triceps and front deltoids helps to chest muscle.

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

fourth
Pek deks? a single machine just for the chest?
hit the free weights.

barbell fly’s, incline fly’s, crossover…

Mumford - 26 March 2009 05:03 AM

i guarantee with compound movements your numbers and size will be going up better than with just isolation

From my experience: when I start to do fly’s instead of bench press, my chest starts to grow.
And believe me, I do know to bench properly.

Finally: I’m certain that compound exercises has to be performed as well as isolation.
But I think that more experienced trainee must have at least 50/50 on iso/comp if not 60/40

Thanks.

Hi Anatoly,

From my experience: when I start to do fly’s instead of bench press, my chest starts to grow.
And believe me, I do know to bench properly.

And this is the problem: “my experience”.

There will be plenty of people who had experienced greater growth with compound movements than single joint. Whom should we believe? A good example is squat. I am pretty sure the majority of people would vouch squat over leg extensions and leg curls for overall leg development.

I would say compound movements are good for overall mass and single joint for emphasizing a muscle. Like squats for overall leg rorwth and leg extensions for emphasizing quads.

And I have a gut feeling that there is some increased muscle activity with compounds than isolations. In a recent study, they showed squats to have a lot greater muscle activity than leg press.Not saying leg press is isolation, but I suspect something similar happening in compound movements compared to isolations. 

Finally: I’m certain that compound exercises has to be performed as well as isolation.

And why do you think so? What’s you rationale for compound movements should be in a 50/50 ratio when you can exactly figure out the load falling on each muscle with isolations.

anoopbal - 26 March 2009 06:23 PM

Hi Anatoly,
And this is the problem: “my experience”.
There will be plenty of people who had experienced greater growth with compound movements than single joint. Whom should we believe?

It’s not only me.
Vince Gironda, for example was convinced that bench press do nothing(very little) for pecs development.

anoopbal - 26 March 2009 06:23 PM

In a recent study, they showed squats to have a lot greater muscle activity than leg press.Not saying leg press is isolation, but I suspect something similar happening in compound movements compared to isolations.

I saw it, don’t remember where.
Leg press shows little bit smaller muscle activity then squat, and leg extension the smallest.

anoopbal - 26 March 2009 06:23 PM

What’s you rationale for compound movements should be in a 50/50 ratio when you can exactly figure out the load falling on each muscle with isolations.

You convince me, what can I say

Vince Gironda, for example was convinced that bench press do nothing(very little) for pecs development.

Ever heard about Vince Gironda neck press and wide grip dips? All compound movemnts came up by vince to target the chest.

Anyway, the point is we can keep on throwing out names who favored compounds and isolation. And it won’t get us anywhere in the discussion.

You convince me, what can I say grin

I am serious because even I am not entirely convinced as to why compounds are better than isolations. The only one might be the increased muscle activity. And that’s only if it is true.

I might have to look up the studies.

Clearly I’m out gunned in the brainpower dept. of this argument, but would like to interject some.

1. I believe synergy would be underrated as one advances without compound movements. Isn’t the body made to work together and if one is just using front and side raises for delt development, where is the scapula movement that come from pressing? Etc… It seems that compounds done properly balance the physique aesthetically and functionally.

2. I know that subjective data is speculative, but when was the last time some one tore a pec doing an isolation exercise? . Would that not mean the strain on the pecs would be greater than a fly. And I know that sounds dumb Isn’t there a greater stress with a higher load?

hm. so i browsed through these comments
i certainly stand corrected on some things (time, for example- supersets with isolation can call for a shorter workout too)

i feel that isolation exercises have their place for size
but for someone who trains mainly for strength like me, compound exercises take up the majority of the routine

Hi Anatoly,

2. I know that subjective data is speculative, but when was the last time some one tore a pec doing an isolation exercise? . Would that not mean the strain on the pecs would be greater than a fly. And I know that sounds dumb wink Isn’t there a greater stress with a higher load?

When was the last time people used 90 - 100% of their 1RM on dumbell flyes? I get your point but I think most of the injuries are due to people trying to max out on bench or using 1- 3 reps. If people maxed out on flyes, we might see more injuries there. And our whole arguement against compounds was that the load gets shared and hence isolations are better. So I am not sure how increasing load can be a justification

I think the same goes for people tearing their biceps with deadlift. But then again they are maxing out most of the time.

1. I believe synergy would be underrated as one advances without compound movements. Isn’t the body made to work together and if one is just using front and side raises for delt development, where is the scapula movement that come from pressing? Etc… It seems that compounds done properly balance the physique aesthetically and functionally.

But that goes back to what you said. Do you need mass in your chest or your back stabilizers?

Anyways, really good discussion and well thought out comments from everyone. Wish we had more members who could contribute.

anoopbal - 26 March 2009 09:51 PM

The only one might be the increased muscle activity. And that’s only if it is true.
I might have to look up the studies.

Please do, if such studies exists, it might be very interesting and helpful.
Thanks.

Please do, if such studies exists, it might be very interesting and helpful.
Thanks.

I had emailed DR.Escamilla. He had done a lot of EMG studies on closed chain and open chain exercises. It was his study which showed greater EMG activty with squats than leg press. If someone knew the answer, it would be him.  I asked the question if compound movements resulted in greater EMG activity than single joint and this is what he had to say:

No, for a given muscle the compound exercises are probably not more effective as single joint, so bench press and flys both equally effective for pec development.

We were all wrong (:-

bench press and flys both equally effective for pec development.

(!!!)

I would rather know the truth than think I was right while being wrong all the time. LOL

Thanks

Let me bump this and ask about the concept of the hormonal response of compound vs, isolation.

Kraemer found that Squats elicited a greater hormonal response than leg curls and jump squats more than the bench press. As well as the study I read and exerpt from an article (Campos GE, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2002 Nov; 88:50-60) that stated that subjects who trained bi’s after legs added 20% more strength in 9 wks. than those who trained bi’s alone.

Kraemer found that Squats elicited a greater hormonal response than leg curls and jump squats more than the bench press

The greater release of GH with training has nothing to do with muscle growth. It has been shown again and again that it is the local growth factors like IGF-1 that are responsible for growth and not systemic GH & IGF-1

This article talks about it: http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/are_8_12_reps_the_best_for_muscle_growth/

As well as the study I read and exerpt from an article (Campos GE, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2002 Nov; 88:50-60) that stated that subjects who trained bi’s after legs added 20% more strength in 9 wks. than those who trained bi’s alone.

I know this study well bcos it was one of my thesis references to show that low rep training and high rep training showed no differences which even surprised the researchers.

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.
Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15.Click here to read

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the “strength-endurance continuum”. Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the “strength-endurance continuum”.