# Leg question to start a shit fight !!



## Rissole (Apr 27, 2003)

Ok here goes.......
I'm hanging to get some good size on my wheels, which i believe is happening with GP's routine 
The question is, i feel like i need more 'sweep' in the outer part of my quad (Vastus Lateralis)..... Is there i particular feet postion that will hit that particular quad muscle more than others?? Wide/narrow foot postion on 45*LP, arse to heel squats rather than 90* squat, toes in on leg ext (sorry Prince and DP) 
Any help much apprieciated, i'm competing in Sept and im keen for good legs 

Thanks guys


----------



## Fit Freak (Apr 28, 2003)

To emphasize the outer sweep I like to do smith squats and regular barbell squats with my legs close together...as for turning in the toes on the leg extension...IMHO...bad idea unless you're looking for problems down the road.....since it's an open-chain movement.

One more thing bud....ditch the leg press unless you do it late in your workout and START SQUATING!!!!!!!!!!!!  That is SQUAT if you want legs...and press if you want TWIGS...lmfao...but it's true.


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Rissole *_
> Ok here goes.......
> I'm hanging to get some good size on my wheels, which i believe is happening with GP's routine
> The question is, i feel like i need more 'sweep' in the outer part of my quad (Vastus Lateralis)..... Is there i particular feet postion that will hit that particular quad muscle more than others?? Wide/narrow foot postion on 45*LP, arse to heel squats rather than 90* squat, toes in on leg ext (sorry Prince and DP)
> ...



You want sweep?! Get a freaking broom! LOL, just playing. Listen my good friend, the shape of your muscle...bicep peak, calf length, outer thigh sweep...is largely determined by genetics. That said, I believe strongly that you can work a specific "area" of a complex muscle and therefore slightly influence its shape.

To work outer quad you need to do all exercises like squats, leg presses, and hacks with a close foot stance. You need to turn your feet in at the top of your leg extension. A very effective technique is to superset toes in ext with close stance compound movements (during shock week).

You can definitely make positive changes in your outer sweep...just be patient and do not expect miracles.


----------



## Robboe (Apr 28, 2003)

Someone at my gym blew both knees out last summer cause they had their feet turned inwards on the leg press, pushing a heavy weight.

You really gotta work that sweep...


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Someone at my gym blew both knees out last summer cause they had their feet turned inwards on the leg press, pushing a heavy weight.
> 
> You really gotta work that sweep...



NOBODY TOLD HIM TO TURN HIS FEET IN DURING LEG PRESSES, HACKS, OR SQUATS...I WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND THIS. I SAID TURN YOUR FEET IN AT THE TOP OF A LEG EXTENSION!


----------



## Robboe (Apr 28, 2003)

Calm down, old man, i didn't even see your post.

I was just passing comment.

Fucks sake.


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

Old maybe...but f%cking big and getting rock hard! And its not my style to stay calm!


----------



## Robboe (Apr 28, 2003)

No wonder your hair has fallen out then.


hahahaha....


Joke!


----------



## Dr. Pain (Apr 28, 2003)

*Reclaiming this thread......*

Damn....I wish I knew more about this....last time I checked...the waist was 3" too big in my suit pants, and I couldn't fit my freaking legs in........

So I quess I know "Squat" 

Ok....while I have spoken out about how to work ones legs......here's a "position"  I have as yet to state.....

We often hear people complain/comment that they can not squat because it hurts their back, or their knees........I often find this a function of biomechanics, bar palcement, leg and toe orietation, and body alignment during an exercise...

One of the most important issues for the knee is "Q" angle.......it is imperative that the knees track in line with the toes....so if you vary your stance (whch I don't recommend to a gr8 degree, more in a second)......toe angle becomes even more critical.  ON HACKS, POWER MACHNE SQUATS (all kinds, esp Smith and BB), L/P and SQUATS, the KNEES MUST TRACK  in line w/the TOES!  JMHO 
(This often occurs w/a 10% to 25% flare to the outside)

When squatting...to frequently I see beginner and intermediate lifters attempt "Heals Up", "Close Stance" and other stance variations....simply put...it fucks up their "grove", the power from the hole , the heel drive...and often results in a hip roll or compromised spinal alignment....not to mention undue stress on the body, diverting energy and power form the intended movement.  As shoulder width or wider (Taller the wider) stance should be employed until squatting is second nature!

