Author Topic: Question on Pec growth (Read 12615 times)

tgw85 · « **on:** January 03, 2011, 08:26:43 AM »

I'm going to use Branch as an example for my question.
Just to state a fact relevant to the question: Branch's chest has grown soo big it basically hangs over like a ladie's breast, while relaxed/uncontracted, as seen in the pics. Now if Branch in the first pic, if his chest grew even more and then you looked at him (and him being in the same stance, angle, and relaxed/uncontracted) would the very bottom part of his chest be thicker? Even though it would then probably be hanging even lower, while relaxed, b/c more mass and weight was added to the muscle. As it grew and as it basically 'drops' does the bottom still get thicker or at least maintain it's depth? Or it possible/likely it would get thinner? And if it can get thinner is it genetics or is it gravity and would gravity make everyone's chest 'become thinner' as it grows and gets longer?

I edited this initial post after 2 replies.
Thanks

chaos · « **Reply #1 on:** January 03, 2011, 07:19:05 PM »

LOL

Got no clue WTF you are asking.

mass 04 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 03, 2011, 08:12:29 PM »

The illustrations are very helpful.

tgw85 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 03, 2011, 08:13:46 PM »

Gosh Dang... this is hard to explain but it's really a simple question if I could word it right.

1) (Using Branch as an example) Branch's chest has grown so big it hangs over the attachment (while relaxed) like a ladie's breast.

2) Question: If you took the first pic of Branch where he's holding the dumbells but his chest is relaxed/uncontracted... If his chest grew more... and then you looked at him again, from the same angle and stance and him being relaxed/uncontracted again... the very bottom part of his chest would then be lower then it is now b/c the muscle increased in mass and weight and therefore would 'overhang' lower. BUT THEN (after growing and the bottom now being lower while relaxed) would the very bottom, marked in the pic, be thinner then it is now in the first pic (which in the scenerio would be before it grew even bigger)? Would the bottom become thinner as it grew and as it got 'longer/dropped'? And not to be rude, but how do you know it doesn't get thinner? Thanks

mass 04 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 03, 2011, 08:27:04 PM »

I'm not sure, but i think what you're talking about isn't part of the chest?

tbombz · « **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2011, 08:58:08 PM »

thats a funny thing to wonder about. i cant be 100% sure, but i think its safe to presume that as the pec grows down it also grows out, getting thicker and thicker over time. i do not think that the chest grows thick and then drops suddenly making it thinner, which would have to be what happened if the chest did get thinner when it grew down.

tgw85 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:27:07 PM »

I'm wondering because my chest is not as big as Branch's lol... but has grown to the point where it is starting to slightly 'overlap' the attachment or slightly droop over if I stand straight with my arms down and relaxed. And to me, it probably will drop somewhat as it continues to grow b/c more mass and weight will be there. But as it does this... will the bottom actually get thinner or lose depth/thickness? Basically is that it... once it reachest the point where it does 'overhang', is that as thick as the bottom will get... even if you keep training and growing?

That's why it concerns me... it's hard to bench while in the back of your head your wondering even afraid that what you're doing will cause your lower chest to 'thin out'. And I love learing about the body and about muscles and I am very analytical minded and I like things black and white so it's hard for me to let this go... it seems like a legit and a significant question to me. Plus I have aspirations of owning a gym and training too, so it'd help to know whether or not training your chest would eventually cause a "droopy paper thin" bottom... mainly for self-confidence for me, b/c now I just feel like I know nothing about muscles... I mean just how much of an affect does gravity have on muscular development? Does it influence the direction fibers grow, at least to a significant degree?

tbombz · « **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:31:14 PM »

gravity wont effect the way your muscles grow, it will effect the way they hang when relaxed.

i know what your afraid of, but i dont think it works that way. ive never seen that happen to a bodybuilder and it doesnt make much sense to me that it would either.

tgw85 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:48:48 PM »

Well thank you for your time and and advice, it helps somewhat.

