Thread: No development on outside of leg, just above knee. Why?

Full ROM hack squats

You should know it's not possible to shape muscles by now TBH.

There are ways to emphasize development of different areas of a muscle though, no? I've certainly read a lot about turning toes in/out and altering stance wide or narrow to affect the muscle recruitment in the legs. I figured there was a way to at least increase the involvment of the muscle fibers in that area. I just wasn't sure how to do it (or, TBH, what that area of my quads is even called).

I remember an old post where you told someone something like "you have your opinions and I have mine" after they told you that you could not improve your upper chest development by doing incline bench presses. Have you changed your mind since those days? Do you honestly now believe that it's not possible to shape muscles at all (e.g. Decline BB Presses don't create breast-like pecs. Incline BB Press will not increase upper chest involvement. Feet in/out or wide/narrow has no impact on leg development)?

Seriously. You don't really think that way do you?

I believe my beliefs haven't altered that much, no. I think it's not a clear cut case yet, but most evidence points to the impossibility of muscle shaping so I'm on that side of the argument for now.

The second issue is the use of muscle shaping. Unless you're advanced, there is none. We're not advanced, so there's no reason for us to use advanced techniques.

If you believe in muscle shaping, leaning back, pointing your toes outward and exerting outward force during leg extensions should help develop the vastus lateralis.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

pointing your toes outward and exerting outward force during leg extensions should help develop the vastus lateralis.

You meant inward no?

Genetics.

Originally Posted by Metallibanger

Dont do it, youre so young!

I'm ashamed to admit I opened Metallibanger's post. I'm even more ashamed to answer his question, but here goes.

Legs in or out, I don't know. It's not true anyway. I thought the theory was outside, but inside could also be true. You know more about the muscle mag science than I do.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

I'm ashamed to admit I opened Metallibanger's post. I'm even more ashamed to answer his question, but here goes.

Legs in or out, I don't know. It's not true anyway. I thought the theory was outside, but inside could also be true. You know more about the muscle mag science than I do.

I know more about everything than you do

Don't wink when you're serious. People might it's a joke, while you are in fact the joke.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Don't wink when you're serious. People might it's a joke, while you are in fact the joke.

I'm serious man, you are the joke here

I dont understand the whole muscle shaping thing. Muscle fibres generally go the whole length of the muscle in question...and ive never heard of a section of a cell growing more than another section.

The whole point of muscle is the cumulative effect of filaments contracting, causing myofibrils to contract, causing muscle fibres to contract, causing the whole muscle to contract.

If one part of the muscle fibre was bigger or thicker or whatever you want to call it that causes the change in shape, then those fibres wouldnt do anything because they would only be going part of the way down the muscle so wouldnt contract in that cumulative buildup - which is why it doesnt happen.

When a muscle grows, it grows uniform through the whole muscle so the extra cells actually have a contractile USE in the muscle. The body doesnt like things that have no use.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

I dont understand the whole muscle shaping thing. Muscle fibres generally go the whole length of the muscle in question...and ive never heard of a section of a cell growing more than another section.

The whole point of muscle is the cumulative effect of filaments contracting, causing myofibrils to contract, causing muscle fibres to contract, causing the whole muscle to contract.

If one part of the muscle fibre was bigger or thicker or whatever you want to call it that causes the change in shape, then those fibres wouldnt do anything because they would only be going part of the way down the muscle so wouldnt contract in that cumulative buildup - which is why it doesnt happen.

When a muscle grows, it grows uniform through the whole muscle so the extra cells actually have a contractile USE in the muscle. The body doesnt like things that have no use.

You need different angles of exercising to hit all the muscle fibres. If you don't train a muscle properly for a long period you'll start having weaknesses

In this case, is it a matter of genetics, or a matter of insufficient ROM and exercises?

Only someone watching Big G do his stuff can say.

Originally Posted by Metallibanger

You need different angles of exercising to hit all the muscle fibres. If you don't train a muscle properly for a long period you'll start having weaknesses

So theres a neuron for every angle?

I doubt this.

Frequent contraction will increase neural efficiency so that more fibres are stimulated at one time, though. But thats independent of 'angle'. When you need to contract a muscle, it'll contract as many fibres as possible to get the job done.

Do you have any links to this angles thing? Where did you learn that?

Originally Posted by Gazhole

So theres a neuron for every angle?

I doubt this.

Frequent contraction will increase neural efficiency so that more fibres are stimulated at one time, though. But thats independent of 'angle'. When you need to contract a muscle, it'll contract as many fibres as possible to get the job done.

Do you have any links to this angles thing? Where did you learn that?

I think he's referring to variation in which muscles (or heads) are recruited by various foot placements.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

So theres a neuron for every angle?

I doubt this.

Frequent contraction will increase neural efficiency so that more fibres are stimulated at one time, though. But thats independent of 'angle'. When you need to contract a muscle, it'll contract as many fibres as possible to get the job done.

Do you have any links to this angles thing? Where did you learn that?

Originally Posted by Gazhole

So theres a neuron for every angle?

I doubt this.

Frequent contraction will increase neural efficiency so that more fibres are stimulated at one time, though. But thats independent of 'angle'. When you need to contract a muscle, it'll contract as many fibres as possible to get the job done.

Do you have any links to this angles thing? Where did you learn that?

You think you can work the whole back with dumbbell rows, for example?
No, you'd be working the lower area with these. Are you working your lower back with BTN pulldowns? No, you're working your upper back. So, depending on the exercise you're hitting different fibres. It's so simple man

Originally Posted by DOMS

I think he's referring to variation in which muscles (or heads) are recruited by various foot placements.

Variation is good, but i dont think foot placement has a direct effect on increasing the size of certain areas...all four heads that make up the quad attach to the same tendon, so surely they still all contract as one no matter what the foot placement?

Obviously the greater the need for strength, the more fibres will be recruited into the contraction, but does the foot placement really have that much of an influence on the area those "extra" fibres come from?

Im really asking, here lol.

Originally Posted by Metallibanger

You think you can work the whole back with dumbbell rows, for example?
No, you'd be working the lower area with these. Are you working your lower back with BTN pulldowns? No, you're working your upper back. So, depending on the exercise you're hitting different fibres. It's so simple man

The lats, traps, and muscles comprising the lower back all have different attachments since they are different muscles. They are attached to different parts of the skeleton by different tendons, you can recruit different muscles because of that fact...thats obvious.

We're talking about SHAPING individual muscles, here. The heads of the quad all attach through the same tendon, they make up the SAME muscle. Thats a completely different thing.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

The lats, traps, and muscles comprising the lower back all have different attachments since they are different muscles. They are attached to different parts of the skeleton by different tendons, you can recruit different muscles because of that fact...thats obvious.

We're talking about SHAPING individual muscles, here. The heads of the quad all attach through the same tendon, they make up the SAME muscle. Thats a completely different thing.

It's the same thing for legs. Wide stance=inner thighs, Close stance=outer thighs, and so on

Originally Posted by Metallibanger

It's the same thing for legs. Wide stance=inner thighs, Close stance=outer thighs, and so on

If you use a wider stance, its going to recruit your glutes more than your quads, for the squat anyways. Thats just mechanical.

Its not the same thing for quads, basic anatomy shows you that. The back is comprised of different muscles that contract in different directions, and are attached to different places. They arent completely separate, no, but they are separate enough to be different muscles.

The quad is one muscle, with four sections, that all act as extensors to the knee and leg as a whole, which attach to the same place. Untill you can give me something to read which proves what youre saying, im gonna have to side with grade-school biology on this one.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

im gonna have to side with grade-school biology on this one.

I side with old-school training experience