-->
Pages: 1

Lower Lats


(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)



Posted by: Sub-Zero

Besides close grip chins , wat exercises can I do to build up the lower portion of my lats.

They are quite wide at the top and middle, but nothin at the bottom

Ideas welcome


Posted by: Mudge

Reverse grip rows would be one, you can also do seated cable rows pulling close to your belly, with a close-grip.


Posted by: Twin Peak

Any row pulling to your belly button or lower. Heavy reverse grip rows are the best, however.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by Sub-Zero
Besides close grip chins , wat exercises can I do to build up the lower portion of my lats.
None that won't build the upper portion at the same time and in proportion.

feel blessed you're wider at the top. That coupled with a small waist makes you look huge.


Posted by: GYM GURU

ONE ARM DUMBELL ROWS


Posted by: sawheet

I find that doing heavy dumbell rows on a decline bench instead of a flat bench will hit the lower lat where it attaches down low. The only isolation movement for lats is the pumphouse.


Posted by: TJohn

Quote:
Originally posted by GYM GURU
ONE ARM DUMBELL ROWS
Agreed

TJohn


Posted by: powerrack

I do reverse grip barbell rows with an ez curl bar to the waist for lower lats. Just go heavy and hard on those and you will feel and notice a difference.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Why do those never hit my lower lats? They always seem to hit the whole thing.


Posted by: Scotty the Body

Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Why do those never hit my lower lats? They always seem to hit the whole thing.
Cause like TCD already said, the lat is one muscle and whatever you do is gonna hit the whole thing.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

!Muy excellente!


Posted by: KryptoAllez

One muscle GROUP but made up of individual fibers which connect at different angles to the fascia which connect at different angles along the vertebra.

Oh, and the barbell rows seem to stress my lower lats the most as well, as compared to other exercises anyway.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Quote:
Originally posted by KryptoAllez
One muscle GROUP but made up of individual fibers which connect at different angles to the fascia which connect at different angles along the vertebra.
No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Eyes


No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.
Exactly, if lower lats did exist then you'd be able to make your lower-torso wider than your shoulders. Not many people like that walking about eh? (except for fat people.)


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Eyes


No Krypto, I'm afraid that it is in fact a single muscle, not a group.

The latissimus dorsi is just one muscle; it either contracts or it doesn't.

The traps, rhomboids, and other miscellaneous muscles of the upper back are structured like that; but they also have separate innervations for their varied components. Either way, its incredibly difficult, due to the way mechanical force is distributed through the muscle, to cause isolational growth in any one part of any muscle.
But... is it not true that the latissimus dorsi, one muscle but it is also actually made up of MANY individual muscle FIBERS which insert at different angles into the fascia? Is that not true? Cause I believe it is, just from what I have read and see in illustrations of muscle anatomy. Therefore, if the muscle fibers are inserted/attached at different angles, would it not be possible to place more STRESS on some fibers (perhaps the lower fibers in this case) than on others? Maybe they ALL contract, to SOME degree, but perhaps because of the angle of movement you are using, you can actually contract some sections MORE than others or to more of a degree. Cause it's not like the sections are all "glued" together or something. It's not one solid block.

Personally, I think that the people who keep arguing that you can't target or stress certain sections of muscles more than others are looking at muscle anatomy with too simplistic of a view. The muscles are made up of INDIVIDUAL fibers, INDIVIDUAL cells and this alone should show that it is not as simplistic as saying "it's one muscle and either it contracts or it doesn't", it is just NOT that simple! The idea that a muscle would respond in a uniform fashion just seems implausible in light of the fact that there are distinct physiological/anatomical differences within a single muscle! And that's my 2 cents.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Originally posted by KryptoAllez
But... is it not true that the latissimus dorsi, one muscle but it is also actually made up of MANY individual muscle FIBERS which insert at different angles into the fascia? Is that not true? Cause I believe it is, just from what I have read and see in illustrations of muscle anatomy. Therefore, if the muscle fibers are inserted/attached at different angles, would it not be possible to place more STRESS on some fibers (perhaps the lower fibers in this case) than on others? Maybe they ALL contract, to SOME degree, but perhaps because of the angle of movement you are using, you can actually contract some sections MORE than others or to more of a degree. Cause it's not like the sections are all "glued" together or something. It's not one solid block.

You're quite correct. Its not a solid block, and it is composed of many different fibers. However, neurologically, muscles aren't wired that way. When the signal is sent to contract, it contracts.

Angle of pennation (the angle of attachment) isn't really a factor, for a reason I'll elaborate on in a moment.

