Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fitness Industry Scams
#71
(01-10-2020, 06:02 AM)Brett Wrote: Whoever wrote the above last paragraph is talking complete shit.

You can definitely reach your natty limit with compound movements alone.
Not really. Calves don't grow that much from squats and deadlifts (pessimists may say that they don't grow at all Wink ); biceps don't grow that much from rows and, say, chin-ups; lateral delts don't get that much of a stimulation from compounds either. Depending on your proportions squats and deadlifts may overdevelop e.g. your glutes and not do much for hamstrings; without a direct work your forearms will be just good enough to handle the rest of your activities so they are not the limiting factor, which far from natty limit.

I would say 80% can be achieved with compounds and it's fine. The rest requires polishing with single joint exercises and if aesthetics is your goal, then IMO they are necessary and maybe even more efficient than some compounds.
Reply
#72
(01-20-2020, 01:36 PM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: Not really. Calves don't grow that much from squats and deadlifts (pessimists may say that they don't grow at all Wink ); biceps don't grow that much from rows and, say, chin-ups; lateral delts don't get that much of a stimulation from compounds either. Depending on your proportions squats and deadlifts may overdevelop e.g. your glutes and not do much for hamstrings; without a direct work your forearms will be just good enough to handle the rest of your activities so they are not the limiting factor, which far from natty limit.

I would say 80% can be achieved with compounds and it's fine. The rest requires polishing with single joint exercises and if aesthetics is your goal, then IMO they are necessary and maybe even more efficient than some compounds.

Aestheitics has nothing to do with exercise choice. Aestheitics has everything to do with bone structure.

My narrow waist and broad shoulders have nothing to do with lateral raises or military press.

Its diet and genetics.

So what you are fundamentally saying is that a chin-up will only get my biceps to 80% of their max growth while a concentration curl will give me the next 20%. Why do chin-ups stop at 80%, if they took me that far why did they stop there?

Lol calves don't grow unless you have calves. Heres a example - chris dickerson (1 time mr olympia) had huge calves. He was a bodybuilder and a steroid user. He had a twin brother who was not a bodybuilder or a steroid user. His twin brother had calves measuring an inch smaller than his.

My own mother and father have huge calves (by bodybuilding standards they would do just fine). My mom and dad have not done a calf raise exercise in over 20 years. They just walk around like everyone else.

Reply
#73
(01-20-2020, 01:36 PM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: Not really. Calves don't grow that much from squats and deadlifts (pessimists may say that they don't grow at all Wink ); biceps don't grow that much from rows and, say, chin-ups; lateral delts don't get that much of a stimulation from compounds either. Depending on your proportions squats and deadlifts may overdevelop e.g. your glutes and not do much for hamstrings; without a direct work your forearms will be just good enough to handle the rest of your activities so they are not the limiting factor, which far from natty limit.

I would say 80% can be achieved with compounds and it's fine. The rest requires polishing with single joint exercises and if aesthetics is your goal, then IMO they are necessary and maybe even more efficient than some compounds.

muscle mass increases from your daily/weekly/monthly tonnage aka volume. Your biceups, cannot distinguish the difference between the stimulus they get from rows  to concentration curls. They only distinguish the signal they get from your bodies biological mechanism of MPS, which starts the moment you do a sufficient amount of workload in order to deplete energy stores and create micro tears which in turn will trigger MPS.

Rows, particularly heavy rows, will increase the size of your arms. Show me a guy who does pendley row with 100kg, and then show me his spaghetti arms. Not going to happen sorry...

That 80% is a very vague number. What does 80% mean? There are no % percentages in fitness. Thats a huge bullshit myth, like the myth that claims you get your results from doing 20% exercise, and 80% diet. Sorry, but the reality is that you need to work 100% in both of these 2, plus proper 7-8 hours of sleep.
Reply
#74
(01-21-2020, 07:33 AM)Brett Wrote: Aestheitics has nothing to do with exercise choice. Aestheitics has everything to do with bone structure.
That's defeatist bullshit. Sure, it matters a great deal and in absolute terms it may be a main factor. However, what's important is that if you take non-exercising fairly lean natty and put him on reasonable routine without making him fatso in the process, he will look much much better than before, no matter the starting point.

(01-21-2020, 07:33 AM)Brett Wrote: My narrow waist and broad shoulders have nothing to do with lateral raises or military press.
But they have (or other exercises or physical activity that hit these areas). Let the muscles melt away and tell me with a straight face that you look the same aesthetics-wise.

