Understanding exercise can be difficult.
Not necessarily because of a lack of scientific knowledge — but not knowing where to begin.
We often overcomplicate things. We try to be too clever, or get distracted by the latest nonsense from some fitfluencer.
But really, the process is very simple.
First, we need to know the scenario to determine our thought process. Are we:
*”Designed” = “pulled out of their backside”.
When might we be trying to target a specific muscle? Could be:
If we’re designing an exercise with a muscle-specific goal, we need a better understanding of anatomy.
We need to know where each end of that muscle attaches, and what joint function would involve a joint axis rotating in the same plane as that muscle’s fibres — which would result in it lengthening and shortening as much as possible.
Now:
Identify which muscle(s) we are trying to stimulate.
Imagine what joint function would take place if that muscle was to shorten, and then reverse it. Cool — we’ve just created a concentric and an eccentric.
Figure out a setup that points resistance straight along that path of motion.
Create an exercise that maintains this joint function and alignment of resistance, without letting other joint functions take place. (Either by maintaining isometric control, or using physical support mechanisms.)
If we can achieve this, we’ve done most of the hard work in creating an exercise.
Now, a degree of personalisation comes into play:
Check the individual’s available range of positions in this joint function, and ensure the setup accommodates that.
Establish how much of the exercise we want to be a challenge, and tailor the magnitude of resistance through the range of the exercise to suit.
Boom! You’ve got a client-specific setup that’s precisely aligned to their muscle-specific goals.
And what about analysing an exercise that someone has just thrown on social media with a made-up name and ridiculous claims?
How do we assess what that exercise challenges? How do we challenge their claims that performing a specific joint function (or combination of them) will achieve a certain muscular stimulus?
The first thing to check is what axis the joint is moving around.
Imagine you were trying to drive a rod through that joint, at the precise angle that wouldn’t affect its current movement. That’s the axis.
You can also imagine that the current path of the limb they’re using is wiping a sheet of glass. That’s the plane of motion, and the axis is perpendicular to that.
Now that we’ve identified the plane of motion and joint axis, we need to check whether the application of resistance is:
Aligned with the plane of motion
In the correct direction relative to the joint axis
This may seem an obvious thing to check … but you’d be amazed how many people get the joint function correct and then the application of resistance completely back-to-front.
If the resistance is in the right direction and aligned with the plane of motion, then we can make some pretty basic assumptions about what’s doing the majority of the work:
EVERY muscle on the opposing side of the axis to the resistance IS WORKING. We assume that the brain will first recruit the muscles best aligned with the plane of motion, but if you’re training to/near failure, you’ll have to recruit everything that can contribute.
To find the muscle that is (likely) going to do the most work, see the most stimulus, AND the greatest change in length, we have to look for that which is aligned with the plane of motion.
And that’s how we cut through those crappy claims!