There actually has been research done on so-called "compartmentalization" of motor units-- this would be what you're referring to.

However, there's very little work done on it, and what work was done involved very light weights or electrostimulation-- while this did show some preferential growth in different parts of a muscle, there's two reasons I discount it.

Firstly, its a genetic thing. The MU compartments don't change with training, so if your muscle is predisposed to grow in one section over another, then that is how it will grow, regardless of the way you train.

Secondly, the tensions used were too small to cause hypertrophy. Once the tension becomes high enough to cause growth, the muscle's mechanism of transmitting force to the insertions will all but eliminate any preferential tensions in individual parts of the muscle, so even the MU compartments are a moot point.

Personally, I think that the people who keep arguing that you can't target or stress certain sections of muscles more than others are looking at muscle anatomy with too simplistic of a view. The muscles are made up of INDIVIDUAL fibers, INDIVIDUAL cells and this alone should show that it is not as simplistic as saying "it's one muscle and either it contracts or it doesn't", it is just NOT that simple! The idea that a muscle would respond in a uniform fashion just seems implausible in light of the fact that there are distinct physiological/anatomical differences within a single muscle! And that's my 2 cents.

Anatomy's part of my reasoning, yes. However, more in-depth study of the neurological processes at work and mechanical properties of the muscle itself have only reinforced my viewpoint.


Posted by: Mudge

I'm curious where you guys latched onto this idea, that you cannot target individual areas.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Read above.


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
However, neurologically, muscles aren't wired that way. When the signal is sent to contract, it contracts.
But there can be thousands of different motor units within a single muscle group (such as the latissimus) and you are saying they cannot be fired separately? You are saying that ALL thousands of motor units (in charge of groups of specific muscle fibers) get fired equally AND at the same time?

I sure don't think so. I don't think it is that simple. And I know I said before how the body's nervous system recruits different types of fibers depending on what demand is placed on it. And how you yourself said that the longer the duration/more reps you do, the more fibers are stimulated to perform the same amount of work because of some fibers being fatigued. More fibers are called upon/activiated as more demands are placed on the muscle. So how can you say that muscles aren't wired that way? You are saying that certain motor units perhaps in the lower section of the lats cannot be fired without firing motor units in the upper portion of the lats? I don't agree.

And there have been studies using EMG and magnetic resonance tests utilizing different exercises, SHOWING more activity in certain areas. And personally I don't even need a study to show me that, I can FEEL differences between changing exercises, varying grips and angles. I don't need a study to show me that. Again, I think sometimes that people are viewing things too simplistically. Give the human body some credit, the nervous system is much more complex than what I believe you are saying it is. Continuing my 2 cents.


Posted by: Fade99

I use pullovers as one of my last back exercises. Pumps my lats up nicely.


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Well, essentially, yes. Different types of muscle fibers are distributed rather evenly throughout the muscle. Recruiting a different type of fiber is a different thing from preferential recruitment of muscle fibers in different parts of the muscle.

EMG and MRI tests aren't entirely accurate. They show activation, yes, but they don't account for tension. Tension is what causes the growth.

Difference in feel with different exercises is natural, and its because its a different movement. The proprioceptors give different feedback for any different movement. A dumbell press feels different from a barbell press, but the same muscles are working.


Posted by: Sub-Zero

Thanks for the help and .....

GO KRYPTO !!


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Well, essentially, yes. Different types of muscle fibers are distributed rather evenly throughout the muscle. Recruiting a different type of fiber is a different thing from preferential recruitment of muscle fibers in different parts of the muscle.
I agree, no argument there.

Quote:
EMG and MRI tests aren't entirely accurate. They show activation, yes, but they don't account for tension. Tension is what causes the growth.
Okay, but isn't activation what we are after here? I mean, he was asking what exercises will really hit his lower lats. So at least if those tests show more activation in that area, then that's a start, right? I understand that you are saying activation might not necessarily mean hypertrophy but if you are continually activating that area with enough force/demand on the muscles, then hypertrophy should be able to occur. Tear down the muscle, place more stress on it than it can handle, and it's forced to adapt. And if the nervous system is more activated in a certain area, then would it not suffice to say that that particular area is getting stressed more, therefore increasing chances of hypertrophy in that area?

Quote:
Difference in feel with different exercises is natural, and its because its a different movement. The proprioceptors give different feedback for any different movement. A dumbell press feels different from a barbell press, but the same muscles are working.
Okay, perhaps. But how about changing grip width on different exercises? It feels different but it also hits different heads of the same muscle groups more. And what the heck are "proprioceptors"? Unfortunately, my vocabulary is somewhat limited.


Posted by: TJohn

Without getting into this again.... I'm with you Krytpo !! and you are much more able to back up the argument.

TJohn


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Originally posted by TJohn
Without getting into this again.... I'm with you Krytpo !! and you are much more able to back up the argument.

TJohn
Thanks Sub-Zero and TJohn. I'm definitely having my need fulfilled. Need to learn and understand better that is!

This is good cause I am having my comprehension of the subject tested but in a civil manner, unlike what happened on another forum. I love discussions like this as long as I can discuss it with someone with an open mind. Too often people are just stuck on "proving" someone else wrong. I would just like to discuss in order to improve my own knowledge and comprehension while at the same time helping others who are reading the discussion. The other forum members had just ganged up on me in an effort to prove me wrong yet could not offer evidence for their own point of view. That's what I don't like. This is good though, I'm enjoying this.


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Read above.
Origin, I am curious where this came from.


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally posted by KryptoAllez


And there have been studies using EMG and magnetic resonance tests utilizing different exercises, SHOWING more activity in certain areas. And personally I don't even need a study to show me that, I can FEEL differences between changing exercises, varying grips and angles. I don't need a study to show me that.
I agree. I am waiting to hear that there is no such thing as a compound movement next.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Hmmm...


Even if you could activate fibres in the "lower" lats, you're not gonna be able to isolate them from the fibres in the "upper" lats, hence growth will occur all over and the original question of how "to build up the lower portion of my lats" is futile.

Think about it people, if you could target various regions of muscles and actually cause significant growth in those areas, your muscles would be all bumpy and uneven. Not to mention you could almost "re-design" the "basic shape" of the human anatomy, which i have yet to see. Once i do, i'll re-consider my standing on intramuscular targetting. Until then...


Posted by: Mudge

If MRI proved it, why are we thinking about it at all?


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Well, Chicken_Daddy has a point.

If it is possible to shape a muscle to such a degree, why isn't it observed?

As I noted, MRI and EMG studies are flawed because they don't show what's actually happening in the muscle.

I'll find the information I have on force transmission through the muscle-- that alone was enough to make me realize that the intramuscular isolation effect wasn't really feasible. Once the tension reaches a certain level, even the "compartments" of motor units don't contract in an isolatied fashion.

Krypto: Proprioceptors are the neural receptors that give feedback on the body's position and movement-- they're responsible for the "feeling" of any given movement.


Posted by: Mudge

What were talking about is on an arc, favoring 1/2 of the muscle approximately by percentage, not one excersize per attatchment point to each rib, that is nonsensible.

Maybe what you would consider, an unfantastic difference, but I certainly believe that it is there, that you can favor by angle changes/different excersizes etc.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Oh, well if you think it's true then it must be. Lets tell the world of this revelation.


Posted by: Mudge

Since people have been using various excersizes for years to purposely target specific areas, I think they know already.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Show me one person who has managed it.

Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle.

I double-dare you.


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Hmmm...


Even if you could activate fibres in the "lower" lats, you're not gonna be able to isolate them from the fibres in the "upper" lats, hence growth will occur all over and the original question of how "to build up the lower portion of my lats" is futile.

Think about it people, if you could target various regions of muscles and actually cause significant growth in those areas, your muscles would be all bumpy and uneven. Not to mention you could almost "re-design" the "basic shape" of the human anatomy, which i have yet to see. Once i do, i'll re-consider my standing on intramuscular targetting. Until then...
Yes, but growth most certainly does NOT occur evenly anyway! I don't think it EVER does! And maybe you cannot ISOLATE persay, but how about putting enough extra stress within one region more so than another to possibly induce slightly MORE hypertrophy than in another region? The body does not grow evenly, otherwise bodybuilders would only have to use compound movements! And then, with your logic, when some part of them was lagging, you'd just attribute it to bad genetics and stop there, well horse pucky!

Just look at athletes in different types of sports and see how specific training develops one's muscles differently. There is definitely no doubt that you can target different muscle heads. Yes it is more of a debate about targeting specific regions within a muscle but because the muscles are so complex, I believe it is possible.

For instance, there have been extensive studies done on discovering fiber type distribution (which I didn't even realize this til I did some further research) within human muscle tissue which have shown that certain sections within the same muscle group are made up of more fast or slow twitch fibers, like more fast twitch fibers near insertion points for example. Now that ALONE would account for the muscle's shape! So while people's muscles are very similar, some people could have a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers in certain regions such as the belly of the biceps, which would give them more of a peak. So perhaps people without a peak just have to work harder on targeting their fast twitch fibers since they have less of them to create the mass needed for the peak!

So now if for instance the upper lats are made up of more fast twitch fibers and the lower portion is made up of more slow twitch fibers, then it would stand to reason that you would train differently in order to stimulate the fibers that the section of muscle you are looking to improve. And this can be done in many ways, changes in angles of exercises, changing number of reps, or speed of movement, etc. Nobody has perfect symmetry, we all have flaws due to our genetics so those lagging parts have to be worked on harder than perhaps someone else.

TCD, I think you are just not giving the human body/muscles enough credit, you are making it more simplistic than it really is. I think there is plenty of evidence that different exercises target different heads and different sections of the muscle groups more than others and it just happens to be something that is very difficult to prove. But people should know that you can't always "prove" everything! We know there is gravity because of the EFFECTS it has but we can't actually prove IT exists. Well, this might just be another example of that, cause I sure can see the evidence, it's there, some just choose to ignore it or will be waiting til their dying day for proof that may never come. And those are the ones who are probably cutting themselves short just cause something hasn't been tangibly "proved".

To me that is like arguing with my speed skating coach if he tells me some weird drill will help my skating. I wouldn't say no and ask him to "prove" it, I mean, how could he? I just trust him because he's got years of experience and has been coaching for years, many top level skaters came from his training. So in the same way I trust bodybuilders who have been training for years, or PT's who have been training BB's for years. And people like you, TCD, are so freaking stubborn that you will STILL demand your "proof".

I think you're a hopeless case. Quite frustrating, that's for sure, ya stubborn 'ole coot. You're gonna grow up to be one stubborn old man, lol!

And in the case with Snake Eyes, he's not frustrating cause he's not making it too simplistic and he's backing up/explaining why he feels a certain way. TCD, your rebuttals just don't hold much weight if ya know what I mean, (no offense) you just don't give very strong arguments for your side. Okay I'm done. For
now...


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally posted by KryptoAllez


TCD, I think you are just not giving the human body/muscles enough credit, you are making it more simplistic than it really is
Yep, were humans, not hydra.


Posted by: ponyboy

Basic physiology dictates that muscles fire based on an "all or none" principle. Meaning that, once one fiber decides to contract they ALL do for each individual muscle group. You simply cannot ask part of a muscle to contract and part not to. If you could, people could do some pretty freaky stuff (imagine being able to only contract half of your bicep and have two peaks bobbing up and down!).

I do agree with the statement that muscles insert into different areas, especially large ones like in the back. TCD is right though, you cannot build specifically the lower lat, just like you can't specifically build the lower pec (as we have discussed before). Your muscles will grow into the insertion points that exist already and shape the muscle largely according to your genetics, not how you choose to exercise it.

I may have missed the point of the discussion, but Krypto, you are making some excellent points. I think we all need to break it down to basics.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by KryptoAllez
The body does not grow evenly, otherwise bodybuilders would only have to use compound movements!
Isolation movements are not a necessity.

Quote:
For instance, there have been extensive studies done on discovering fiber type distribution (which I didn't even realize this til I did some further research) within human muscle tissue which have shown that certain sections within the same muscle group are made up of more fast or slow twitch fibers, like more fast twitch fibers near insertion points for example. Now that ALONE would account for the muscle's shape!
Yes, it is called genetics and is why people differ from one another. However, drug users and genetic feaks aside, the basic mode of growth is the same and you can't alter your genetics.

Quote:
So while people's muscles are very similar, some people could have a higher percentage of fast twitch fibers in certain regions such as the belly of the biceps, which would give them more of a peak. So perhaps people without a peak just have to work harder on targeting their fast twitch fibers since they have less of them to create the mass needed for the peak!
If this were true then it'd be possible to reshape a muscle. As we all know, no one has yet naturally achieved this.

Quote:
So now if for instance the upper lats are made up of more fast twitch fibers and the lower portion is made up of more slow twitch fibers, then it would stand to reason that you would train differently in order to stimulate the fibers that the section of muscle you are looking to improve.
Not that it will cause any significant difference in the muscle shape. The size may increase of course.

[quote]
And this can be done in many ways, changes in angles of exercises, changing number of reps, or speed of movement, etc. Nobody has perfect symmetry, we all have flaws due to our genetics so those lagging parts have to be worked on harder than perhaps someone else. [quote]

For overall growth, yes - ie if your triceps could be a little larger in relation to your biceps. However, there's no chance your gonna cause your lower lats to spread out a little more without causing the upper lats to grow in proportion.

Quote:
TCD, I think you are just not giving the human body/muscles enough credit, you are making it more simplistic than it really is.
Funny you should say that, cause i think you're over-complicating how easy it really is.

Quote:
I think you're a hopeless case. Quite frustrating, that's for sure, ya stubborn 'ole coot. You're gonna grow up to be one stubborn old man, lol!
Nah, i'm not stubborn. I just enjoy being unreasonably obstinate, obdurate, refractory and intractable.

Quote:
And in the case with Snake Eyes, he's not frustrating cause he's not making it too simplistic and he's backing up/explaining why he feels a certain way.
His first few posts were simplistic cause he clearly realises that people over-complicate growth in order to make it sound more complex and to usually make money out of it. He only brought all the physiology and what-not into it because you did.

Quote:
TCD, your rebuttals just don't hold much weight if ya know what I mean, (no offense) you just don't give very strong arguments for your side. Okay I'm done. For
now...
I'm not denying that physiology and kinesiology aren't my forté, but i do have the common sense to realise the basics and i know enough to realise that intramuscular targetting is not gonna cause significant growth in that area.


By the way, my earlier proposition towards Mudge to "Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle" still stands. It's something I'd love to see.


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy


By the way, my earlier proposition towards Mudge to "Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle" still stands. It's something I'd love to see.
...and a tall order indeed. I think the best I could do is an experiment of my own. Since you seem to doubt that concentration curls can increase peak (correct me if I'm wrong here), then that would be an easy one for me to do.

Let me know if thats acceptable, and I'll see what I can do in, what length of time, 3 weeks sound good? 6? I'm on a 6 week challenge to myself right now.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by Mudge


...and a tall order indeed. I think the best I could do is an experiment of my own. Since you seem to doubt that concentration curls can increase peak (correct me if I'm wrong here), then that would be an easy one for me to do.

Let me know if thats acceptable, and I'll see what I can do in, what length of time, 3 weeks sound good? 6? I'm on a 6 week challenge to myself right now.

Dude, take as long as you want/need!

I'd love to see your arm get more peak. Not something i believe is gonna happen though, m'fraid.

P.s. You're right, i don't believe conc. curls will increase peak.


Posted by: Scotty the Body

I'm siding with TCD on this one, genetics will be what determines the shape of your muscles, doing one exercise isn't going to change the shape of a muscle but rather make the whole thing grow.
Doing different exercises is the better way to cause overall growth but the growth will be over the entire muscle not certain areas of it.

Next time your looking through a Muscle mag, notice that different BBers have different shapes to there Back's, chest, bi's, tri's etc, its not because they're doing one exercise over the other, its because of there genetics.


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Not that it will cause any significant difference in the muscle shape. The size may increase of course.
Well isn't that what he is looking for, increased size in the lower lats?

Quote:
For overall growth, yes - ie if your triceps could be a little larger in relation to your biceps. However, there's no chance your gonna cause your lower lats to spread out a little more without causing the upper lats to grow in proportion.
Can you proove that unequivicably?

Quote:
Funny you should say that, cause i think you're over-complicating how easy it really is.
That is the result of being challenged on my beliefs. How else to attempt to show why I believe the way I do?

Quote:
His first few posts were simplistic cause he clearly realises that people over-complicate growth in order to make it sound more complex and to usually make money out of it. He only brought all the physiology and what-not into it because you did.
Oh okay. But personally I think he brought all the physiology into it for the same reason I did, to show why he believes the way he does. And incidentally, what he knows I find highly commendable.

Quote:
I'm not denying that physiology and kinesiology aren't my forté, but i do have the common sense to realise the basics and i know enough to realise that intramuscular targetting is not gonna cause significant growth in that area.
Fair enough. But yeah, that's my point, I think you are looking at the human muscles with too basic of a view when they certainly are more complex than that and as such, deserve further research other than just knowing the basics. Again, that's if you have an interest in getting all into it. I pretty much just shut up and lift but I use a variety of exercises to keep boredom away and because I believe it helps me target the muscles better in order to achieve better symmetry and proportion.

Maybe we need to have 2 separate threads going for questions like this. We'll have the "THOSE WHO BELIEVE YOU CAN'T ISOLATE OR PUT MORE STRESS ON CERTAIN REGIONS OF MUSCLES" and "THOSE THAT BELIEVE MANY DIFFERENT EXERCISES AND ANGLES ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE CLOSE TO PERFECT SYMMETRY." And then the questioner can pick which thread of responses he wants to believe, lol.

