Muscle Size and Body Mechanics

[needsleep]

I remember reading something somewhere (could I be more vague?) about how you couldn't develop certain muscles beyond certain sizes without another muscle/s being developed. For example I believe I read about biceps and Traps or maybe it was an internal shoulder muscle. Regardless of this has anyone else read anything similar?

Have I just made this up or am I talking about something that is very common knowledge?

I'm not talking about deads and squats helping other muscle growth due to them promoting overall growth, I'm thinking about more biomechanical principles whereby you may need specific muscles to develop in order for others to go beyond their current state.

Anyone help me with this?

 

[bignate73]

if youre talking about specific target muscles on compound movements, absolutely. to be able to overload the chest on a bench press, the shoulder girdle must be stabilized. for basic isolation movements, its not probably as necessary, but for compound movements, the weakest link will inhibit progress.

 

[casualbb]

Nate's right.

Also, let me add, assuming you have 100% good body mechanics and muscle balance, a compound exercise HAS to build both the prime mover and the synergists in the correct strength proportions.

I advocate an almost entirely-compound routine just because I think it's the best way to develop the entire body and avoid synergistic dominance -- when a synergist takes over for a weak prime mover due to being overdeveloped, muscle imbalance, and/or poor neuromuscular control.

For instance, say you're doing stiff-legged deads. Assuming good form and body mechanics, your glutes and hamstrings should build in a good ratio. But if you've only been leg curling for awhile, your hamstrings will overpower your glutes and keep them underdeveloped.

-casual