I have seen some pics/vids of Arnold when he was really young like age 20 where the bottom was big enough it was 'overlapping' while relaxed but looked a little thicker then compared to some pics/vids in his 'peak'...whatever year that was (where it looked slightly longer/lower while relaxed and overall would be bigger)... So that's what prompted this, odd rare Inquisition.

I like 'Pumping Iron' a lot... is it possible that his chest was not any bigger then lets say age 20, which is the year/vid I 'see/wondering about as being thicker' b/c he lost muscle mass due to films that year?... Naw I still think his chest, at least overall, was way bigger even at 225lbs in 1975 then compared to age 20, even though he was pretty bulky... I suppose it could be water/fat, angle, etc. too... but I wish I could KNOW for sure.

Yev33 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:49:17 PM »

First and foremost, if you look closer at those pictures you can see that his chest is considerably thicker on the bottom versus the top. That is why you are comparing it to a breast. If the development was more even you would not notice this as much. In Branch's case, the bigger his chest gets the more evident this will become. This is not an issue of training, it's an issue of genetics. The majority of men have an imbalance between the upper and lower pectoral regions. Imsure that Branch is aware of this because I have not seen a video of him doing a flat bench press in long time, instead he hammers the incline press first in his workouts. Unfortunately it's impossible to stimulate the upper chest without also stimulating the lower portion, which is why even though his upper chest certaintly grew but so did the lower. If this is really a concern for you I would suggest you do more incline pec movements than flat or decline and try to fill out your upper pecs, it will balance out your chest better and not draw attention to the lower portion.

tgw85 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2011, 10:30:14 PM »

Quote from: Yev33 on January 03, 2011, 09:49:17 PM

First and foremost, if you look closer at those pictures you can see that his chest is considerably thicker on the bottom versus the top. That is why you are comparing it to a breast. If the development was more even you would not notice this as much. In Branch's case, the bigger his chest gets the more evident this will become. This is not an issue of training, it's an issue of genetics. The majority of men have an imbalance between the upper and lower pectoral regions. Imsure that Branch is aware of this because I have not seen a video of him doing a flat bench press in long time, instead he hammers the incline press first in his workouts. Unfortunately it's impossible to stimulate the upper chest without also stimulating the lower portion, which is why even though his upper chest certaintly grew but so did the lower. If this is really a concern for you I would suggest you do more incline pec movements than flat or decline and try to fill out your upper pecs, it will balance out your chest better and not draw attention to the lower portion.

lol, the 'overlapping/appearance of hanging' does not concern me... that's a fact of life, no one's chest will grow straight out forever... it will eventually 'lay over' the attachment slightly while relaxed. And then as it keeps growing the bottom will become lower, while relaxed b/c of more mass and weight there and gravity. But I don't think anyone want's their chest to 'become thinner' as it does this: growing and getting longer/dropping.

tgw85 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2011, 10:40:50 PM »

And even if it did, I'm not saying I would stop benching or working out or stop just in case lol... but I'd just like to know what to expect or what to envision... That's on 2 sides of the fence... visualizing yourself with just an enourmous huge thick chest top to bottom... and visualizing a long/hanging paper thin bottom chest. And if that's true b/c of how gravity pulled on it then who knows how much the other 639 muscles I think, are being affected/hindered by gravity... and that thought just creeps me out.

Meso_z · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2011, 12:12:21 AM »

What the hell is wrong with you..lmao

chaos · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2011, 06:00:01 PM »

Are you asking if that overhang makes the entire chest look flatter?

Meso_z · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:30:30 AM »

I think its just genetic....One thing that ive noticed it that all the guys with great chest development have that thing going on (cant see their nipple), but I can (no homo).