Quote:
By the way, my earlier proposition towards Mudge to "Show me a photo of someone before and then one after when they have reshaped their muscle" still stands. It's something I'd love to see.
Prove to me that the muscles do not adapt in a specific way to exercises which emphasize stress on part of the muscle like eccentric exercises, and stimuli that stretch and lengthen the muscle, such as preacher curls and dumbbell flys. Prove to me that adaptation of the muscle does not take place in direct correlation with the given stimulus. Go ahead, I'd love to see that as well. You prove me wrong and then I'll work on proving you wrong.


Posted by: Scotty the Body

Quote:
Originally posted by Sub-Zero
Besides close grip chins , wat exercises can I do to build up the lower portion of my lats.

They are quite wide at the top and middle, but nothin at the bottom

Ideas welcome
All you can do is make the whole thing bigger, have you ever seen anyone that had a larger lower portion of there lat? No, because it isn't possible. Overall, genetics will deturmin the shape.


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Quote:
Originally posted by KryptoAllez


Well isn't that what he is looking for, increased size in the lower lats?
I was referring to overall size.

Quote:
Can you proove that unequivicably?
Not me personally, but unproportional growth is something i'd love to see.

Quote:
That is the result of being challenged on my beliefs. How else to attempt to show why I believe the way I do?
It's great that you have beliefs. I believe in aliens, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Quote:

Fair enough. But yeah, that's my point, I think you are looking at the human muscles with too basic of a view when they certainly are more complex than that and as such, deserve further research other than just knowing the basics. Again, that's if you have an interest in getting all into it.
Personally, i've tried and i've failed to see difference in intramuscular regions. I've also seen many others try and fail. I've also corresponded with others over the net who have tried and failed. And because of this, i've never seen fit to delve into the depths of physiology and what-not cause it seems very unnecessary, unless someone is interested in it of course.

Quote:
I pretty much just shut up and lift but I use a variety of exercises to keep boredom away and because I believe it helps me target the muscles better in order to achieve better symmetry and proportion.
The boredom factor is a good reason to switch exercises, true.

Quote:
Maybe we need to have 2 separate threads going for questions like this. We'll have the "THOSE WHO BELIEVE YOU CAN'T ISOLATE OR PUT MORE STRESS ON CERTAIN REGIONS OF MUSCLES" and "THOSE THAT BELIEVE MANY DIFFERENT EXERCISES AND ANGLES ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE CLOSE TO PERFECT SYMMETRY." And then the questioner can pick which thread of responses he wants to believe, lol.
If you don't have the symmetry of SHAPE in the first place then you're never gonna get it. Symmetry of SIZE however, can be worked upon - ie getting your left arm the same size as your right etc... if you've got more biceps peak on your right bicep than your left then you've got it for life. Just look at Arnold. Why didn't he use concentration curls to even up his left bicep?

Quote:

Prove to me that the muscles do not adapt in a specific way to exercises which emphasize stress on part of the muscle like eccentric exercises, and stimuli that stretch and lengthen the muscle, such as preacher curls and dumbbell flys.
Muscle do adapt - by growing. All over.

I'll use a personally scenario here, just for fun. I stopped doing all incline work for my chest last July. Only recently i've started doing flyes on a slight incline (do to shoulder troubles from flat flyes - my preference.) My "upper chest" never grew better. Strange that eh?

Quote:
Prove to me that adaptation of the muscle does not take place in direct correlation with the given stimulus. Go ahead, I'd love to see that as well. You prove me wrong and then I'll work on proving you wrong.
I'll try, but it may take some time. I'll have to see what i can dig up.


Posted by: Sub-Zero

Quote:
I pretty much just shut up and lift
OI !!!! That's my line

I would put my point through here, but it seems Krypto is doing a well enough job.


Posted by: KryptoAllez

Quote:
Originally posted by Sub-Zero


OI !!!! That's my line

....


I know.

And it just fits so well.


Posted by: Sub-Zero

I forgive ya den :P


Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Well, lets look at this from another angle:

Why would a muscle *need* to be reshaped?

Muscles weren't designed to look good or be shaped properly; they evolved as a means of generating force to move the levers of the skeleton. When the muscle grows, its growing as a response to that force; why would it "short-change" itself, so to speak, by not maximizing that capacity?


Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

That is a fucking brilliant point.



(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37