Ditch the Barbell gents!

I'm sure most will simply ignore this post, but for those of you truly opened minded, you will thank me later.

So I was watching Mark Bell's Power Podcast and he had a guy named Doug Brignole on. He is been bodybuilding for 40+ years, was Mr. Universe and a few other things. Anyway, getting to the point, he basically proves with physics and math that many of the "must-do" mass builders, and several other popular movements are inefficient and simply not worth doing due to risk to and strain on joint; that the fitness industry is promoting myths and falsehoods due to keeping tradition and the mentality of "train hard or go home," "gotta hit the muscle from every angle" with a ton of redundant and ineffective exercises, when really, we can stimulate our muscles without destroying our bodies by avoiding exercises that "cost" a ton of energy to do, but don't even load the muscle we want that well.

To break it down, isolation movements are always superior for "mass building" than compound; it is a bold statement, but irrefutably true. I went on to watched a ton of his interviews, aside from the two posted below, then started applying the optimal physics to my workouts. There is no debate. I bought his book also so I could learn more, and now I'm an advocate lol.

The hardest part will be convincing all the people who have seen results with barbell movements like bench, squat, SLDL, barbell curls, skull crushes, deadlift etc., (we all have) to let go of these things for bodybuilding purposes. Now, no one is saying these things don't work at all, but they don't work as well. For example, you get 100% quad load from extensions, but only 30% from squats, so it makes no sense for us bodybuilding to use more energy than necessary to try and load the quad muscle with a less effective exercise, all while increasing the risk of injury, when we can just do the better one for more sets.

Now, how did Ronnie and others build huge legs with squads and for forth? Well if you add up all the sets and exercise they did, an exercise with the efficiency of 30% here, 40% there, 20% etc, you will get 100% stimulus, but they could have done all that without using least efficient movements. And look at Ronnie now? Many pros get injured doing things they don't need to be doing, but think they should be doing it because someone before them told them so. The only people who should doing compounds are those who are powerlifting or competing in strength, but for bodybuilding, there is literally no reason to do anything compound at all; the best movements are with dumbbells and cables, but not just any dumbbell or cable exercises, there are specific ones that load the muscle the best way possible because of their biomechanical profile.

Anyway, here's there two interviews. The first one got people triggered; the second one clarified it more. I've been in touch with Doug via DM on Instagram, and he is ahead of his time with this stuff. It is crazy once you see what he is saying, how we didn't conclude these things on our own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VdX59JGEgQ&t=8319s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG8_if1Wz-0

But you could build a complete solid whole by maximally targeting each muscle lol. Watch the interviews, you'll see haha. But if you want total explosive strenght, lets say for football, sure squats are great because you need to practice that movement specifically to get off the line, for example.

It was OK. I noticed sleep and stuff, but nothing spectacular. From what I researched, the peptides will maximize what you can produce naturally, but not exceed it...Also, If you do the math, it turns out the peptides will cost more over time, as I increased my daily dose to 500mcg per day. So I found a great generic GH source and I'm now 233, but way leaner. I also brewed my own Test and Primo and injectable carnitine, so I'm sure that's helping lol.

B

I also ENJOY all of those exercises, so for me personally it goes beyond just “building”. I like my compound movements, and love to bench and squat, regardless of their efficiency or inefficiency.

There has to be a pleasure component too or it’s a fast track to burning out.

Fascinating stuff though, thanks for sharing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cylon357

I don't think you would end up with a cohesive whole with just isolation work, at least not when it came time to function. The muscles just would not be used to working together. Strictly body building, yeah, you could probably get away with it. But to your point, anything sport related, yeah probably not.

It is also possible I have no clue what I am talking about, so there is that :rofl:

Interesting on the peptides. I found the ModGRF 1-29 / Ipamorelin combo helpful, but I think at 53 I have like 20 years on you lol! So, getting back to my natural capabilities is an upgrade. I still want to run a long term (6 months or so) experiment using both peps in the PM and hgh in the AM to see if that is a best of both worlds thing, or if I end up looking like Carrot Top...

---

We should all aim to look like Carrot Top, no shame there imho

Oh, carrot top is a long ways from winning any beauty contests ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser

But you could build a complete solid whole by maximally targeting each muscle lol. Watch the interviews, you'll see haha. But if you want total explosive strenght, lets say for football, sure squats are great because you need to practice that movement specifically to get off the line, for example.


B

---

It’s a really good theory. But, your shoulders, even with pure isolation movements will still take a beating from the repetition. So even if you don’t bench or do military presses, the rotator cuff is going to get hammered and the RC is a PITA for most everyone eventually. You can do pecs without hurting the shoulders however by sticking with flies and pec-dec.

By eliminating squats and deadlifts you are definitely reducing the weight bearing loads through the lumbar spine, hips & knees, so that is a nice trade off and benefit to joint longevity. However you are going to really put more strain on the patellofemoral joint (underside of patella and the grooves of the femoral condyles) by having to rely more heavily on knee extensions for quads, so that’s a big potential issue. Really hitting the glutes is going to be tough as that is a big muscle group that needs a lot of stimulation. Isolation motions are kind of lacking there.

The old Nautilus equipment from the 70’s actually had some back machines that isolated the lats and traps separately. They also had a glute/hamstring machine as well that was a single joint movement. Perhaps Arthur Jones had the same concept in mind.

There will always be a use for barbells and compound movements.
There will always be a purpose for isolation movements.
One without the other is an incomplete program.

However, there are times you may need to adjust.

Having shoulder grief from pressing? Lower the weight and grab some dumbbells for a while.

Having issues squatting due to mobility, surgery, or certain injuries? Acquaint yourself with a leg press for a while.

Have to be able to change things up and adjust. Attacking a muscle time after time after time in the same manner generally will lead to some grief.

Edit: Just to expand on this, don't neglect or discount Theraband or tubing work. It can be remarkably effective and therapeutic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SampsonandDelilah

I also ENJOY all of those exercises, so for me personally it goes beyond just “building”. I like my compound movements, and love to bench and squat, regardless of their efficiency or inefficiency.

There has to be a pleasure component too or it’s a fast track to burning out.

Fascinating stuff though, thanks for sharing

---

If you guys ENJOY doing them, and want to build that "strength" that comes with it, that's fine. I've ditched everything and focus on heavy isolations, and I have to say, the muscle get 0WRECKED, but I'm not wrecked, as I no longer get systematic fatigue from my workouts, not even leg days. Sounds "pussy" but it's not, because my legs get destroyed. As for boring, sure, but nothing is boring about getting an amazing pump each time with the most efficient exercises lol, so I'm fine with only needing a handful of them to get the job done. But it all is truly is fascinating, and crazy how no one actually sat down and thought about it from a psychics perspective. I've been applying all this for three weeks now, and my muscles feel like they have been sore like a newbie after each workout. It just makes so much sense.

If you really want to grow your back, why do deadlifts that hit everything, don't even load the lats efficiently, and drain you of your energy for everything else that workout, and could injure you? I got rid of all rowing movements for back, all I do now are TWO exercises where I "pull-in" from a 45 degree angle (since the lats' fibers go 45 degrees), and that REALLY kills them. As he explains in his book, doing any rowing from the front hits the delts more, and puts all this strain on the erector spinae, and that lats only get 40% of the load... When you do "pull-ins," it goes 100% directly to the lats.

I got rid of squats and do cable squats (version of sissy squats) and just do sets and sets of extensions and curls; HOWEVER, I do finish legs with a one-legged press, knowing that it's not that efficient, BUT it hits the glutes and it acts as a "finisher" exercise. My gym doesn't have that multi-hip machine thing that the women use to hit glutes, so I do the presses. To me, I think it makes more sense to hit the most efficient exercises first (isolations), then do compound if you wanted. Dorian kind of did that by hitting pull overs first, then saved dead lifts for last...Also, by hitting isolations with super intensity, it sweat my ass off and work the targeted muscles harder, rather than FEELING like I got hit by a truck, and going home drained systematically.

In the book he also goes and debunks all the "myths" like hitting muscles from "all angles" with different grips. The only time you can hit a muscle from different angles is when their fibers go in different angles or have heads that share DIFFERENT insertions. For example, triceps do have three heads, but they all attach the same tendon, and that tendon is NOT attached to your forearm or wrist, so changing your grip does literally zero, plus you can't isolate the heads anyway, because they ALL share the same insertion. Yet the dogma is this grip hits that head, and so on, which is just false. The traps however, which cover the upper and middle back, have fibers that go in various directions, so you have to hit them with shrugs, and also rows (best from 45 degrees). He goes into each muscle group and tells you whether they need several movements or not, but not all muscles do, yet we see people doing 6 exercises for a muscle thinking they do. The amount of heads don't mean they can be all isolated; putting your feet in won't hit your outer quads is another example.

So he isn't really revolutionizing anything or making stuff up to sell some fad; he's goes over which are the BEST most efficient exercise from a physics and biomechanics perspective, comparing them to some that are OK (are safe but inefficient), or terrible (are not safe nor efficient). The point is to save us all time and spare us from needless injuries. All I can say, my workouts are SO much better and more efficient than before.

But again, if you ENJOY doing squats or something, go for it, but I would avoid dangerous and unnecessary movements like incline chest (doesn't even hit the chest, and puts shoulders and chest in risky position) and heavy preacher curls which could lead to tearing the bicep and sucks as an exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wango

It’s a really good theory. But, your shoulders, even with pure isolation movements will still take a beating from the repetition. So even if you don’t bench or do military presses, the rotator cuff is going to get hammered and the RC is a PITA for most everyone eventually. You can do pecs without hurting the shoulders however by sticking with flies and pec-dec.

By eliminating squats and deadlifts you are definitely reducing the weight bearing loads through the lumbar spine, hips & knees, so that is a nice trade off and benefit to joint longevity. However you are going to really put more strain on the patellofemoral joint (underside of patella and the grooves of the femoral condyles) by having to rely more heavily on knee extensions for quads, so that’s a big potential issue. Really hitting the glutes is going to be tough as that is a big muscle group that needs a lot of stimulation. Isolation motions are kind of lacking there.

The old Nautilus equipment from the 70’s actually had some back machines that isolated the lats and traps separately. They also had a glute/hamstring machine as well that was a single joint movement. Perhaps Arthur Jones had the same concept in mind.

---

Thing is, the barbell bench press doesn't even hit the chest efficiently because having your hands "stuck" in place on the bar limits the true ROM, which is to bring the arms to the middle of your body (like a hug); thus, it is better to do dumbbell presses, which he says are good, but even better, decline dumbbells and of course cable flyes. But the decline angles are superior for all chest movements because it hits the maximum fibers of the chest.

As for shoulder presses, they don't hit them efficiently, as there is no origin above your face, so pressing upward makes no sense from a biomechanical and physics perspective; and worse, it puts the rotator cuff in a compromised position, whereas proper movements that go with the biomechanics of the shoulder will not do so. If you want press your front delts, he shows you two exercises that hit them WHILE keeping your rotator cuffs protected, as the exercises ensure they aren't rotated and put in a position of vulnerability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuliusPleaser

Thing is, the barbell bench press doesn't even hit the chest efficiently because having your hands "stuck" in place on the bar limits the true ROM, which is to bring the arms to the middle of your body (like a hug); thus, it is better to do dumbbell presses, which he says are good, but even better, decline dumbbells and of course cable flyes. But the decline angles are superior for all chest movements because it hits the maximum fibers of the chest.

As for shoulder presses, they don't hit them efficiently, as there is no origin above your face, so pressing upward makes no sense from a biomechanical and physics perspective; and worse, it puts the rotator cuff in a compromised position, whereas proper movements that go with the biomechanics of the shoulder will not do so. If you want press your front delts, he shows you two exercises that hit them WHILE keeping your rotator cuffs protected, as the exercises ensure they aren't rotated and put in a position of vulnerability.

