Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: tweeter on July 07, 2007, 09:43:25 AM
-
Is there really such thing as training a muscle for refinement or detail or is this just a myth? It seems as if the muscle would either hypertrophy or atrophy and that detail would just be a result of the size of the muscle combined with your genetics and bodyfat level. Also, as far as training for "shape", you cannot change the attachments of your muscles so I do not believe this is possible either. I was just thinking about it because alot of times you hear bodybuilders talk about how they are just training for refinement or detail now.
-
It's a myth.
-
By the way mods, I know this should probably be on the training board but if you wouldn't mind, leave it up on here for a little bit so I can get some more replies.
-
milos believes in it
dont expect him to be able to prove it tho
-
Milos also says branch warren is on 750 mg test a week, i believe him.
-
yea milos belives he could change human anatomy
-
Is there really such thing as training a muscle for refinement or detail or is this just a myth? It seems as if the muscle would either hypertrophy or atrophy and that detail would just be a result of the size of the muscle combined with your genetics and bodyfat level. Also, as far as training for "shape", you cannot change the attachments of your muscles so I do not believe this is possible either. I was just thinking about it because alot of times you hear bodybuilders talk about how they are just training for refinement or detail now.
In short, yes there is such thing as muscle refinement and detail.......and no, it's not a myth!
-
I think it is mostly a myth. I think shape is under a little control. An example would be training pec minor to increase upper chest size and brachialis to change the way the biceps appear on the flexed arm. One more example could be performing soleus and gastroc exercises that hit one over the other to try to give a certain shape to the calf. In theory this should work.
-
back in the day, coach had both.
Thank you :D!
-
I think it is mostly a myth. I think shape is under a little control. An example would be training pec minor to increase upper chest size and brachialis to change the way the biceps appear on the flexed arm. One more example could be performing soleus and gastroc exercises that hit one over the other to try to give a certain shape to the calf. In theory this should work.
No, it's not a myth, I am a firm believer from a bodybuilding standpoint, each muscle should be trained individually and with volume, for example, delts, front, side and rear should be trained as INDIVIDUAL muscles!
-
Of course you can change the shape of your muscle,I didn't look the way I look today 15 years ago,if you can't change the shape of your muscle ,why even bother going to the gym ???
-
change shape in the sense - change peak of bicep
change shape of chest even inner chest etc
-
No, it's not a myth, I am a firm believer from a bodybuilding standpoint, each muscle should be trained individually and with volume, for example, delts, front, side and rear should be trained as INDIVIDUAL muscles!
I read my post again. I think we agree? Sorry if I miscommunicated. I think you can train for shape to an extent. Example. I want a large upper chest. I hit pec major with volume and then I hit pec minor with volume to increase the appearance of size of the upper chest region (manipulating shape). I agree with the Delt example. I think we are generally in agreeance? What do you think about selectively training the clavicular and sternal portion of the pec major? I was pimped hard on this from an Anatomy guy in the past.
Edit: Coach. Read you view on muscle refinement and detail. I tend not to agree very strongly with you on that. In my opinion high rep guys tend to have a bit of a different look than low rep guys (which is some agreeance).
-
I think it's true. There are nuances to exercises that can't be done properly while going heavier. Focusing on feel and peaking motions can bring out striations & refinement that won't necessarily come out just from diet & going heavy.
Why an HIT guy like Casey Viator said that he would go with much higher volume pre-contest.
Also, training for detail which includes lighter weights and higher sets/reps lowers the risk of injury while dieting, and uses somewhat more calories by shifting the emphasis to endurance training.
-
Of course you can change the shape of your muscle,I didn't look the way I look today 15 years ago,if you can't change the shape of your muscle ,why even bother going to the gym ???
True, but I think the reason you are changing the shape of a muscle is because you are causing certain fibers within the muscle group to hypertrophy faster than others. I guess I should have worded my question a little differently. Do you think you can actually increase the detail of a muscle or the seperation between muscle groups by training or do you think this is just a result of how lean you are?
