Training for "SHAPE" pure bull****? Or it has some merit?

[SSAlexSS]

Hello all!

We all know that "concentration curls" "make" bicepos higher. Preacher curls make lower bicep head bigger, barbell curls do mass, if you hold barbell this and that way , this and that muscle part of bicep will get bigger.


Is it all blatant lies? Genetics? Does a muscle knows what it is being trained for, or it grows according to what genetics say?


To my question: Is plain squat enough to target all quadriceps? Or I need to have additional squat sets
for inner, outer, tear drop, etc thigh?

Any ideas?

reply please! Thanks!

 

[danielson]

well comparing me to my friends-

they do lots of preacher machine curls and nothing else period. their biceps are peaked but thin and theirs almost nothing other than a tiny peak

i do lots of standing curls. my bicep is visible along the whole of that portion off my arm (delt to elbow) when flexed and the peak is 'nt as pronounced theirs a lot mor round it

so i guess so.

also in squats, depending on whether u V shape yer eet or have em parallel u work different areas of the leg more.

(and i do tell em to stop doing what they doin, but they not listen so i not bother no more)

 

[Valdez]

shape movements are b.s. training for cuts though (purposely doing exercises to bring out striations is possible)

I'm not saying that isolation movements are worthless by any means, just that you will not change the shape of a SPECIFIC muscle by doing a movement.

 

[Cackerot69]

"purposely doing exercises to bring out striations is possible"

Can you please explain?

 

[endpoint]

Sometimes i think this subject has as much worth as the spot reduction topic.........

But then i was thinking what if the exercises i did or the way i did them affected things in the muscle like shaping the fascia differently (dont know if its possible.......im yet to read up about it )

But until i find out more i will say genetics genetics genetics.

But there are a few things that there are to note.

I have never done a scott/preacher curl.....and i started noticing a gap between my elbow and bicep.......thats gone now since i started doing them. I think thats got a lot to do with stretching the muscle out

then other things which have nothing to do with muscle shape.......but can affect their apperance......

Like my triceps. I have never done kick backs and the back head of my tricep was underdeveloped.......it wanst that horse shoe shape......im doing kick backs now and it seems to be helping

 

[Valdez]

"purposely doing exercises to bring out striations is possible"

Can you please explain?

no.

 

[GenetiKing]

Merit? Yes, but very very little.

You can stress an muscle from different angles but unfortunately muscle shape is at least 90% genetic.

 

[Steelheart]

look at this

Foe about two monhes now...

The only exercises I do are:
DIPS
CHINS
SQUATS
CALF RAISE
ARM EXERCISES 2

I went from 212lbs to 225lbs All natural. My muscles will grow due to my genetics.

 

[HeavyDutyGuy]

The guys who promulgated this idea , chiefly Robert Kennedy and Vince Gironda weren't exactly huge, though Vince did have terrific muscularity. Robert had nothing, ever.

 

[GenetiKing]

Robert had nothing, ever.

LOL!!!

Very true.

 

[FlexManning]

It's 95 percent bullshit. You can't train outer, inner, upper, lower pecs like some
people think. You can train different muscles of your thigh. Remember, quad means
four, in other words your quads are actually 4 separate muscles. Also you do have
an outer biceps muscle, your biceps brachialis. There's stuff like that, you just can't
train parts of the same muscle.

 

[FlexManning]

Actually I saw a picture of Robert Kennedy from a few years back without a shirt on
and he was in pretty good shape for an old man.

 

[goahead]

way i see it, the truth is (as usual) somewhere in the middle.

Muscle shape and size may mostly be genetically determined, but it is the way you train your muscles which determines how much and which parts of your genetic blueprint will show developement.

I do noticed more 'peak' development when i incorporated concentration curls and scott curls.
You cant develope a peak that is not there, but you can forget to develope a peak that may be there....

I say hit your muscles from all angles, starting with the basic bread and butter compound movements first, for 8-6 reps and the so called shaping movements for 12-10 reps after that.

Doing heavy barbell curls before concentration curls will in time yield much more biceps strenth than doing concentration curls alone and you will be able to do heavier concentration curls (now you're making some real progress)


Like one of the other posts said: "Science may have found that 10-8 reps is the best range for hypertrophy, and 6-4 reps for strength, but i find it hard to get stronger on 10 reps, so i do 8-6 reps"

10 reps ARE ok if:
- you are on juice, which will help you to do that many reps with substantially increased weight, and help you recover faster from the taxing tissue damage.
- you have done a powertraining cycle with low reps, you have become stronger and now wanna get rewarded with muscle size
- you've done the basic power movements in your workout first with 8-4 reps

 

[FlexManning]

Here's kind of what I think about the multiangular training: It's good for
avoiding overtraining a movement (chronic overruse injuries are the most common
injuries for bodybuilders), you can do movements that include a stretch (which is
good), and you can allow the most resistance to be placed on the muscle at a different
point in the rep (Larry Scotts arms were obviously suited to the range of motion
and resistance at the bottom of the rep that the preacher curl gives). I've
read many articles dismissing shape training portions of a muscle and I tend to
agree because of this: if you really could shape train a muscle effectively many people would
develop lumpy muscles. I'm mostly criticizing the otherwise intelligent writers who
seem to think you can train 4 separate parts of your pecs.

 

[Cackerot69]

I didn't expect you to be able to, Valdez.

Anyway, muscle shaping is almost pure BS. There *may* be specific size increases under certain circumstances (such as a muscle immobilized in the elongated position - in a cast, for example). Primarily because of the stretch it is under. This would have the visual effect of a lengthened muscle.

But, through everyday training - it is not possible.

 

[Valdez]

if you are under 6% bf training with higher reps can bring out more striations that's what I was getting at. muscle shape is genetic no matter what anyone says, agreed.

"no" means I have seen it done and I don't want to explain it even if I could (which I can't) but I've seen it happen.

 

[FlexManning]

This is always a hot topic of debate because it would be incredibly hard to prove
either way in a study. I also tend to believe that bringing out striations is almost
always the result of losing bodyfat while retaining muscle and not the result
of toning the muscle through pumping movements and high reps. You might
notice that some very striated abs belong to pros that barely train them.
That's not to
say that you can't increase vascularity somewhat through certain rep ranges
and movements, at least in theory.