(01-21-2020, 07:33 AM)Brett Wrote: Its diet and genetics.
They are factors, and exercise choice is another.

(01-21-2020, 07:33 AM)Brett Wrote: So what you are fundamentally saying is that a chin-up will only get my biceps to 80% of their max growth while a concentration curl will give me the next 20%. Why do chin-ups stop at 80%, if they took me that far why did they stop there?
That's your invalid conclusion. You will develop 80% of your muscle gain potential, but it doesn't mean that each body part will be developed in 80%. Compounds hit bigger muscle groups and develops them well, so they are developed in >80%, and smaller groups <80%, but the overall effect is 80% in my example.

Chin ups eventually stop developing biceps before reaching limit because they don't provide enough stimuli. You may not be able to do even 1 more chin up, but biceps can be quite fresh. Biceps are not a prime mover during chin ups so what do you expect?

(01-21-2020, 07:33 AM)Brett Wrote: Lol calves don't grow unless you have calves. Heres a example - chris dickerson (1 time mr olympia) had huge calves. He was a bodybuilder and a steroid user. He had a twin brother who was not a bodybuilder or a steroid user. His twin brother had calves measuring an inch smaller than his.

My own mother and father have huge calves (by bodybuilding standards they would do just fine). My mom and dad have not done a calf raise exercise in over 20 years. They just walk around like everyone else.
Inch here and there makes or breaks the physique. I would rather have that inch rather than not.

And sure, we can exchange as much anecdotes as we like. But take an average guy with average calves - would you advice him not to do calf raises? Do you think that there would be no difference if he did them or not? No difference in appearance maybe? If exercise selection doesn't really matter, where do these guys with T-Rex physiques come from, if not from SS or other isolation-phobic nonsense?

In the other thread you even admitted that you do thigh curls. Why? Maybe the reason is that compounds are not enough? Wink

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: muscle mass increases from your daily/weekly/monthly tonnage aka volume.
If that was the case, intensity wouldn't matter. But it does and you need both.

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: Your biceups, cannot distinguish the difference between the stimulus they get from rows  to concentration curls. They only distinguish the signal they get from your bodies biological mechanism of MPS, which starts the moment you do a sufficient amount of workload in order to deplete energy stores and create micro tears which in turn will trigger MPS.
But they can distinguish between intensities, and rows are intense for your back, but not so much for the biceps. If you don't do exercises in which biceps is the prime mover, you leave biceps gains on the table.

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: Rows, particularly heavy rows, will increase the size of your arms. Show me a guy who does pendley row with 100kg, and then show me his spaghetti arms. Not going to happen sorry...
That's a straw man, no one said you will end up with with spaghetti arms by avoiding direct biceps work. Do strongmen and powerlifters or SS trainees have the same biceps development as people following a bodybuilding program? No? So what are we arguing exactly?

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: That 80% is a very vague number. What does 80% mean?
Divide muscle mass obtainable via compound movements, take the natty limit (provided it exists, but I think we believe it does, otherwise sky is the limit, right?) and divide the former by the latter, and then multiply by 100%. 80% refers to what I think (roughly) to be the case.

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: There are no % percentages in fitness.
There are. Some are even directly measurable, like 1RM%.

(01-21-2020, 10:32 AM)khrazz Wrote: Thats a huge bullshit myth, like the myth that claims you get your results from doing 20% exercise, and 80% diet. Sorry, but the reality is that you need to work 100% in both of these 2, plus proper 7-8 hours of sleep.
Yeah, that one is nonsense and nobody knows what does it mean. Nevertheless, some "fitness %" are fine and useful in communicating ideas and real world phenomenons.
Reply
#75
(01-21-2020, 11:09 AM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: That's defeatist bullshit. Sure, it matters a great deal and in absolute terms it may be a main factor. However, what's important is that if you take non-exercising fairly lean natty and put him on reasonable routine without making him fatso in the process, he will look much much better than before, no matter the starting point.

But they have (or other exercises or physical activity that hit these areas). Let the muscles melt away and tell me with a straight face that you look the same aesthetics-wise.

They are factors, and exercise choice is another.

That's your invalid conclusion. You will develop 80% of your muscle gain potential, but it doesn't mean that each body part will be developed in 80%. Compounds hit bigger muscle groups and develops them well, so they are developed in >80%, and smaller groups <80%, but the overall effect is 80% in my example.

Chin ups eventually stop developing biceps before reaching limit because they don't provide enough stimuli. You may not be able to do even 1 more chin up, but biceps can be quite fresh. Biceps are not a prime mover during chin ups so what do you expect?