---

I’m just going to politely say that I have degrees in kinesiology, physical therapy & have been teaching anatomy & physiology for 20 years. Biomechanics is my favorite subject and a passion of mine. Respectfully stated and I don’t mean to be rude or impolite, honestly - little of what you just posted in what I quoted of your post to me makes any sense and quite a bit is flat out incorrect. No offense intended, but it just is incorrect.

Having followed lifting, exercise & bodybuilding for over 45 years, I’ve seen theories, books, articles, principles that are little more than bro science, yet they get blindly followed because it is presented in a way that makes it appear correct, plus everyone is always looking for that one new approach that is going to suddenly transform them into something of their dreams. There are so many ways to train, use what works for you and abandon what doesn’t. We are not all built the same, leg length proportion , torso length proportion, arm length proportion all play a role. Many folks have differently shaped acromions, which will drastically effect rotator cuff involvement. The patellofemoral joint is another joint where variations can effect knee issues. Best of luck in your training and again, no offense meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wango

I’m just going to politely say that I have degrees in kinesiology, physical therapy & have been teaching anatomy & physiology for 20 years. Biomechanics is my favorite subject and a passion of mine. Respectfully stated and I don’t mean to be rude or impolite, honestly - little of what you just posted in what I quoted of your post to me makes any sense and quite a bit is flat out incorrect. No offense intended, but it just is incorrect.

Having followed lifting, exercise & bodybuilding for over 45 years, I’ve seen theories, books, articles, principles that are little more than bro science, yet they get blindly followed because it is presented in a way that makes it appear correct, plus everyone is always looking for that one new approach that is going to suddenly transform them into something of their dreams. There are so many ways to train, use what works for you and abandon what doesn’t. We are not all built the same, leg length proportion , torso length proportion, arm length proportion all play a role. Many folks have differently shaped acromions, which will drastically effect rotator cuff involvement. The patellofemoral joint is another joint where variations can effect knee issues. Best of luck in your training and again, no offense meant.

---

No offense taken.

When I say 'doesn't work them efficiently' I don't mean they don't work them AT ALL, but that these movements are not the BEST WAY to get the most bang for you buck, while avoiding injury. For example, incline bench press makes no sense because all pectoral muscles are underneath the clavicle, and we know all muscles pull (flex) toward their origin. The origin of the pectoral are the sternum, and insert at the humerus, so why is someone pressing upward and away from the sternum at a 45 degree angle, trying to hit the "upper pecs" with a movement that is above the clavicle? Because that is bro science. One is getting the least amount of pec recruitment, while unnecessarily hammering the shoulders in a strange and unnatural angle.

As for shoulder press, it is the same. Sure it works, but again, inefficient and risky. The purpose of the anterior deltoid is to pull the humerus forward; if you want to hit them, you can press in a different way which Doug shows in his book, without the need of going over your head which unnecessarily risks the rotator cuff and shoulders by putting them in a mechanical disadvantage.

You can disagree with me and what Doug is saying, but it is incorrect. Moreover, regardless of people's unique differences, the physics in regards of an exercise does not change. In other words, despite leg lengths and whatever else you can mention, the exercises which do not take into account the best possible alignment and full ROM for the lever at work, will always be inferior and more riskier than ones which allow full ROM from a safer and more mechanically advantaged position.

He wrote an article about all the problems with shoulder press, a while back actually. https://www.ironmanmagazine.com/the-...rhead-presses/

Regarding the pecs, and yes you are incorrect. There is one insertion, but the origin varies (clavicular, sternal & costal). Thus by changing the angle of the movement, you better work those fibers better. Thank you for not being offended as that is not my intent. This is from a inexpensive app called “Essential Anatomy”. I generally recommended it to my Anatomy students.

Give me a bit to read the article please and thank you for including it, appreciated.

