Leg question to start a shit fight !!

[w8lifter]

Originally posted by Rissole
You guys are a riot !!
Yes FF i do squat always!! Thanks for the input (now where's that broom??)
Argue away

Shit disturber

 

[w8lifter]

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Oh! Oh! Oh!

*Raises arm sharply*

I know this.

lmfao!

 

[Dr. Pain]

She is so easily entertained sometimes

(GP is right, he has my vote )

 

[ZECH]

Originally posted by gopro
Sorry Prince buddy...you are incorrect. You CAN affect fibers more in certain areas of a complex muscles and CAN affect more growth in that area. I have done it with upper pecs, the long head of the tricep, the outer thigh, and of course with each individual head of the delt. It is done, can be done, and I will do it over and over again.

Believe as you wish...it matters not to me

DG grabs the popcorn and waits for the response!

 

[Rissole]

Originally posted by w8lifter
Shit disturber

but you do get to learn some good stuff

 

[Arnold]

Originally posted by gopro
Sorry Prince buddy...you are incorrect. You CAN affect fibers more in certain areas of a complex muscles and CAN affect more growth in that area.

Interesting that I am the incorrect one when muscle physiology science holds the same "belief" as me. Just because you stimulate more fibers in a different region of a single muscle does not mean it will grow in that area, a muscle grows equally as a whole. As far as different heads, yes in some muscle groups it's possible, e.g. delts, and others it's not, e.g. quads.

I have done it with upper pecs

Impossible.

the long head of the tricep

I agreed to this one, but it has to do with it's tendon attachment.

the outer thigh

How did you do this?

and of course with each individual head of the delt

I agreed to this as well.

It is done, can be done, and I will do it over and over again.

Believe as you wish...it matters not to me

What I am saying is not mere belief, like I said science is behind what I am stating. Can you disprove science with something else besides telling me that you made your "upper pecs" grow?

 

[buff_tat2d_chic]

I don't know what to think or who to believe

 

[Rissole]

I tried the smith squats with my legs close together today, i really feel like it worked the outer part of my quad

 

[gopro]

Prince...you are one of the last people I want to argue with. However, I do believe that when you affect certain areas of a muscle by changing angle, grip, etc, you DO cause more hypertrophy in that section. Now, this is not so true of a simple muscle like biceps, but with more complex muscle structures like chest, back, quads, even calves it can be and has been done. My antecdotal evidence tells me so. Just b/c muscle physiology texts state it can't be done because of muscle attachments, does not tell the whole picture. There IS a reason that you can make your upper pecs selectively sore...or your inner pecs...or your outer quads. This is not just coincidence. It happens consistently and can be seen in a "sciency" manner by muscle EMG studies. Some like to discount those, but they shouldn't.

If the muscle can not be affected differently by different angles and grips than there would be no need for the dozens of exercises that are employed in a complete weight training program. For pecs all you would need is flat bench press and flyes... for delts, a front, side, and rear lateral...for lats, a pulldown and a row...for quads, a squat or leg press...etc. We could throw away all the different cable attachments...throw away incline benches...throw away the hack squat...throw away the T-Bar row, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, its not that simple. A person that only does flat bench press will never have as complete a chest as someone that does flat bench press, incline press, and cable crossovers.

Listen, that is all I will say about this. There are some people in this world that believe 2+2=5...and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, that person will continue to believe what they want to believe.

I respect your and anyone elses belief about this matter, but nobody is going to change my mind about something that has been proven to me in the gym over and over and over...

 

[Rob_NC]

Originally posted by gopro
Prince...you are one of the last people I want to argue with. However, I do believe that when you affect certain areas of a muscle by changing angle, grip, etc, you DO cause more hypertrophy in that section. Now, this is not so true of a simple muscle like biceps, but with more complex muscle structures like chest, back, quads, even calves it can be and has been done. My antecdotal evidence tells me so. Just b/c muscle physiology texts state it can't be done because of muscle attachments, does not tell the whole picture. There IS a reason that you can make your upper pecs selectively sore...or your inner pecs...or your outer quads. This is not just coincidence. It happens consistently and can be seen in a "sciency" manner by muscle EMG studies. Some like to discount those, but they shouldn't.