Now, the more accomplish one becomes, the stronger your connective tissue (tendons and ligaments) from repetitive stress.....then at submaximal loads....you can vary the toe alignment (minimally), always carefully .......Stance width, can and should be varied on the Smith, and machines, Hack, Power squat, etc....alway being concerned with hip flexor, glute, and spinal involement, and the above mentioned toe/knee alignment.... 

Onto the question......As GP stated, with in  the above parameters......closer stance on machines will activate more lateral fiber, the outer sweep.....I would never recommend closer than shoulder width on a BB squat unless you either short enough (to maintain intregrity during the positive movement), or very accomplished....and we have already visited L/E's which are the general exception to the toe/knee rule.

 I find 1 and 1/4 squats provide a more total leg "hit", as do 4 second pause squats (uncoils the kinectic energy in the muscle, and allows greater recruitment of fiber, there is a post on this)...BUT, the ultimate exercise for frontal quad delvelop in MHO is the front squat......

So consider front squats, 1 and 1/4 squats, 4 second pause squats; Heavy L/E's  (toes neutral or slightly in on L/E's only) with quadruple dropsets once exhausted form heavier loads  

DP


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Reclaiming this thread......*



> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> Damn....I wish I knew more about this....last time I checked...the waist was 3" too big in my suit pants, and I couldn't fit my freaking legs in........
> 
> So I quess I know "Squat"
> ...



I was going to say the exact same thing, but was just too lazy to type all of that...


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> No wonder your hair has fallen out then.
> 
> 
> ...




You never stop with the hair thing! Well, it won't matter soon anyway...I'm about to shave the rest off and go with the "Vin Diesel" look....


----------



## Dr. Pain (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Reclaiming this thread......*



> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> I was going to say the exact same thing, but was just too lazy to type all of that...



Fucking made me late...you get the next one  


DP


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Reclaiming this thread......*



> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> Fucking made me late...you get the next one
> 
> 
> DP



OK, deal!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

I will not even get involved in the debate, do not feel like arguing this again. 

All I will say is a sweep on your quads (Vastus Lateralis) is genetic, just as a peak on your biceps is genetic. You either have it or you don't. 

You can turn your damn feet any way you want, it will not build a sweep. Squats, leg press and hack squats should always be done with a shoulder width stance and toes pointed _slightly_ outward.


----------



## Robboe (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> You never stop with the hair thing! Well, it won't matter soon anyway...I'm about to shave the rest off and go with the "Vin Diesel" look....




Good idea.

Maybe then all those rumours regarding your sexuality will stop.


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> I will not even get involved in the debate, do not feel like arguing this again.
> 
> All I will say is a sweep on your quads (Vastus Lateralis) is genetic, just as a peak on your biceps is genetic. You either have it or you don't.
> ...



Sorry, your post just got you involved! You just answered in a manner that is VERY UP FOR DEBATE...in fact, I will say flat out that I totally, well not totally, disagree. But lets not debate any further, I don't have the time or inclination


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Good idea.
> 
> Maybe then all those rumours regarding your sexuality will stop.



What rumors...I've already admitted that I only date farm animals...hence my interest in you!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Sorry, your post just got you involved! You just answered in a manner that is VERY UP FOR DEBATE...in fact, I will say flat out that I totally, well not totally, disagree. But lets not debate any further, I don't have the time or inclination



Nope, it's simple anatomy Eric. I could understand you disagreeing though cause you still think that it's possible to cause growth in different regions of the pectorial. 

see the tendon attachments here?


----------



## katie64 (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Fit Freak *_
> 
> 
> One more thing bud....ditch the leg press unless you do it late in your workout and START SQUATING!!!!!!!!!!!!  That is SQUAT if you want legs...and press if you want TWIGS...lmfao...but it's true.


Hey Fit Freak, does that go for women too, press for leanness, squats for bigger muscle?????


----------



## Rob_NC (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Nope, it's simple anatomy Eric. I could understand you disagreeing though cause you still think that it's possible to cause growth in different regions of the pectorial.
> 
> see the tendon attachments here?