Yes, I know there are three, which is why people are confused when someone says incline isn't worth it.

I'm not one to get offended because even if I were wrong, is it not "me" that is wrong, rather my belief in something that is. Most people are too attached to their ego to let go of things because they identify with those things, or believe that being wrong make them stupid, rather then misinformed.

Here is a pic I just took directly from his book to explain the myth of incline press working the upper pecs significantly. And again, keep in mind, not only does it fail to hit them more than the other movements, you are putting your shoulders in an awkward position and also risking injury to both the shoulders and pec simultaneously. Again, for an exercise that doesn't even do that much.

Attachment 181291

Attachment 181290

Doug had some errors in his article. He talks a good game, but some things don’t hold water medically speaking. Yeah, I’ve seen his list of people that “endorse” him. The guy is doing this as a business and his business is partially to sell books. Are the pages from Doug’s book?

Yup doing an incline press with your humerus at 90 degrees of horizontal abduction will impinge the hell out of the rotator cuff, which is why you don’t do incline presses that way. Now bring the humerus forward maybe 20-30 degrees and now the humerus is sitting more naturally in the scapula. In therapy it’s a position referred to as scapation. In that position, if you are benching you are now combining horizontal adduction along with flexion of the shoulder and that will improve the activation of the clavicular fibers of pec major.

Now in any pressing movement or with isolated shoulder movements of flexion or horizontal abduction you simply are going to impinge much more from 60 to 120 degrees of elevation. It is why we refer to it as the painful arc in therapy. So technically speaking if you stay between 0-60 degrees and 120-180 degrees you can lessen impingement. It’s why shoulder presses can be “ok” if you keep the humerus in a position similar to scapation and keep your ROM from 120-180. Is it a “great” exercise, hell no, but it does work the Delts (primarily front and lateral) because you are in fact contracting the muscle because the insertion is being contracted in the direction of the origins.

Doug is convincing, but to get approved to be a trainer or an “expert” in exercise doesn’t take that much in the form of education. Like I said, I have been doing this for 45 years and have seen guys like Doug come and go and then another fills his spot because he has a slight new twist to present. If you want to follow him or anyone else, of course feel free. I’ve seen & read far worse than what I’ve seen by him. It’s been a pleasure exchanging with you, I truly love this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wango

Doug had some errors in his article. He talks a good game, but some things don’t hold water medically speaking. Yeah, I’ve seen his list of people that “endorse” him. The guy is doing this as a business and his business is partially to sell books. Are the pages from Doug’s book?

Yup doing an incline press with your humerus at 90 degrees of horizontal abduction will impinge the hell out of the rotator cuff, which is why you don’t do incline presses that way. Now bring the humerus forward maybe 20-30 degrees and now the humerus is sitting more naturally in the scapula. In therapy it’s a position referred to as scapation. In that position, if you are benching you are now combining horizontal adduction along with flexion of the shoulder and that will improve the activation of the clavicular fibers of pec major.

Now in any pressing movement or with isolated shoulder movements of flexion or horizontal abduction you simply are going to impinge much more from 60 to 120 degrees of elevation. It is why we refer to it as the painful arc in therapy. So technically speaking if you stay between 0-60 degrees and 120-180 degrees you can lessen impingement. It’s why shoulder presses can be “ok” if you keep the humerus in a position similar to scapation and keep your ROM from 120-180. Is it a “great” exercise, hell no, but it does work the Delts (primarily front and lateral) because you are in fact contracting the muscle because the insertion is being contracted in the direction of the origins.

Doug is convincing, but to get approved to be a trainer or an “expert” in exercise doesn’t take that much in the form of education. Like I said, I have been doing this for 45 years and have seen guys like Doug come and go and then another fills his spot because he has a slight new twist to present. If you want to follow him or anyone else, of course feel free. I’ve seen & read far worse than what I’ve seen by him. It’s been a pleasure exchanging with you, I truly love this stuff.

