B&I- that's my chief problem with EMG- the stress may be different, but it's never been shown to be different enough to elicit differing degrees of adaptation. So while perhaps one angle would require comparatively near 100% fiber recruitment of one muscle, and only 95% of another, that is NOT statistically significant, and not enough to prove that one group will undergo a greater degree of hypertrophy. Unless the difference is 100% versus "x%", where x% is not enough stimulation to cause growth/adaptation, or unless it's possible to maximally contract one muscle without also maximally contracting its neighbor, then you simply cannot cause differing degrees of growth.
Add that to the fact that EMG studies are fundamentally imperfect in their assessment methods (either a superficial 'surface' measurement of activity, or a very localized deep muscle probe which may negatively affect muscular contraction), and you don't have something that's going to make anybody raise their eyebrows... or flex their clavicular pec, for that matter.
............
*Punches Blood & Iron in the ear*
Add that to the fact that EMG studies are fundamentally imperfect in their assessment methods (either a superficial 'surface' measurement of activity, or a very localized deep muscle probe which may negatively affect muscular contraction), and you don't have something that's going to make anybody raise their eyebrows... or flex their clavicular pec, for that matter.
............
*Punches Blood & Iron in the ear*
Last edited: