Refining? Shaping? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

[GoneAway]

We say we want to shape and refine our muscles by using a (seemingly) alternate training method to what we use to build their size, but the real question is: do we even know what we want when we use those terms? What shape do we want? What do we want the end result of our "refinement" to look like? Is this work even DOING ANYTHING to get to those goals?

I mean, if you want to see your muscles, lose the fat! I'll stop blabbering here...

My question to you all: When you use the term refining and shaping, what does it mean to you?

[BEAST 8692]

'I mean, if you want to see your muscles, lose the fat! I'll stop blabbering here...'

exactly.

shape is predetermined and refinement is muscle without shit covering it.

[pumpster]

While this is true, the whole "pretermined" argument that's trotted out over various issues has become a canned reponse that is simplistic. What's underneath is only part of the equation.

What's there can be revealed & refined through any number of avenues, with no assurance that they lead to the same result or have equal efficacy.

[Royalty]

shaping.....

I do think that certain movements can target thigh sweep or the tear drop muscle better than others (hack squats)

Hams and glutes are hit harder by other movements (wide stance squats)

upper pecs are hit best with incline pressing movements

the inner head of the tricep are pounded with movements that stretch the tricep (incline barbell extensions)


BUT at the end of the day....you are just building muscle and over time your overall shape will look better (you arent actually changing the tendon attachments or insertion/origin points)

[pumpster]

shaping.....

I do think that certain movements can target thigh sweep or the tear drop muscle better than others (hack squats)

Hams and glutes ate hit harder by other movements (wide stance squats)

upper pecs are hit best with incline pressing movements

the inner head of the tricep are pounded with movements that stretch the tricep (incline barbell extensions)


BUT at the end of the day....you are just building muscle and over time your overall shape will look better (you arent actually changing the tendon attachments or insertion/origin points)

Exactly, these are two different things that are usually confused as the same: (1) what is there naturally/natural potential, and (2) the roadmaps used to realize development. The first one is not to be confused with the second.

In other words, potential can and is affected by numerous factors that make a difference.

[buffbong]

i dont think there is such a thing becuase if u used less wieght to do so u would lose some size and density. but i think as you go along natruals after years and years there bodies become more refined.

[romeo]

Exactly, these are two different things that are usually confused as the same: (1) what is there naturally/natural potential, and (2) the roadmaps used to realize development. The first one is not to be confused with the second.

In other words, potential can and is affected by numerous factors that make a difference.

Pumpster, i find this quite fascinating actually,

is there nyway you could expand on this slightly, or are u talking on more simple terms, e.g. diet

[pumpster]

Pumpster, i find this quite fascinating actually,

is there nyway you could expand on this slightly, or are u talking on more simple terms, e.g. diet

Don't know what that means; can always PM me.

[romeo]

Don't know what that means; can always PM me.

ill take you up on that!

[natural al]

Exactly, these are two different things that are usually confused as the same: (1) what is there naturally/natural potential, and (2) the roadmaps used to realize development. The first one is not to be confused with the second.

In other words, potential can and is affected by numerous factors that make a difference.

if you think about it, this actually makes alot of sense.

joe awsome arms might just have awsome arms naturally, he does not have to do much.  I'm short but my arms are big, doesn't matter if I train em or not, they just look big, it's the shape and predetermined genetics that cause this but my chest sucks.  Is it genetics?  It could be or it could be that I just have not figured out how to train it the right way to get it to respond.

Might be a dumb way to say it but I think that's what your saying there.

[GoneAway]

It's good that the discussion of natural potention has been brought up. I've heard that you can't change the shape of any muscle, only enhance its appearance. So if you have a Kevin Levrone bicep, you're never going to get an Arnold peak. However, I'd also read that by sticking to a certain ROM of an exercise (e.g. first half or last half) you can change which part of the muscle you work.

E.g. for biceps. By just focusing on the first 1/2 of the evercise, you put pressure more on the lower biceps, therefore changing the shape of the lower biceps to make it bigger. I'm not sure how well I conveyed that or if it's true, but I guess it's similar to what Royalty was saying about inner squats hitting the quad sweet, etc.

[pumpster]

It's good that the discussion of natural potention has been brought up. I've heard that you can't change the shape of any muscle, only enhance its appearance. So if you have a Kevin Levrone bicep, you're never going to get an Arnold peak. However, I'd also read that by sticking to a certain ROM of an exercise (e.g. first half or last half) you can change which part of the muscle you work.

E.g. for biceps. By just focusing on the first 1/2 of the evercise, you put pressure more on the lower biceps, therefore changing the shape of the lower biceps to make it bigger. I'm not sure how well I conveyed that or if it's true, but I guess it's similar to what Royalty was saying about inner squats hitting the quad sweet, etc.

This is what's confusing-yes you're stuck with your genetic potential, but it takes certain exercises to determine fully what the real potential is. A classic example is Larry Scott, someone with full biceps like Levrone. In the last number of years after retirement from competition, he's ended up developing more of a peak by using specific exercises that activated that potential.

[Nathan]

You can build muscle up, you can lose fat, but you can't shape jack, the shape is genetic size increase is not shaping, anymore than a big square will trun in to a circle. If a square gets bigger It's a big square now not a circle, is my point I guesse.

[pumpster]

You can build muscle up, you can lose fat, but you can't shape jack, the shape is genetic size increase is not shaping, anymore than a big square will trun in to a circle. If a square gets bigger It's a big square now not a circle, is my point I guesse.

You're making the same mistake i just discussed, because you didn't read the preceeding posts. Shape is genetic; what you've left out and don't realize is that your genetic potential may not necessarily be fully realized without a fair degree of experimentation.

[Sjipes]

i think refining means bringing out your genetic shape of the muscle when it isnt otherwise visible[too small, covered by fat, water, etc]
its why people say they want to get ''toned''[argh!]..there is some truth, example pro's use dumbbell curls and barbell to isolate the bicep, to ''refine'' it. im not sure what arnolds arms would have looked like without his endless concentration curls, barbell curls, wide grip, narrow-grip etc -- probably not like they did.
however they would still be large because of his deadlifts and rows probably-- just not ''refined''

The best example i can think of:
go here http://www.marunde-muscle.com/ and look at the front double bicep at the top of the web page. sure, this guy may not have arnolds arms in terms of conditioning, peak etc, but envision what they would look like if he started doing concentration curls, preachers curls etc as the base of his program.

What do you think his arms would look like then? Do you think they would look a lttle more peaked or still relatively flatter?

[Nathan]

ahhh ok sorry I barley slept last night and I've been working way to much OT diden't mean to say somthing already said!

[GoneAway]

i think refining means bringing out your genetic shape of the muscle when it isnt otherwise visible[too small, covered by fat, water, etc

In other words, by lowering bf. You bring up a good point with concentration curls, since I feel a part of refining is to do with making the muscle and skin become one. For example, cable crossovers for chest striations, "butt blasters" (??) for glute striations.

im not sure what arnolds arms would have looked like without his endless concentration curls, barbell curls, wide grip, narrow-grip etc -- probably not like they did.
however they would still be large because of his deadlifts and rows probably-- just not ''refined''

The best example i can think of:
go here http://www.marunde-muscle.com/ and look at the front double bicep at the top of the web page. sure, this guy may not have arnolds arms in terms of conditioning, peak etc, but envision what they would look like if he started doing concentration curls, preachers curls etc as the base of his program.

What do you think his arms would look like then? Do you think they would look a lttle more peaked or still relatively flatter?

His arms are small and he has a bit of fat over them. I don't think concentration curls would do much, as he lacks overall size, but maybe they'd help the biceps to be more seperated, I'm not sure. This is where it gets confusing since I don't have the knowledge to know what could do that besides loweing bodyfat.

[BEAST 8692]

i've seen no evidence that training can change the shape of your muscles.

i agree with the premise that the shape can change once you've actualized your genetic potential ie the muscle fills out. also condition can affect the appearance ie more definition = more peak. pumpster is correct when he says too many people concede limitations before potential, but shape is genetic.

consider, for eg, how arnold had a much greater peak on his right bi than left, yet he trained both bis with the same exercises, sets, reps, weights, etc.

it wouldn't matter how many concentration curls sergio, hawk or levrone did, they would NEVER develop a peak like beckles or robby. conversely, beckles would never get the fullness of sergio.

wouldn't matter if franco lived on the preacher bench, he is never getting the fullness of scott.

[bmacsys]

You're making the same mistake i just discussed, because you didn't read the preceeding posts. Shape is genetic; what you've left out and don't realize is that your genetic potential may not necessarily be fully realized without a fair degree of experimentation.

Now you are backpedaling from what you said before about Larry Scott changing the shape of his biceps.

[bmacsys]

This is what's confusing-yes you're stuck with your genetic potential, but it takes certain exercises to determine fully what the real potential is. A classic example is Larry Scott, someone with full biceps like Levrone. In the last number of years after retirement from competition, he's ended up developing more of a peak by using specific exercises that activated that potential.

Where exactly is this "peak" Larry suddenly developed Pumpster? Ain't no evidence in those pictures you posted.

[pumpster]

Where exactly is this "peak" Larry suddenly developed Pumpster? Ain't no evidence in those pictures you posted.

The shape of his biceps did change. Both of those pics were taken well after retirement and have to be compared against earlier pics.

[pumpster]

Now you are backpedaling from what you said before about Larry Scott changing the shape of his biceps.

Classic getbig "logic".  Nothing at all to back up the charge, therefore it doesn't hold. What i'm saying may be too complicated for some here.