---

I don't think Doug is one of those guys at all; he's been in the BB community for over 40+ years, and just a few years ago won his second Mr. Universe title at age 59. He also isn't inventing anything new at all; it's not some kind of fad diet making claims to make you super huge: all he is doing is explaining, using physics and biomechanics, which exercises are the most bang for you buck (most safe, efficient) and which are not, so people don't get injured doing things they were taught via dogmatic indoctrination. That's all he is doing.

But of course the industry, from the OG's in the game, to the magazines, and even exercise machine manufacturers, are going to push back because it threatens the established status quo: no one wants to admit they are promoting things that could lead to more injuries, or that they are teaching inefficient exercises at their seminars. But it doesn't matter how they feel: physics is physics, and the flaws in the exercises glorified and promoted by the fitness industry, gurus, and coaches, are there and can be objectively verified, and are not going anywhere, especially when we are still seeing people getting injured doing them, ending careers even because they believed in what they were told to do.

But once the truth is shown to someone, the question remains: why would anyone, after learning which ones are the most efficient and safe, decide to do ones that are much risker and less efficient? Unless we are powerlifting, there is no reason for us bodybuilders to do these compound lifts since our entire goal is to target each muscle group and make them as big as possible. There is nothing magical about compound barbell movements that make the muscles grow faster or bigger: the load provided by compound movements must always be distributed to all the muscles loaded, and it is not evenly, and many times, barely loads the muscle intended. As for the load itself, the muscle doesn't know what is ''heavy" or not is, it simply responds to stimulus. Your triceps will grow more from flawlessly executed dumbbells extensions, and cable pushdowns, then super heavy close grip which strains joints, and doesn't even put the triceps through a full ROM: this fact is irrefutable because all studies show, full ROM is always superior for growth. By doing these crazy heavy things because close grip or dips build "mass" (when they partially hit triceps), we end up expending way more energy than necessary for a lift that is less beneficial and more risky. It just doesn't many any sense logically, so there is no good reason to do them.

Now below I'm posting what Doug recommend to do INSTEAD of OHP, so you can hit the delts without all the risks.

Attachment 181292

Attachment 181293

A couple of things:

You (and Doug) most certainly know (since you are both actually taken multiple anatomy, physics & biomechanics classes & studied them together as a whole) that if you are trying to decrease the load on the lower back a seated position increases the load, not decreases it!

Additionally, the reason I started with the thread was that you discussed the value of isolation movements vs. compound movements so why are we discussing how Doug is slightly altering a compound movement and dressing it up with fancy words to make it appear safe. On his supine dumbbell press, the glenohumeral joint is going from 0-90 degrees. That means that from 60-90 degrees you are getting impingement of the rotator cuff and also the long head of the biceps. What Doug fails to mention there (oddly because he is so knowledgeable about biomechanics) is that in the starting position the forearm is fully supinated which maximally is loading the biceps. If his intent is to “isolate” the frontal deltoid why is he involving the triceps (and now calling the biceps into it more) with this movement? It is this exact thing that has guys that have actually studied this stuff shaking their heads. Here’s a challenge for you (and Doug) - from a biomechanics perspective why is Doug’s head, part of his thoracic spine lifted and his torso slightly flexed at the beginning of the movement? I know, does Doug. And if Doug knows, then this disproves this exercises goal from the onset.

The bottom line is that the shoulder joint really wasn’t designed well for any movement that involves bringing your arm to shoulder level and above. Your lower back, your hips and your knees are weight bearing joints and if you add additional weight to them, what do you suppose you get in time? So if you do this (lift) long enough, many of us will have shoulder, lower back and possibly hip & knee issues.

As I stated in my very first post, there are ways to decrease that partially however. The concept of using isolation movements is an interesting concept & as I mentioned, Arthur Jones was an innovator of that and his HIT approach in the 70’s.

See if Doug has a resource section where he cites all of his sources. A good author will always do that for their readers. What’s also nice about that is that you can then broaden your knowledge by buying/reading those sources.

