# Can you spot Build Muscle?



## angelpaws (Feb 18, 2004)

Hello there.
I know that spot reduction is not possible, but I was wondering if the same is true for spot building?
I am female, underweight and under-muscled (nearly 5ft7 inches and 103 lbs.) I clearly need to add some muscle. The thing is I have a very pear shaped body and I dont want to increase my lower body size at all.
If I increase my calories by about 150 daily and just strength train my upper body twice a week by doing bench presses, dumbell curls, flys, etc, can I expect to add on a few pounds of muscle in my upper half and keep my lower body the same size?


----------



## OmarJackson (Feb 18, 2004)

thats what bodybuilding is all about, putting on muscle where you want it to make your body look more proportional/aesthetic. build up your shoulders and upper back, and some chest work, tone your arms, and keep your waist slim and you have that classic v-shape which looks awesome.


----------



## gr81 (Feb 18, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by angelpaws *_
> Hello there.
> I know that spot reduction is not possible, but I was wondering if the same is true for spot building?
> I am female, underweight and under-muscled (nearly 5ft7 inches and 103 lbs.) I clearly need to add some muscle. The thing is I have a very pear shaped body and I dont want to increase my lower body size at all.
> If I increase my calories by about 150 daily and just strength train my upper body twice a week by doing bench presses, dumbell curls, flys, etc, can I expect to add on a few pounds of muscle in my upper half and keep my lower body the same size?


]

Of course you can. Losing adipose tissue is entirely different than inducing hypertrophy. By training your chest for instance, you are stimulating muscle fibers in the chest as well as whatever antagonist muscles involved in that specific lift, and those specific fibers will be broken down.  thats the only way it works. yes if you don't train your legs then you won't induce hypertrophy and in turn they will not increase in size. you will be safe. You should be squattin thou girl. Its the best thing to do for that ass, believe me. don't neglect it! You may be adding soem additional weight to teh body overall due to the increase in cals, but no muscle mass will acrue without training that group. GL


----------



## Flex (Feb 18, 2004)

*Re: Re: Can you spot Build Muscle?*



> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> You should be squattin thou girl. Its the best thing to do for that ass, believe me. don't neglect it



Listen to the man, he knows what he's talking about 

girls that squat at the gym make me drool 

its no suprise that chicks with the best asses out there all workout, and not just workout.......squat.

nice petit yet musclular calves, small yet muscular legs, and small waist and there ya go.........damn, chicks wit dumbells


----------



## gr81 (Feb 18, 2004)

mmmmmm...........................


----------



## camarosuper6 (Feb 19, 2004)

Funny stuff.  Do smith squats with your legs slighty  in front of you. Youll build a killer bootay


----------



## gr81 (Feb 19, 2004)

never EVER do smith squats, ever. thats a horrible piece of advice. Sorry camaro. They are extremely bad for you, much better off doing b-bell squats correctly. I love it b/c people figure that since you are doing them in the squat rack they MUST be safer when in actuality you are much more prone to injury. B-bell squats when done correctly strengthen the tendons in the knees whereas the smith squats throw off the natural hip flexor motion and take then natural progression out of the movement. stay away from the smith will you please, everyone. If you gonna do it, do it right!


----------



## camarosuper6 (Feb 20, 2004)

Well for one I was just joking when I said front squats for the bootay.. in case it was missed.. guess I wasnt funny. 

While traditional squats may be better than Smith machine squats, I have to disagree with you that Smith machine squats are unsafe.

Smith machine squats are perfectly safe and can be effective. Yes it does take out much of the stablizer muscles, but using proper form and going through a full range of motion, they are pefectly safe for someone who knows what they are doing.  I incorporate them in my routine regularly.

Any exercise not performed properly is dangerous. Smith machine squats are not as good as squats, granted, but done correctly, they are perfectly safe.


----------



## gr81 (Feb 21, 2004)

no they take you through an unnatural range of motion. You are absolutely wrong on this bro. Smith Machine squats have no place in a weight training regimen IMO. They are not safe! read up


----------



## Eggs (Feb 21, 2004)

I find myself much more likely to tweak my back doing regular squats because I do heavy deadlifts for back and my backs generally not completely over that.  I do Smith instead and focus on good form... they may take you slightly out of the normal range of motion, but its never hampered me in the slightest.  As well as I dont lift with a partner.  Doing barbell squats without a partner is more dangerous than Smith squats any day.


----------



## gr81 (Feb 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Doing barbell squats without a partner is more dangerous than Smith squats any day.




this is nonsense! what makes them dangerous. You should be squatting with weight thats managable to you in the first place. If you are so unnable to train that the weight is gonna come flying off your back and hurt you then you have bigger problems than whether to use a smith rack or not. Squat in a squat rack and you will be fine. this fallacy is just ridiculous.


----------



## Flex (Feb 22, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Can you spot Build Muscle?*



> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> girls that squat at the gym make me drool
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## camarosuper6 (Feb 22, 2004)

> this is nonsense! what makes them dangerous. You should be squatting with weight thats managable to you in the first place. If you are so unnable to train that the weight is gonna come flying off your back and hurt you then you have bigger problems than whether to use a smith rack or not. Squat in a squat rack and you will be fine. this fallacy is just ridiculous.




While I agree that people should always use weights withthin their own personal saftey parameters, and use a spotter doing heavy compound movements such as deads, squats and bench, the one major advantage the Smith machine has over traditional squats is the fact you CAN focus more on your quads/hams without the spotter.  

That being said, I do firmly believe that regular Squats should take complete precident in the workout, and Smith machine squats should be utilized as a tool more than a rule. (Example would be an advanced bodybuilder wanting to put complete focus on his quads, and not wanting to use a tremendous amount of weight on regular squats, so he does to the Smith machine for some "touch up" work).

I have to disagree with  GR8 one on this one.  Although I do agree regular squats should take precident, Smith machine squats are indeed safe and can have a solid impact on anyones routine.

BTW... I have read many articles on Smith squats, and while their are a few I have read mentioning safety, I have yet to read one that completely condones them.  Actually, many articles RECOMMEND smith machine squats for persons with certain injuries, or for those unable to have a power-rack or spotter.

We shall agree to disagree


----------



## Flex (Feb 22, 2004)

Can't we all just squat along?


----------



## QuestionGuy (Feb 22, 2004)

how about some food,  YEEEEES   FOOOOOOOOOOOD


----------



## Mudge (Feb 22, 2004)

I've seen PTs do smith squats, but they place a shear force on the knee connective tissue just like a leg extention.

I would still work the lower body, just lightly. Of course I'm a guy, but I tend to see women with NO legs at all think they have fat thighs when I would beg for them to put on some damn bodyweight


----------



## Mudge (Feb 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> Can't we all just squat along?



Sounds like a dirty video.


----------



## Eggs (Feb 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> this is nonsense! what makes them dangerous. You should be squatting with weight thats managable to you in the first place. If you are so unnable to train that the weight is gonna come flying off your back and hurt you then you have bigger problems than whether to use a smith rack or not. Squat in a squat rack and you will be fine. this fallacy is just ridiculous.



What are you talking about?  I'm talking about pulling a muscle or something... not throwing off the weights in some he-man manuever 

As well as doing free squats requires more stabilizer muscles... which when tired out from previous exercises could be more prone to tweaking your back or something.

Whichever bro, I've done both *shrug*  I do squats free for my warm ups and what not... up to the poundages I use on Smith. I just find since I'm doing deadlifts at least 2x a week that my backs often tired and I have to be more careful with it.


----------



## firestorm (Feb 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I've seen PTs do smith squats, but they place a shear force on the knee connective tissue just like a leg extention.




^^^^  I agree with this statement 100%  Smiths are bad for the knees.


----------



## iMan323 (Feb 23, 2004)

^^^^ What Gr81 said.  Smith machine poorly immitates your body's natural arch lift, causing extra stress on  your knees and lower back.


----------



## firestorm (Feb 23, 2004)

Hey I agree with that post too!!! hahahaha


----------



## firestorm (Feb 23, 2004)

All I can say is doing Smith Squats causes the body to be in too rigid a position.  You also get the false sense of security being in such a state as well.  The fact that as you come up with heavy weight and the bar does not move backwards your pressing up and back which puts the pressure on the front of the knees.   It's just not the best choice.


----------



## titans1854 (Feb 23, 2004)

^wears funny tights.

but all the hot chicks do squats. i'm an ass man so u gots to do the squats.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> All I can say is doing Smith Squats causes the body to be in too rigid a position.



I agree, if you're going to squat do it right!

Grab a free weight barbell and squat!!!!


----------



## gr81 (Feb 23, 2004)

^thank you.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 23, 2004)

sure, and btw for some of the above posts, I squat alone, no spotter, no partner.


----------



## firestorm (Feb 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> I agree, if you're going to squat do it right!
> 
> Grab a free weight barbell and squat!!!!




Nuff said on this topic.  Those few words above tell the story for leg development. Plain and simple.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 23, 2004)

Yup, the thing that amazes me with people is they want to do all of these fancy leg exercises and machines, etc.

Your legs have a very basic function, they allow you to squat!!!

So, it is that simple, put some weight on your frick'n back, and squat it!

Squats alone will build your entire leg, glutes, etc. I have been doing them for years.

Now, this does not mean I do nothing else, but squats have always been the basis of my leg work-outs. I honestly think it's impossible to build tree trunk legs without doing free weight barbell squats, they are extremely important.


----------



## firestorm (Feb 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> sure, and btw for some of the above posts, I squat alone, no spotter, no partner.



Same here Prince.  In fact I'll have it no other way.  

Prince just reminded me of something that I've posted long ago regarding my back injury. 
I used to belong to gyms.  I used to do very heavy squats too.  It wasn't uncommon to walk into the leg room and see me on leg day squatting over 500.  On the day of my injury I was squatting 625 WITH a spotter.  Well some jerk comes tromping through the leg area bumping into my spotter causing a the domino effect.  He bumped me and over I went into a good morning with that weight.  Instincts took over and instead of going over and letting the weight fall on the saftey bar I brought the weight back up destroying my lower back.  This was 15 years ago and to this day my back still isn't right.  so I'll never again trust someone to watch my six or even train in a heavily populated environment.   I train alone in my basement and trust only me.


----------



## plouffe (Feb 23, 2004)

Hey do think w/o doing direct calve work outs, and just working quads you'll calves will just kinda systematicly grow along with the calves? Or no? I just thought of it when you said treetruck because I read some article about a treetrunch ( upper leg ) + branches( calves ) --- I don't know..


----------



## angelpaws (Feb 24, 2004)

wow my simple post turned into this huge discussion.
  Anyway, if I work my legs I will build muscle, but i'll still have the fat on top right so wont it just make my legs larger? Makes sense to me...


----------



## JerseyDevil (Feb 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> ^thank you.


I saw this thread late, but I would definitely agree. The Smith machine squat is EXTREMELY hard on the knees. 

The good ole barbell free standing squat, done ass to grass, is probably THE ultimate mass building movement.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Feb 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by angelpaws *_
> wow my simple post turned into this huge discussion.
> Anyway, if I work my legs I will build muscle, but i'll still have the fat on top right so wont it just make my legs larger? Makes sense to me...


While you can't turn 'fat to muscle', combining a good diet with weight training well help give that shaped and toned look. If you neglect your lower body, then it will look flabby and untoned.

If you can relate your question to a male that has 'man boobs', should he not bench press or do chest movements in fear that it will make his problem more obvious?  Of course not.  Again, a proper diet, and muscle building movements that target the area will help resolve problem, not be a detriment.


----------