Soooooo....Explain to me why I can make my upper pecs sore as hell when I only do incline presses and my mid and lower pec feels nothing afterward?  Bottom line, if there wasn't a need for an incline bench, then why the hell was it developed?


----------



## ZECH (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by katie64 *_
> Hey Fit Freak, does that go for women too, press for leanness, squats for bigger muscle?????


Don't know about leanness, but squats are king for mass!!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by katie64 *_
> Hey Fit Freak, does that go for women too, press for leanness, squats for bigger muscle?????



No exercise is for "leanness".


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Rob_NC *_
> Soooooo....Explain to me why I can make my upper pecs sore as hell when I only do incline presses and my mid and lower pec feels nothing afterward?  Bottom line, if there wasn't a need for an incline bench, then why the hell was it developed?




Okay, listen very carefully.

It makes no difference where in a muscle you feel sore, a single muscle (e.g. pectorial major) will grow as a whole. You cannot make a single muscle grow in different areas, if you could that would mean it's possible to shape a muscle, and that's impossible.

I discussed this in another thread in more detail...but simply put, working your pecs on incline, flat and decline are all going to increase growth in that muscle (equally). The point of using the different angles is that different motor units will be activated within the muscle (either more of them or different areas) and cause further growth. If all you did was flat bench your "upper", "lower" and "middle" pec would still grow equally, but by hitting the muscle at different angles you can cause further growth than if you continued to use only one angle.

Anyone (you, gopro, DP) can argue this, but if they disagree, they're wrong. Period.

Now, do not confuse the pectorial with a muscle group like deltoids, someone else did that in another thread.

I will also argue this of the calves and the quads, not because they're a single muscle, they're not, but because their tendon attachments are in almost the exact same spot. In fact for calves both heads of the Gastronemius attach to the same tendon, Achilles tendon. 

here is the thread: http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17156


----------



## Rob_NC (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Okay, listen very carefully.
> 
> It makes no difference where in a muscle you feel sore, a single muscle (e.g. pectorial major) will grow as a whole. You cannot make a single muscle grow in different areas, if you could that would mean it's possible to shape a muscle, and that's impossible.
> ...





IF what you say is true, then why are the quads, pecs, calves, tris, bis etc. multi-muscle groups?


----------



## Rissole (Apr 28, 2003)

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


----------



## Robboe (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Rob_NC *_
> Bottom line, if there wasn't a need for an incline bench, then why the hell was it developed?




Oh! Oh! Oh!

*Raises arm sharply*

I know this.

Back in the day, i think it was people working under Arthur Jones (but not totally sure, it may have been before his time), constructed a machine that began as a bench press, but gradually inclined bit-by-bit into an overhead press. The idea was to try and get a trainee to be able to overhead press the same that they bench pressed.

And the incline bench press evolved.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Rob_NC *_
> IF what you say is true, then why are the quads, pecs, calves, tris, bis etc. multi-muscle groups?



It depends on which muscle group you're talking about.

In some cases the different heads have slightly different functions.  In the case of the tricep it's primary function is to straighten the arm, however it's secondary function is fulfilled only by the Long head of the muscle, which is to bring the arm down towards the body (adduction).

In other cases the different heads, such as the Gastronemius, attach to the same tendon (Achilles), but they originate from to separate attachment sites. In this case the purpose of two heads has to do with how the origination points attach to either side of the humerous. This does not mean that you can stress the head separately by changing toe positions though.

Then you have muscle groups like the deltoids, where there are distinct differences in their function. All three Deltoid heads attach to the humerus. However, the Anterior and Lateral heads originate on the collar bone, while the Posterior head originates on the scapula. Thus, the Anterior head raises it away to the front, the Lateral head up and away to the side and the Posterior head away to the rear. 

As far as the pectorials, there is a pec minor that is underneath the pec major, but it's not visible. It's function is to move the humerus forward in the shoulder socket. However, as far as your chest development, and what can be seen in regards to "upper", "middle" and "lower", this is all the pec major, which is a single muscle.


----------



## katie64 (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> No exercise is for "leanness".


Ok, leanness isn't the right word, I want to keep working my quads, hams, calves but I don't want to build up more muscle, my legs are very strong, I know about fat loss, that's not what I'm asking, in order to keep working that area without building mass muscle or more of it, should I keep w8 low, more reps.....again I want to keep working them, I love leg day...............Is this a stupid question LOL, I should probably already know this answer, huh?


----------



## ZECH (Apr 28, 2003)

Low reps and heavy weight will build muscle. High reps and low weight will generally tone muscle.


----------



## gopro (Apr 28, 2003)

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


----------



## w8lifter (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Oh! Oh! Oh!
> 
> *Raises arm sharply*
> ...



lmfao!


----------



## Dr. Pain (Apr 28, 2003)

She is so easily entertained sometimes 

(GP is right, he has my vote  )


----------



## ZECH (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by w8lifter *_
> Shit disturber


 but you do get to learn some good stuff


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 28, 2003)

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


----------



## Rissole (Apr 29, 2003)

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


----------



## gopro (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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.
> ...




 

Real world experience usually proves more than scientific theory.


----------



## Dr. Pain (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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.
> ...



I second that! 

DP


----------



## Arnold (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

Anyone need a lab rat?   

I'm not working


----------



## Arnold (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)

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 (Apr 29, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 29, 2003)




----------



## ikam (Apr 30, 2003)

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


----------



## Robboe (Apr 30, 2003)

> _*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 (Apr 30, 2003)

> _*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 (May 1, 2003)

I think he was talking about the atom


----------



## gopro (May 1, 2003)

> _*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.


----------



## Arnold (May 1, 2003)

excerpt taken from:

*ISSA : Fitness - The Complete Guide
Fredrick C. Hatfield, Ph.D. aka 'Dr. Squat'*

_Chapter 11.33_

The quadriceps muscles can contract more efficiently when the feet are pointing slightly outward. They should never point straight ahead. If you squat with a very wide stance, your adductors tend to assist the quads. This can result in stress to the medial collateral ligament, abnormal cartilage-loading, and improper patellar-tracking.

Make sure that your knees point in the same direction your feet are pointing during the descent and ascent. Because of weak quads, many lifters inadvertently turn their knees inward during the ascent, placing great stress on the medial ligaments of the knee.

*Although many top bodybuilders advocate a very close stance for the purpose of isolating the outer quads, this is a myth, and it places you at risk, particularly since you???ll have to use a lot of back to execute the lift, or (if you use heels) place great shear and compression on the knees.* The safest way to squat is to put your feet in a position where they can generate the greatest opposing force to the weight (???the athletic position???).


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 1, 2003)

*Re: Reclaiming this thread......*



> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> 
> So I quess I know "Squat"
> 
> ...



Damn..Dr Squat has his shit together.......


----------



## Arnold (May 1, 2003)

this part was the main reason I posted that:

*"Although many top bodybuilders advocate a very close stance for the purpose of isolating the outer quads, this is a myth..."*

and it was not really directed towards you.


----------



## gopro (May 2, 2003)

Yeah...Freddie has built quite the physique! LOL. Anyway, who WAS that directed toward Mr Prince??


----------



## Arnold (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Leg question to start a shit fight !!*



> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> To work outer quad you need to do all exercises like squats, leg presses, and hacks with a close foot stance.



You!


----------



## gopro (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Leg question to start a shit fight !!*



> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> You!



Figured that! Fred is a quack. He is only used to his wide stance, bent over, booty out, powerlifting squat, and wouldn't know how to hit the outer quads if he had a bat and an arrow.


----------



## Arnold (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Leg question to start a shit fight !!*



> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Figured that! Fred is a quack. He is only used to his wide stance, bent over, booty out, powerlifting squat, and wouldn't know how to hit the outer quads if he had a bat and an arrow.



*Frederick C. Hatfield, MSS, Ph.D.,*
ISSA Co-Founder and President, Dr. Hatfield, (a.k.a. "Dr. Squat"), holds a Ph.D. from Temple University with competency examinations taken in sport psychology, motor learning and sport sociology. He has provided research and development and marketing consultation to several nutritional and fitness equipment manufacturers and other fitness-related corporations around the world.He has been both a principal in, and consultant to, numerous commercial enterprises involved in fitness, nutrition, publishing and education since 1970, and has been directly involved in establishing and consulting for numerous health and fitness clubs across the U.S. 

He has taught sports psychology, strength physiology, and physical education at the University of Wisconsin, Newark State College, Bowie State College, Temple University and the University of Illinois. He was a consultant to the U.S. Olympic Committee, the International Federation of Bodybuilders (IFBB), the West German Body Building Federation, Australian Powerlifting Federation, and CBS Sports. He was coach three times for the U.S. National Powerlifting team and a member of the executive committees of the U.S. Olympic Weightlifting Federation and U.S. Powerlifting Federation. 

The founding editor of Sports Fitness magazine (now Men???s Fitness), he has written more than 60 books and over 200 articles on sports fitness, weight training and athletic nutrition. He is a former standout college gymnast, Mr. Teenage Connecticut, Mr. Atlantic Coast and Mr. Mid America in bodybuilding, Wisconsin and Connecticut weightlifting champion, broken over 30 world records as a powerlifter competing in five different weight divisions, and won the world Championships in powerlifting three times in three different weight divisions. 

In 1987, at the age of 45, Hatfield established a world record in the squat at 1,014 pounds (255 body weight), the most anyone had ever lifted in the history of competition. His frequent world record-breaking performances in the squat have gained him the nickname of "Dr. Squat." He remains competitive in Masters Level Olympic Weightlifting, having represented the USA in the 1998 World Masters Games in Oregon.


----------



## gopro (May 2, 2003)

Yeah, yeah Prince, I know alllllll about Mr Hatfield...too bad he's missing one small piece of info...that you can stimulate more vastus lateralis development with close stance squats, leg presses, and hacks, as well as toes in leg presses.


----------



## Arnold (May 2, 2003)

I have my seminar this weekend with Tom Platz, I will be sure to ask him his opinion on this as well as the upper chest debate.


----------



## gopro (May 2, 2003)

Go ahead, ask Tom! Ask Jerry too!


----------



## Arnold (May 2, 2003)

oh, Tom Platz is not credible either?

it sounds like the only people that you will say are credible are the one's that agree with you.


as you can see in the pic Tom's quad development was lacking a bit.


----------



## gopro (May 3, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> oh, Tom Platz is not credible either?
> 
> it sounds like the only people that you will say are credible are the one's that agree with you.
> ...



I didn't say Tom wasn't credible. I respect Tom alot for the incredibly hard training bodybuilder he was. I also love the passion and drive he had to excel at his sport.

However, does this make him an authority on training...no really. Mr Olympia himself, Ronnie Coleman, says some of the most ridiculous things about training that I ever heard. You see, the problem is with most IFBB pros is the fact that 1) they are extremely gentically gifted and can build awesome muscle training almost any way, 2) they are taking boatloads of drugs and can get big by shoveling snow.

When I lived in California and had the opportunity to watch many pros train, I could not believe how haphazard some of it was. Most people would get hurt, overtrain, or simply kill themselves.

Anyway, I'm curious to see what Tom says. He is a very smart guy and I like him alot. But Prince, his leg development tells us nothing about his knowledge!


----------



## Robboe (May 3, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Mr Olympia himself, Ronnie Coleman, says some of the most ridiculous things about training that I ever heard.




Ironic. I think the same for a lot of stuff you have said.



> But Prince, his leg development tells us nothing about his knowledge!



Let me get this right - if a skinny guy in a white lab coat says something you disagree with, then he must be wrong cause you're bigger. If a bigger guy than you says something you disagree with, then he must be wrong cause he's not wearing a white lab coat?

You seem to contradict yourself a lot, Eric.


----------



## gopro (May 3, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Ironic. I think the same for a lot of stuff you have said.
> 
> 
> ...




Another stupid post, but what else should I expect at this point? Ok, well here we go (should I bother? hmmm, I'm bored, why not)...

First, I do not disagree with all "skinny guys in lab coats." I only say that 1- people in the "trenches" often have more REAL insight than those in the lab that have never picked up a weight, and 2- that just because a scientific study says something is "true" or "false" does not make it so.