Again JP, this is really enjoyable. Apologies for me getting sarcastic, but I dislike it when incorrect information is being labeled otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cylon357

I gotta tell you gentlemen, I am surprised.

This is a totally rare and isolated case of a discussion on the internet where nobody changes their mind. This never happens!

:lol:

Snarcasm aside, it is easy to see how people can look at the same data and come to differing, yet equally valid conclusions. I'm not saying anything about biomechanics or physics or blah blah blah, just that isolation and compound exercises both have their uses and fans.

I do appreciate that @wango and @JuliusPleaser are keeping it civil. That truly IS a rarity.

---

LOL. Yup, I can be somewhat of an ornery & cantankerous old codger about exercise mechanics. Kind of like Beetle gets when someone utters something about guns or ammo.

Hey, this Doug has his interests in the right place, he’s trying to help & that’s great in my book. JP, you too buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cylon357

I gotta tell you gentlemen, I am surprised.

This is a totally rare and isolated case of a discussion on the internet where nobody changes their mind. This never happens!

:lol:

Snarcasm aside, it is easy to see how people can look at the same data and come to differing, yet equally valid conclusions. I'm not saying anything about biomechanics or physics or blah blah blah, just that isolation and compound exercises both have their uses and fans.

I do appreciate that @wango and @JuliusPleaser are keeping it civil. That truly IS a rarity.

---

You used the word "isolated" to prove my point :) But I agree, they do have their uses for certain reasons: powerlifting and strength training competition, but I think for bodybuilders, there is just no logical reason to use them once you realize that isolation and compound movements do not build muscle any differently, except the latter is more risky, costs more energy to do, doesn't target the muscle completely, and reduces ROM because of its very nature of being compound. So to me, a bodybuilder will get more "longevity" from their joints and reduce risking injury by avoiding them completely. But if they insisted on doing them, I think they should do compounds lifts after isolations are done. Dorian would tart his back routine with nautilus pull overs, and save his deadlifts for last, and do them from his shins up, rather then the ground up.

So if someone insisted on doing compounds in their routine, I think the best way is to do the exercises that load the muscle at 100% first. For example, squats do not load the quad at 100%, nor any other muscle involved at 100%, because it is a compound movement that limits ROM of each muscle and must distribute the load over all of them (and does so unevenly); thus, if you wanted each of those muscles to get maximum stimulation, it is more logical to isolate each one first, then hit squats. By then, you would be warmed up, blood flowing, and fatigued enough that you wouldn't nor couldn't use the same heavy weights you would have being fresh, which decreases risk to joints, ligaments, tendons, and spinal compression. And since you did the most efficient exercises first, and heavily, the inferior ROM of the other exercise wouldn't be much of a problem, and the squat would be be the "icing" on the cake that would finish off all the muscles at once, despite its shortcomings, and wouldn't interfere with maximum results.

But if you were to be even more logical, you would not waste any time or effort doing exercises that load the target muscles less that 100%, and simply do more volume on those which do. So for myself, I've changed my leg day to this:

Cable Sissy squats or leg extensions for 8 sets
Lying leg of seated leg for 8 sets
One legged leg press 4 sets (icing on the cake and to hit glutes)
Machine calve raises 8 sets

Looks gay, but try it for yourself and see how gay it is lol. You will feel this more than doing heavy squats, hacks, leg presses, and you won't feel like you got hit by a truck with systemic fatigue. The problem is, peopel think that having a great workout means feeling like death after the gym, but that has no bearing on results; plenty of people workout to "death" and look like crap. So many people do heavy ass squats and have no legs.

If you think I'm crazy, well ask yourself, which would get more stimulation for triceps, close grip bench presses or cable pushdowns? The answer is obviously cable pushdowns. If someone says, "but you can load more weight on the bar with the close grip." Sure, but that is irrelevant to the growth and stimulation of the muscle, and again, you're loading MORE than the triceps with the close grip, while only getting a small percent of ROM. So you're not even hitting them efficiently, which is why you can add more weight. Moreover, the load/weight doesn't matter to the muscle—it doesn't know what is on the bar or not—all I knows is to work against a resistance that causes failure. If only weight mattered, then form would never matter, and we could swing weights around like monkeys and blow up. But form matters because ROM matters, and when you have something that gives you 100% range of motion, you have to use LESS weight as there are no other muscles assisting.