Inch here and there makes or breaks the physique. I would rather have that inch rather than not.

And sure, we can exchange as much anecdotes as we like. But take an average guy with average calves - would you advice him not to do calf raises? Do you think that there would be no difference if he did them or not? No difference in appearance maybe? If exercise selection doesn't really matter, where do these guys with T-Rex physiques come from, if not from SS or other isolation-phobic nonsense?

In the other thread you even admitted that you do thigh curls. Why? Maybe the reason is that compounds are not enough? Wink

If that was the case, intensity wouldn't matter. But it does and you need both.

But they can distinguish between intensities, and rows are intense for your back, but not so much for the biceps. If you don't do exercises in which biceps is the prime mover, you leave biceps gains on the table.

That's a straw man, no one said you will end up with with spaghetti arms by avoiding direct biceps work. Do strongmen and powerlifters or SS trainees have the same biceps development as people following a bodybuilding program? No? So what are we arguing exactly?

Divide muscle mass obtainable via compound movements, take the natty limit (provided it exists, but I think we believe it does, otherwise sky is the limit, right?) and divide the former by the latter, and then multiply by 100%. 80% refers to what I think (roughly) to be the case.

There are. Some are even directly measurable, like 1RM%.

Yeah, that one is nonsense and nobody knows what does it mean. Nevertheless, some "fitness %" are fine and useful in communicating ideas and real world phenomenons.

I do thigh curls because I don't like deadlifts. They tax the cns too much (in my case alot) so i don't do them. For that reason and because I do stone lifting and carrying three times a week I don't do romanians or straight deadlifts. 

With regards to everything else - I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking the way you do from personal expereince, I have my own.

Let me share a real life situation though with regards to my calf training (I stilll train calves through stone carries and even thigh curls but not directly anymore):

As I write this I am looking at the journal I keep. In 2016 my calves measured 38cm.

I wasn't really training them if I recall or if I was it was on and off. At that time I weighed 82 - 85kg.

In Jan 2019 I was training my calves 2 times a week direclty. I would do enough sets (10 a week) for growth with good intensity in that I would feel a great stretch, burn, pump and I was doing about 70kg eventually. 

After 6 months of this training I measured my calves and they were 35 - 36cm. At the time I measured them I weighed 79 - 80kg (so I had lost bf).

Maybe they lost size because I was carrying less weight on my frame. What i do know is they didn't grow in size (definition they did perhaps). 

So thats my personal experience. 

I decided to measure them now just to see what they are (have not measure them in about a year) and they measure 36 - 37 cm. So they have not lost size since I stopped training them directly.

TBH I dont mind considering my arms are only 40 cm (sometimes 39). So i'm in proportion.

With regards to compounds not being able to get you to 100% of a muscles genetic potential I would say find yourself a moderately heavy stone 30kg - 40kg. Grip it to waist level and hold it against your torso with your hands underneath (like a arm curl mid way). Walk around with the stone until your biceps feel like they going to tear off. In this compound movement the biceps are the weakest link and have no choice but too work hard. Try it and see. I have been doing this 3 times a week and only on one day I do 3 sets of barbell curls as a afterthought. My arms look pretty good at the moment (40 cm).

Reply
#76
(01-21-2020, 11:09 AM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: Chin ups eventually stop developing biceps before reaching limit because they don't provide enough stimuli. You may not be able to do even 1 more chin up, but biceps can be quite fresh. Biceps are not a prime mover during chin ups so what do you expect?

Every time I do weighted chin-ups my biceps is the limiting factor. And I guess I am not the only when.
With pull-ups my biceps and back tire at the same rate.


I used to do only arms isolated exercises, and some of this blood flow restriction bullshit and I reached 39-40 cm, but every time I stop doing this my arms go back to the regular 38 cm. I feel like these 1-2 cm are just temporary pump lasts no more than 3-4. At the time I feel good and think that isolated exercises are actually working my arm muscle muscles, buts its only temporary. 
Same can happen if emphasize some other isolation exercise like leg extensions. For a while my quads feel bigger, but after I stop doing isolation everything balances out.
Reply
#77
(01-21-2020, 04:37 PM)Brett Wrote: I do thigh curls because I don't like deadlifts. They tax the cns too much (in my case alot) so i don't do them. For that reason and because I do stone lifting and carrying three times a week I don't do romanians or straight deadlifts. 

With regards to everything else - I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking the way you do from personal expereince, I have my own.