Second...Ronnie Coleman and 99% of all pros and top top amateurs are GENETIC FREAKS that use tons and tons of physique enhancing chemicals...THAT makes them very very different from me and all other hard working natural for life bodybuilders that have to FIGHT for every gram of muscle they gain and constantly figure out ways to improve.

Yeah, I wish I could train for the Olympia for 5 months out of the year and place second like Kevin Levrone, LOL.


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 3, 2003)

GP....at least I know what you mean 

When you train/advise 1000's of people over the years......you get a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. 

..for most people, if I asked...what do you do for a living, everyday....8-12 hours...and once you told me, if I asked..."Are you any good at what you do?"  They answer is almost always.....Hell Yeah I'm good at what I do......

....the point here...is not who's right or wrong, who's science is better......especailly when you can prove or disprove so many things  with studies nowadays.....it's more about who can make things work for the majority of people, the majority of the time...


----------



## Arnold (May 3, 2003)

Eric, you just made it sound as though Tom Platz is nothing more than another pro bodybuilder. Hmmm....I agree that many pro bodybuiders are genetic steroid freaks and could not even define the word hypertrophy, let alone explain it on a cellular level, but om Platz teaches this stuff full time for the ISSA.

I thought you were certified thru the ISSA?

If so, do you realize that you just discredited the Co-Founder of the ISSA, Fred Hatfield, and now the ISSA Director of Bodybuilding for the ISSA, Tom Platz.

I do not understand.  Who is credible in your eyes?

And DP, yes it's very important as to what "works" in the field on "real people", but there is also quite a bit of science that we can all accept, isn't there? And both you and gopro are discounting this.

oh and btw, I am on my lunch break right now from my ISSA certification seminar with Mr. Platz.


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 3, 2003)

Prince, we are not discounting anything....you're the one discounting the EMG studies, and we use science...alot, as well as our experince.......myabe once you're certified and train a few hundred people, especially competitors......j/k.. 

Hope you're having a good time, tell Tom I took his advice and did leg extensions for 45 minutes str8 like he said to...and all I got out of it are HUGE legs 

DP


----------



## Arnold (May 3, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> ....you're the one discounting the EMG studies, and we use science...
> DP



hmmm...please show me this post, cause I do not remember me "discounting" any EMG studies. I do remember me saying that they did not apply to the debate we were having at the time.


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 3, 2003)

I've got a better Idea   you go back, study your ass off, and you can find then when you get back......

I showed you tibia aligment on lateral and medial quad fiber activation, and I toid you there were additional studies on plantar alignment of soleus/gastrocnemius activation.  The list go on...hand/grip alignment effect bicep/brachialis activation, as do neutral, parallel, wide and narrow grips....effect tissue activation on pectoral and lattisimus. exercises and hence their development, as well as the assisting muscle (group) activation and  their development 

DP


----------



## ikam (May 3, 2003)

Bodybuilding is all about angles. Dr Pain and Go Pro are correct imo.

Instead of discrediting one another why don't we look at solving this problem by being open minded so we all can learn something?


----------



## gopro (May 3, 2003)

Yes Prince...my first ever certification was through the ISSA. And seriously, I believe both Tom Platz and Fred Hatfield (especially Fred) to be extremely credible experts in the world of fitness. I believe that Tom was one of the more "thinking" bodybuilders, and paved the way for other great minds in the sport like Mentzer, Yates, Labrada, etc. Fred obviously knows a ton about powerlifting and many other subjects related to the fitness world.

There are many many experts out there that I listen too, respect, learn from, but at the same time, disagree with too on occassion. There are many things about bodybuilding, nutrition, supplements, hypertrophy, strength gains, etc, that I'm still unsure about...and therefore I will continue searching for the truth (which will come from science, yes, but more from the work I do in my "own lab"). The thing about this muscle shaping/working different parts of the muscle question is just one of those "experiments" I'm done with because I already have my answer...and nobody can prove otherwise to me on the subject.


----------



## gopro (May 3, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Dr. Pain *_
> GP....at least I know what you mean
> 
> When you train/advise 1000's of people over the years......you get a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't.
> ...