So why did I bring up triceps? Because triceps and quads are literally the same kind of levers, and they do the exact same thing; they extend! And despite all their "heads" they only extend in one way and can be hit in one way. So like the example with close grip, squat doesn't hit the quads as well as extension do.

So I've applied the physics and biomechanics to all my workouts now, which allows me to stop wasting energy while getting more. For example, my back routine used to be 6 exercises; now I literally do TWO; "Pull-ins" from a 45 degree angle (way better than lat pull down which loads mostly the delts and only 50% of lats), and one-arm cable rows (way better than seated row which is around 40% load), pulling toward my spine from a 45 degree angle, and my back is DESTROYED, compared to all the heavy rows and other exercises.

Essentially, every muscle gets one or two exercises that I hit it 100%. I've never felt anywhere close to this stimulation of the target muscles because think about it: I was doing 4-6 exercises per muscle group; not all are equally productive, and now I know MOST of them don't even hit the target effectively, so why would I waste a single rep doing one that is less effective than another? There is no reason for me to do even a great exercise followed by a decent one just to keep things not boring; its just wasted time/energy. Just do MORE of the best ones!

I used to do a bro-split, hitting each muscle with 16 sets or 20 sets; then switched to doing PPL split, but after applying this method for the last month, my muscles are so crushed, despite doing the same volume, I had to change my routine to every four days now. So I know for a fact this is effective as hell since I've done HIT Dorian method, I've done high volume Jay Cutler style, but in both cases, so many exercises used were inferior, they never made me feel like this.

So now knowing which are superior, you do them MORE and you will get MORE out of it. And the myth of shocking the muscle since it "knows" what's coming is nonsense; we know progressive overload causes growth even if you do the same exercises the whole time, as Dorian did, for example. We also know that hitting a muscle "at every angle" when it doesn't have different origin/insertions is impossible, so we eliminate so many useless and harmful exercises, leaving us with those which give the best alignment and biomechanical profile for maximum stimulation.

Anyway. I know its hard to let go of what's "tried and true," but there is simply no logical reason to do things that are inferior in ROM, that do not hit the muscle intended at maximum percentage, and increase risk of injury, all while wasting more energy than necessary. We can both cut our lawns and have the same results by you using scissors and me using a lawn mower; the difference is, you will take way longer to get there than me, risking more injury being bent over, and wasting way more energy to get it done.

That's my view.

Just get fat and out of shape and then anything you do leads to progress and you don’t have to worry about most efficient exercise :p

Joking aside, most of us aren’t competing so working out is a personal journey and competition with ourselves. We relate with each other but with the exception of competitive body builders among us, we are not competing with each other.

So if you find something more efficient by all means do it! But we gotta enjoy the journey and we all have different body’s with different limitations and strengths. As long as we are getting progress and enjoying the journey I think that is all that matters. But one ideology can be different from another person and that is OK. It would be boring if we all ate the same, bought the same stuff, worked out the same way, etc.

Working out is a lot like economics. I can decide what’s best for my money and time but it doesn’t mean you agree with yours. Same goes for working out. As long as we are happy with results and enjoying the ride all is good :)

I honestly didn't get this one

Hey man, I feel like I'd benefit hugely from staying away from "Heavy" compound moves. Where does one go to start bodybuilding with more bang for buck exercises. I read the OHP article and I completely agree, shoulder hurts, triceps are pumped and rotator cuff at extreme discomfort if I up the weights ridiculously however with a lateral raise, way better connection, pump and only with a 10lb dumbell I can feel it working greatly, again i'll ask, where can I start? Would you perhaps add me and teach me a little?