Let me share a real life situation though with regards to my calf training (I stilll train calves through stone carries and even thigh curls but not directly anymore):

As I write this I am looking at the journal I keep. In 2016 my calves measured 38cm.

I wasn't really training them if I recall or if I was it was on and off. At that time I weighed 82 - 85kg.

In Jan 2019 I was training my calves 2 times a week direclty. I would do enough sets (10 a week) for growth with good intensity in that I would feel a great stretch, burn, pump and I was doing about 70kg eventually. 

After 6 months of this training I measured my calves and they were 35 - 36cm. At the time I measured them I weighed 79 - 80kg (so I had lost bf).

Maybe they lost size because I was carrying less weight on my frame. What i do know is they didn't grow in size (definition they did perhaps). 

So thats my personal experience. 

I decided to measure them now just to see what they are (have not measure them in about a year) and they measure 36 - 37 cm. So they have not lost size since I stopped training them directly.

TBH I dont mind considering my arms are only 40 cm (sometimes 39). So i'm in proportion.

With regards to compounds not being able to get you to 100% of a muscles genetic potential I would say find yourself a moderately heavy stone 30kg - 40kg. Grip it to waist level and hold it against your torso with your hands underneath (like a arm curl mid way). Walk around with the stone until your biceps feel like they going to tear off. In this compound movement the biceps are the weakest link and have no choice but too work hard. Try it and see. I have been doing this 3 times a week and only on one day I do 3 sets of barbell curls as a afterthought. My arms look pretty good at the moment (40 cm).

I feel your pain. I did up to 10 sets 4x per week without much (or any) visible diference.
Reply
#78
(01-23-2020, 01:19 PM)Mass_Bixo Wrote: I feel your pain. I did up to 10 sets 4x per week without much (or any) visible diference.

Honestly, it doesnt bother me that much.

They look proportionate to my arms. Plus they have not stopped me from getting girls ?

If I flex them they look defined and the muscle that is there is maxed out. So Im at peace with that.

My dad is about 5'8. He has really big calves. I'm 6'1 with below average calves for bodybuilding standards. But I would rather have the height.

Reply
#79
(01-10-2020, 06:02 AM)Brett Wrote: Whoever wrote the above last paragraph is talking complete shit.

You can definitely reach your natty limit with compound movements alone.

In theory, maybe. In practice? Not likely. There are several problems with compound lifts. Muscle-mind connection often won't be optimal (ever know someone who has big delts, triceps and shitty chest?). Also, they're very taxing on the body. Decent muscle-mind connection is easier to achieve during isolation exercises, they're not nearly as taxing as compounds, and can provide growth stimulus as well. They're perfect complement to compounds, if someone is after maximum visual natty limit Smile
Reply
#80
(01-21-2020, 04:37 PM)Brett Wrote: I do thigh curls because I don't like deadlifts. They tax the cns too much (in my case alot) so i don't do them. For that reason and because I do stone lifting and carrying three times a week I don't do romanians or straight deadlifts.
(...)
With regards to compounds not being able to get you to 100% of a muscles genetic potential I would say find yourself a moderately heavy stone 30kg - 40kg. Grip it to waist level and hold it against your torso with your hands underneath (like a arm curl mid way). Walk around with the stone until your biceps feel like they going to tear off. In this compound movement the biceps are the weakest link and have no choice but too work hard. Try it and see. I have been doing this 3 times a week and only on one day I do 3 sets of barbell curls as a afterthought. My arms look pretty good at the moment (40 cm).
You actually making my point really. You seem to argue that compounds will get you to the natty limit, but for some reason you yourself don't rely on compounds only for whatever reasons (which I think are valid, mind you). Why do you argue then?

And sure, you can come up with a contrived exercise that hits desired muscle group, but why bother? I can take your arguments and spin them against you. If you want to hit biceps, isolation is safer and less taxing than carrying weird, heavy objects around.

(01-22-2020, 06:39 PM)twp Wrote: Every time I do weighted chin-ups my biceps is the limiting factor. And I guess I am not the only when.
With pull-ups my biceps and back tire at the same rate.
I dare to say you do something wrong. It's a similar thing to feeling shoulders more during bench press.

Also, if biceps is the limiting factor then your back doesn't receive optimal stimulus.

Also also, biceps are too weak to replace lats as a prime mover during chin-ups. Even if they are the limiting factor it's like doing curls with too heavy weight. Doing 3 reps of curls to failure is not optimal for hypertrophy.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)