Relative Size Of Different Muscles

Pop quiz.

Without looking this up, from largest to smallest total volume of muscle in a proportioned adult human (normal size or bodybuilder), what order would you put the following muscles in?

Pectoralis major

Deltoids

Triceps brachi

Biceps brachii

Brachialis

Lats

??? Scroll down for answer, I bet most people have got the order wrong. I did before I read the paper linked at the bottom.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Largest - Deltoids (avg 380.5cm3 +/- 157.5)

Second Largest - Triceps Brachii (avg 372.1.cm3 +/- 177.3)

Third Largest - Pecs (avg 290cm3+/- 169)

Fourth Largest - Lats (avg 262.3cm3 +/- 147.2)

Fifth and Sixth equally - Biceps and Brachialis (avg 143.7cm3 +/- 68.7 for biceps, avg 143.7cm3+/-63.7 for brachialis)



Interesting isn't it, that the way almost all bodybuilders classify the relative size of muscles is wrong, and how outward apperances can be deceiving.

Even the lower body is deceptive with Quads being the largest, Glutes the second, the Illipsoas third, and Hamstrings fourth.

Anyway, here's the paper the above data comes from discussing somw valid reasons why it's slightly misleading to refer to and group muscles as small and large at all.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_training_Is_it_time_for_a_better_definition

Is it 'wrong' as such though, the way we classify and order the different muscles by size?

By that I mean, It's not like people haven't figured out how to train each muscle so actually the way bbers view them is correct.

Always had this issue with brad scoenfield, he's disconcted with what's actually relevant.

I disagree and think Brad's main contribution is to make cold disconnected data relevant. His articles and personal commentry on the studies he authors are all loaded with statements about caution when trying to generalize studies straight to real life and he always cautions about what info is missing and where there might be caveats to the observed data. If you follow him on social media he also spends a lot of time explaining how to apply data in a practical sense.

I think with regards to this particular piece of research what he's doing is using it as part of a series of studies (I know there is at least one more in a related area not yet published) that is investigating different approaches to program design and their effect on hypertrophy. If his team discovers a particular way of grouping muscles and exercises in setting up an RT routine leads to slightly better results than others then that's awesome, and if it doesn't then the result still has value as it can help people realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat and they can see data for that objectively.

Science is't always about earth shattering discoveries, often it's about confirming what seems obvious too, and that is useful because people often know what works, but have an inaccurate understanding of why it works, and that can often lead them to make poorer choices later. Some studies nd ideas investigated also simply lead to dead ends with no practical value, and ruling things out after investigating them thoroughly and objectively is also a positive finding overall.