If the muscle can not be affected differently by different angles and grips than there would be no need for the dozens of exercises that are employed in a complete weight training program. For pecs all you would need is flat bench press and flyes... for delts, a front, side, and rear lateral...for lats, a pulldown and a row...for quads, a squat or leg press...etc. We could throw away all the different cable attachments...throw away incline benches...throw away the hack squat...throw away the T-Bar row, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, its not that simple. A person that only does flat bench press will never have as complete a chest as someone that does flat bench press, incline press, and cable crossovers.

Listen, that is all I will say about this. There are some people in this world that believe 2+2=5...and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, that person will continue to believe what they want to believe.

I respect your and anyone elses belief about this matter, but nobody is going to change my mind about something that has been proven to me in the gym over and over and over...

Real world experience usually proves more than scientific theory.

 

[Dr. Pain]

Originally posted by gopro
Prince...you are one of the last people I want to argue with. However, I do believe that when you affect certain areas of a muscle by changing angle, grip, etc, you DO cause more hypertrophy in that section. Now, this is not so true of a simple muscle like biceps, but with more complex muscle structures like chest, back, quads, even calves it can be and has been done. My antecdotal evidence tells me so. Just b/c muscle physiology texts state it can't be done because of muscle attachments, does not tell the whole picture. There IS a reason that you can make your upper pecs selectively sore...or your inner pecs...or your outer quads. This is not just coincidence. It happens consistently and can be seen in a "sciency" manner by muscle EMG studies. Some like to discount those, but they shouldn't.

If the muscle can not be affected differently by different angles and grips than there would be no need for the dozens of exercises that are employed in a complete weight training program. For pecs all you would need is flat bench press and flyes... for delts, a front, side, and rear lateral...for lats, a pulldown and a row...for quads, a squat or leg press...etc. We could throw away all the different cable attachments...throw away incline benches...throw away the hack squat...throw away the T-Bar row, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, its not that simple. A person that only does flat bench press will never have as complete a chest as someone that does flat bench press, incline press, and cable crossovers.

Listen, that is all I will say about this. There are some people in this world that believe 2+2=5...and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, that person will continue to believe what they want to believe.

I respect your and anyone elses belief about this matter, but nobody is going to change my mind about something that has been proven to me in the gym over and over and over...

I second that!

DP

 

[Arnold]

Originally posted by gopro
Prince...you are one of the last people I want to argue with.

I see this as a friendly debate, not an argument.

However, I do believe that when you affect certain areas of a muscle by changing angle, grip, etc, you DO cause more hypertrophy in that section.

If it's a single muscle like the pec major the entire muscle will grow equally, that's a fact people.

Now, this is not so true of a simple muscle like biceps, but with more complex muscle structures like chest, back, quads, even calves it can be and has been done.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree.

My antecdotal evidence tells me so. Just b/c muscle physiology texts state it can't be done because of muscle attachments, does not tell the whole picture. There IS a reason that you can make your upper pecs selectively sore...or your inner pecs...or your outer quads. This is not just coincidence.

Yes, that is the point of hitting a muscle from differenet angles, such as using incline for pecs. However, just because you recruit more muscle fiber in a different region of a muscle does not mean only that part of the muscle grows, again a muscle grow as a whole.

It happens consistently and can be seen in a "sciency" manner by muscle EMG studies. Some like to discount those, but they shouldn't.

I do not discount an EMG, again I am just stating that if we're talking about a single muscle it grows as a whole, not in parts. As far as EMG's and different heads of muscles, I do agree that with certain muscle groups, e.g. triceps and hamstrings, that rotation can hit them differently only becasue of tendon attachments. If you look at the hams you will see the two heads actually attach on opposite sides of the tibia.

If the muscle can not be affected differently by different angles and grips than there would be no need for the dozens of exercises that are employed in a complete weight training program.

Again, utilizing different angles is effective, but not because it hits different parts of a muscle.

For pecs all you would need is flat bench press and flyes... for delts, a front, side, and rear lateral...for lats, a pulldown and a row...for quads, a squat or leg press...etc. We could throw away all the different cable attachments...throw away incline benches...throw away the hack squat...throw away the T-Bar row, etc, etc, etc.

You could, and you would get equal development, but you may not reach your full genetic potential.

Sorry, its not that simple. A person that only does flat bench press will never have as complete a chest as someone that does flat bench press, incline press, and cable crossovers.

I agree, but they're pec development will still be equal from lower, middle to upper.

Listen, that is all I will say about this. There are some people in this world that believe 2+2=5...and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, that person will continue to believe what they want to believe.

Very funny, but what you're saying is not black and white like a simple math equation.

I respect your and anyone elses belief about this matter, but nobody is going to change my mind about something that has been proven to me in the gym over and over and over...

And I respect everyone that disagrees, it's your right, and anyone elses. Proven in the gym? I would argue that one.


I want to repeat, gopro, DP and anyone else, you're entitled to your opinion, and I am not arguing and I am not mad.

 

[gopro]

Ok, yes, this is a friendly debate and NOT an argument. I understand that you have your beliefs and they aren' going to change. The only other thing I will say is this...and this has nada to do with science or anything like that, but to me has a hell of alot of validity....(and I know DP would agree with this)...

Bodybuilding/training/fitness/nutrition is not my hobby...its not even something that I "really know alot about" ...it is my whole freaking life. I train 15 people a day everyday in my studio. I train another 5-10 each day online. I consult with bodybuilders and other athletes daily. I deal with EVERY aspect of fitness from soup to nuts from the time I wake up to the time I go to sleep. I have had the chance to see WHAT REALLY GOES ON with every theory...scientific or not, every training principle, diet strategy, supplement, steroid, etc, etc for 10 or more hours per day for the past 15 years. I would take that kind of "field" experience over what a book or labcoat can tell you anyday...

My part in this debate is now complete...see ya

 

[Arnold]

Oh I agree, "in the trenches" is where many things are learned and proven or disproven. However, there is a certain amount of science that we all accept, even in regards to bodybuilding. You do believe that it's impossible to change the shape of a muscle right? Science tell us this, no? So, if you accept this fact, than why are you telling me that we can increase the size of the pec in different regions? That would be changing it shape, yes?

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Prince
Oh I agree, "in the trenches" is where many things are learned and proven or disproven. However, there is a certain amount of science that we all accept, even in regards to bodybuilding. You do believe that it's impossible to change the shape of a muscle right? Science tell us this, no? So, if you accept this fact, than why are you telling me that we can increase the size of the pec in different regions? That would be changing it shape, yes?

Ahhh...yes...now you've got it my friend! You cannot change the genetic shape of a muscle that is FULLY developed (if it were possible to do so...but NOBODY REACHES THEIR GENETIC POTENTIAL)...but by utilizing the proper execises, grips, angles you can bring out the "full" development of each area of a complex muscle, that would otherwise never come if you limit yourself to just one or two variations.

So, can we shape a muscle...YES...but not in a way that that isn't genetically pre-determined. The potential is there, but you must know "how" to bring it out. Most people don't...

 

[Arnold]

Exactly. (and I have had it along. )

So, how in the world could you possibly decide which "portion" of the muscle you want to grow, e.g. the upper portion of the pec? That implies that you can "shape" the muscle. Please tell me that you are seeing my logic here?

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Prince
Exactly. (and I have had it along. )

So, how in the world could you possibly decide which "portion" of the muscle you want to grow, e.g. the upper portion of the pec? That implies that you can "shape" the muscle. Please tell me that you are seeing my logic here?

You are not seeing MY logic. You CAN shape a muscle...you can work individual parts of some muscles to make them grow which DOES ESSENTIALLY CHNAGE ITS SHAPE! You CAN make your upper pecs grow if it is lagging behind, or your outer thigh, or your inner thigh, or your outer lats...what you can't do is change the amount of muscle fibers you have (unless hyperplasia is shown to be true), which type of fibers are predominant (although this can be influenced somewhat), or where your muscle attach or originate...but you CAN alter its EXISTING SHAPE!