Thank you...thank goodness...and beautifully said


----------



## Arnold (May 3, 2003)

Okay, well gopro and DP you two just keep patting each other on the back and posting this dogma.

gopro, disagreeing with certain issues and discrediting are completely different. You said Fred Hatfield is a quack and has no idea as to how you build the VL head. And you basically implied that Tom Platz was just another "iron head". Did you not?

As far as the whole "upper chest" debate you two are just perpetuating a myth, and because of your professions you've got several naive people in this thread believing it. It's the whole "I feel it" so it must be working syndrome, as several people here have already alluded to as they post in agreement with you guys. 

DP I am constantly reading and studying bodybuilding, fitness, nutrition, etc. How about you?


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 3, 2003)

Constantly Prince, Constantly 

DP


----------



## Robboe (May 4, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Another stupid post, but what else should I expect at this point? Ok, well here we go (should I bother? hmmm, I'm bored, why not)...
> 
> First, I do not disagree with all "skinny guys in lab coats." I only say that 1- people in the "trenches" often have more REAL insight than those in the lab that have never picked up a weight, and 2- that just because a scientific study says something is "true" or "false" does not make it so.
> ...



It wasn't a stupid post at all. It just seems that everytime you try to prove a point you either use big lads to back you up ("they must know what they're doing") and dismiss science ("Never picked up a weight in their lives") or you dismiss the big lads ("Genetic freaks ona  boat load of drugs") and use the science.

Well, you rarely use the science in all fairness.


----------



## Dr. Pain (May 4, 2003)

No point here....just an "Expert analogy"

I think it's funny how for 30 years...the "Experts" gave Dr. Atkins so much grief (science and political structure of the times).....then he is vidicated by science (ooh, is this new technology...I think not), although emirical results for over 30 years should has justified his techniques.....now in the news it is reports that the "Experts all agree, that Atkins is....the way to go"

Same freakin experts.....

DP


----------



## gopro (May 4, 2003)

Holy shit Prince, now you're getting too emotional! When I called Hatfield a quack and Tom "just another ironhead (your words not mine)" I was being a little tongue in cheek. I was trying to keep a little sense of humor infused in this debate. I posted a little later, as you saw, what my true feeling are about Hatfield and Platz, but I guess you chose to ignore that.

Anyway, DP and I are hardly patting eachother on the back. In fact, we have openly disagreed about some things in the past...so we are not just agreeing just to agree. We just both work in this field for a living, probably up to 60 or more hours per week each, 365 days per year, and have observed the same phenomenon over and over.

Regardless of that. It really ticks me off that you say we are simply perpetuating a myth in this post, as it sound like it is being implied that we are misleading people, when in fact, we are TEACHING people. You asked us to be mods here for a reason...I assume because of our knowledge and experience, and since we do it for free, and for no other reason than to help those that are searching for answers, we certainly have NO REASON to mislead others.

You can feel anyway you wish about this issue, but I hope I don't find you in the gym using different angles, handles, and exercises for each bodypart, because that would be a waste of time. 

Anyway, I think this topic ought to be finished as it is apparent nobody's mind is going to be changed...certainly not mine because as the sun rises each day, upper chests are being affected by incline presses. 

Let's leave it like it is, because I don't want this to truly become a "shit fight."


----------



## Rissole (May 4, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Let's leave it like it is, because I don't want this to truly become a "shit fight."


But that was the whole idea Gp


----------



## gopro (May 4, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Rissole *_
> But that was the whole idea Gp



And are you happy now??


----------



## Arnold (May 4, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> You asked us to be mods here for a reason...I assume because of our knowledge and experience, and since we do it for free, and for no other reason than to help those that are searching for answers, we certainly have NO REASON to mislead others.


Yes, this is true. But didn't you just say that you disagree with many "experts" on certain issues? Well, I guess I do to. 




> You can feel anyway you wish about this issue, but I hope I don't find you in the gym using different angles, handles, and exercises for each bodypart, because that would be a waste of time.


See, now I know that you are not reading my posts. I never said you should not use different angles, in fact if you go back in this thread I said just the opposite.


Anyway, I am done with this thread and debate.


----------



## Rissole (May 4, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> And are you happy now??


Yeah mate  
It was a damn good read too...


----------