-
It's a myth.
Agree. Deeply i believe its a myth.
I have never ever seen any bber who could change their muscle shape or separation,also detail with training.
But,with practicing posing,yes. You still cant change the muscle shape but you can bring out some detail with muscle controle.
-
right now im training for detail and detail only! - craig titus bfto 2001
-
True, but I think the reason you are changing the shape of a muscle is because you are causing certain fibers within the muscle group to hypertrophy faster than others. I guess I should have worded my question a little differently. Do you think you can actually increase the detail of a muscle or the seperation between muscle groups by training or do you think this is just a result of how lean you are?
no
separation and detail are controlled by how lean you are.
the only thing you should be doing with weights is building muscle, which is a hard enough job in itself.
put it this way, say if you had 20% bodyfat and you held a lot of fat in your legs.
do you actually think you are going to have a snowball's chance in hell of adding detail to those legs while still retaining 20% bodyfat?
if, on the other hand, you have fat legs but there wasn't much muscle there anyway and then you started building muscle in the legs, the extra muscle itself could show more shape and detail to your legs.
for every casey viator that went high reps/sets before contests there's a mentzer or yates that didn't.
which bbers were more successful? ;)
casey was only a success whilst with jones. left to his own devices he was not successful.
-
Agree. Deeply i believe its a myth.
I have never ever seen any bber who could change their muscle shape or separation,also detail with training.
But,with practicing posing,yes. You still cant change the muscle shape but you can bring out some detail with muscle controle.
The refinement of bodybuilders from 20 or so years ago was better than today, because, again, they trained individual muscle groups with higher volume and more sets, as opposed to today where most train with 2-3 exercises per bodypart and lower reps, I'll go into more depth later, have to work!
-
The refinement of bodybuilders from 20 or so years ago was better than today, because, again, they trained individual muscle groups with higher volume and more sets, as opposed to today where most train with 2-3 exercises per bodypart and lower reps, I'll go into more depth later, have to work!
Thats true but I thought that it might have more to do with all the gh and insulin that guys today take. I don't know much about these topics but I have heard it can make your skin thicker?
-
Is there really such thing as training a muscle for refinement or detail or is this just a myth? It seems as if the muscle would either hypertrophy or atrophy and that detail would just be a result of the size of the muscle combined with your genetics and bodyfat level. Also, as far as training for "shape", you cannot change the attachments of your muscles so I do not believe this is possible either. I was just thinking about it because alot of times you hear bodybuilders talk about how they are just training for refinement or detail now.
Complete myth.
-
The refinement of bodybuilders from 20 or so years ago was better than today, because, again, they trained individual muscle groups with higher volume and more sets, as opposed to today where most train with 2-3 exercises per bodypart and lower reps, I'll go into more depth later, have to work!
Just they are smaller than those monsters of now a day. Thats why they looked refined.So Its matter of size.
For example,look at Branch Warren of amateur NPC version. He was more refined than now.
-
The refinement of bodybuilders from 20 or so years ago was better than today, because, again, they trained individual muscle groups with higher volume and more sets, as opposed to today where most train with 2-3 exercises per bodypart and lower reps, I'll go into more depth later, have to work!
another myth.
what a pile of steaming shit. why do i get the felling that this comment is a tad self serving.
if anyone from 20 years ago competed on stage today they would pale significantly by comparison.
imagine ronnie and gaspari in a posedown. they'd be carrying gaspari off in a stretcher from shock.
-
back in the day, coach had both.
Now, he just shouts at us to keep of his lawn. :'(
-
Thats true but I thought that it might have more to do with all the gh and insulin that guys today take. I don't know much about these topics but I have heard it can make your skin thicker?
Yes, the gh/insulin is a big contributor, but as far as making your skin thicker, no it won't. IMO, it's the combination of training like a powerlifter (HIT type of workouts) and having so much gear along with the insulin, it's makes it more difficult to regulate their systems. Again, look at most of the guys from 15-20 years ago and the pro's of today, back then conditioning was much sharper!!