Where people get this confused is in the fact that IF we could somehow show a chest developed to its absolute genetic potential for example (which nobody can), it WILL have a pre-determined shape...however, since nobody can do this, we can at least influence the shape the best we possibly can by selectively training certain areas of the muscle.

 

[Arnold]

Originally posted by gopro
You are not seeing MY logic.

No offense buddy, but you're not really using any.

You're just telling me that you can work your upper chest, etc. because you witnessed it in the gym. And I am saying that from a scientific standpoint it's imposible to make part of a muscle grow, a muscle grows equally as a whole, regardless of where it feels sore. (I did not make this up).

but, this has gone on long enough...I rest my case.

 

[gopro]

Before this is over I am going to make it really simple for you and everyone else that is now wondering about this....

If you take a set of twins, with identical genetic makeup, and put them on a training program. Everything is done exactly the same in terms of every variable, but one...

Twin A does 6 sets of flat bench presses twice per week for 3 years...Twin B does 2 sets of flat benches, 2 sets of incline benches, and 2 sets of cable crossovers twice per week for 3 years...

Twin A and Twin B will have VERY DIFFERENT looking chest development, with different shape. Twin B will have a much more complete looking chest with more even development from top to bottom, right to left.

There is no ifs ands or buts about it! End of story. I rest MY case.

 

[tidalwaverus]

Anyone need a lab rat?

I'm not working

 

[Arnold]

Originally posted by gopro
Twin A and Twin B will have VERY DIFFERENT looking chest development, with different shape. Twin B will have a much more complete looking chest with more even development from top to bottom, right to left.

There is no ifs ands or buts about it! End of story. I rest MY case.

You cannot state this like it's a fact. You have no way of knowing this.
I honestly do not even see the point of your post.

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by Prince
You cannot state this like it's a fact. You have no way of knowing this.
I honestly do not even see the point of your post.

Ok...that is just silly Mr Administrator! You don't see the point? The point is that Twin A, from using just one plane of motion for training chest will have more of his development in the mid to lower portion of the chest, while Twin B, from utilizing different movements that target multiple areas, will have more evenly distributed chest development through the clavicular portion of the chest to the mid/low portion, and in the middle near the sternum! That is called shaping as people use the word in the bodybuilding world!

And no...I have no "proof" because I haven't done the experiment as stated...however, I HAVE taken a competitor (many actually) that has come to me with very little inner and upper chest development, and after 6 months of focused and selective chest training, change the whole look of his chest. What was once a bottom heavy pec now was even top to bottom and thick in the middle where previously he was very shallow!

Anyway...that is enough don't ya think. People are now armed with enough info to make their own decision on the matter.

 

[ZECH]

I think most are more confused!!
BTW........................I see Prince's point on scientic evidence, but I think I will have to side with GP. Sorry Prince. But my reason is the same as GP. From what I've done and felt with exercises is what I base it on. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Just my opinion. Everyone has one.

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by dg806
I think most are more confused!!
BTW........................I see Prince's point on scientic evidence, but I think I will have to side with GP. Sorry Prince. But my reason is the same as GP. From what I've done and felt with exercises is what I base it on. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Just my opinion. Everyone has one.

I see Prince's point too. Sometimes scientific evidence truly tells the story, but many, many times, it does not. There are soooo many things that go on in this world "that defies the laws of science." It happens every day in medicine, physics, etc. It also happens to go on in the world of bodybuilding.

 

[buff_tat2d_chic]

 

[ikam]

I have to agree with Go Pro for the most part.

 

[Robboe]

Originally posted by gopro
I see Prince's point too. Sometimes scientific evidence truly tells the story, but many, many times, it does not. There are soooo many things that go on in this world "that defies the laws of science." It happens every day in medicine, physics, etc. It also happens to go on in the world of bodybuilding.

Just a quick off-topic Q:

What happens every day that defies the laws of physics?

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Just a quick off-topic Q:

What happens every day that defies the laws of physics?

Bumble bees fly

 

[tidalwaverus]

I think he was talking about the atom

 

[gopro]

Originally posted by tidalwaverus
I think he was talking about the atom

I have a friend named Adam, but I don't think TCD was referring to the atom.