-
Just they are smaller than those monsters of now a day. Thats why they looked refined.So Its matter of size.
For example,look at Branch Warren of amateur NPC version. He was more refined than now.
Exactly, today they sacrifice conditioning for size!
-
another myth.
what a pile of steaming shit. why do i get the felling that this comment is a tad self serving.
if anyone from 20 years ago competed on stage today they would pale significantly by comparison.
imagine ronnie and gaspari in a posedown. they'd be carrying gaspari off in a stretcher from shock.
Why is it self serving?
1. Ronnie has ruined his physique, he was better when he was smaller and better conditioned. 2. The judging is one of the main reason's why bodybuilding has been ruined, so the bigger man would win no matter what. 3. Ronnie couldn't compare to Gaspari's conditioning. 3. Ronnie is one in a million, but there has been at least 2-3 times where he got a gift.
-
One thing about Ronnie that is interesting is that he used to have striations in his quads when he was lighter. Now that he is heavier and his legs are even bigger, he doesn't really have any striations, and this is with similar conditioning.
-
you cant change the shape of a muscle, only make it bigger.
dieting/ cutting is detail training.
-
Heavy sets add detail granted you aren't a fatass..
That's why I laugh at people who are in the gym and say silly shit like "I don't wanna be big, but ripped!" These same clowns look the same day in and day out.
-
no
separation and detail are controlled by how lean you are.
Good post topic. And I agree, detail is dictated by diet/leaness, not the number of reps you're pumping out. You will hit different muscle fibers through higher repetitions, but your cuts come from cardio/diet.
-
detail? no. shape? absolutely.
you can't change the look of a given muscle, but you sure as hell can change the shape of your physique by putting focus on certain muscle groups. if you think you look sloped you can focus on training your side delts to round them out, thus changing the "shape" of your upper body.
moreover, different training protocols yield different manners of growth. doing a lot of heavy singles probably won't make you much bigger but up the reps and you'll start to get larger. so you can train heavy bench until you hit 400, but you may not like how it looks. so you lower the weight, do more reps and incorporate more incline work and suddenly you appear to have a totally different shape.
logic, really.
-
Good post topic. And I agree, detail is dictated by diet/leaness, not the number of reps you're pumping out. You will hit different muscle fibers through higher repetitions, but your cuts come from cardio/diet.
Someone tell this to fat fucks doing 500 crunches and dumbell laterals thinking they'll get "ripped" ::)
-
detail? no. shape? absolutely.
you can't change the look of a given muscle, but you sure as hell can change the shape of your physique by putting focus on certain muscle groups. if you think you look sloped you can focus on training your side delts to round them out, thus changing the "shape" of your upper body.
moreover, different training protocols yield different manners of growth. doing a lot of heavy singles probably won't make you much bigger but up the reps and you'll start to get larger. so you can train heavy bench until you hit 400, but you may not like how it looks. so you lower the weight, do more reps and incorporate more incline work and suddenly you appear to have a totally different shape.
logic, really.
I am talking about changing the shape of an individual muscle group.
-
I am talking about changing the shape of an individual muscle group.
no way, no how. it's never been done, unless we're talking tweaking the shape via inflamation/oil/surgery or some means whereby on part of a muscle's length is altered.
compare peak sergio's, arnold's and al beckles right biceps.
all are fully developed (or near), but each have a completely different shape. sergio's is long and flat, beckles is short and very peaked and arnold's is full and peaked.
all 3 of these guys trained in a very similar fashion ie same type of exercises.
actually, on this note, the best example would be to compare franco and arnold.
now, bearing in mind that these guys were training partners for a very long time and trained in exactly the same way, arnold had full, peaked and long bis whereas franco had very short and not so peaked bis.
arnold did exactly the same workout for both of his bis, yet one (right) was far more peaked than the other. great example because two differently shaped bis exist on the same body.