_bruce_ · « **Reply #15 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:16:43 PM »

Quote from: mass 04 on January 03, 2011, 08:12:29 PM

The illustrations are very helpful.

x1000

tgw85 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:56:05 PM »

Quote from: chaos on January 06, 2011, 06:00:01 PM

Are you asking if that overhang makes the entire chest look flatter?

No. I'm asking as 'that overhang area/very bottom' grows and therefore gets longer/lower does it get thinner?

If the lower part of your chest 'overhangs', while relaxed, and then you grew bigger.... and then you looked at yourself again, while relaxed, the lower part would then be 'overhanging' more/lower then before b/c more mass and weight was added there.... but would it be thinner? And if so is it b/c gravity 'pulled' on in such a way to make it get thinner, as it grew and got longer?

dyslexic · « **Reply #17 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:21:50 PM »

O.K folks, here it is:

Branch has had Gyno surgery. He has loose flaps of skin behind the nippage area. When he gets older (if he gets older)- once all the site injections and hormones have been slowed, (

) he will look like a total piece of crap. Jay aint far behind and is showing much of the same shiz.

His chest will basically be a classic description of "man boobs" and will be very un-attractive. There will come a time when he will be extremely hesitant to pull off his shirt.

His body has been manipulated in so many un-natural ways, that when it's all 'said and done' - what's left will be a pile of flabby, loose, saggy and ugly dog poopy.

If you want to see a classic lower chest with the age equation, look at Gary Strydom's. There is a much different type of 'over-hang' than that which you are speaking.

I may repost later for clarity (if needed)

tgw85 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:52:01 PM »

Okay using an example of Gary b/c his chest has that 'overhang' when relaxed.

Say, in this pic, his chest grew bigger... and then you looked at him again (in the same stance, angle, and relaxed)... regardless, I think it would then 'overhang' more/be lower b/c of increased mass and weight..... but would the bottom be thicker? OR is it possible it would be thinner (as it grew and got longer)and b/c how gravity 'pulled' on it in such a way?

Montague · « **Reply #19 on:** January 07, 2011, 07:41:50 PM »

Quote from: tbombz on January 03, 2011, 08:58:08 PM

...as the pec grows down it also grows out...

^^ This.
So long as it's quality muscle, I would expect the lower pectoral region to continue growing in proportion to it's existing shape & symmetry.
Maintaining the muscle and reasonable bodyfat%, the depth/ledge should remain.

It should not approach resembling anything close to a sagging, deflated hooter; at least, that's the visualization I formed interpreted from the descriptiveness of your question.

chaos · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:47:10 PM »

Quote from: tgw85 on January 07, 2011, 12:56:05 PM

No. I'm asking as 'that overhang area/very bottom' grows and therefore gets longer/lower does it get thinner?

If the lower part of your chest 'overhangs', while relaxed, and then you grew bigger.... and then you looked at yourself again, while relaxed, the lower part would then be 'overhanging' more/lower then before b/c more mass and weight was added there.... but would it be thinner? And if so is it b/c gravity 'pulled' on in such a way to make it get thinner, as it grew and got longer?

I don't think it gets thinner I think by the time it got noticably thinner your chest would be saggy down to your waist anyways.

And those would be called tits, not pecs.

tgw85 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:56:03 PM »

Quote from: Montague on January 07, 2011, 07:41:50 PM

^^ This.
So long as it's quality muscle, I would expect the lower pectoral region to continue growing in proportion to it's existing shape & symmetry.
Maintaining the muscle and reasonable bodyfat%, the depth/ledge should remain.

It should not approach resembling anything close to a sagging, deflated hooter; at least, that's the visualization I formed interpreted from the descriptiveness of your question.

That is exactly what I've been talking about... finally someone who knows what I'm asking. The reason I ask is b/c some pics/vids of Arnold the very lower pec area looked thicker at a younger age (like age 20) then compared to some at his peak or at least older and bigger. But at age 20, his chest already had that 'overhang' when relaxed... and of course as he kept growing you can tell it got longer/lower, but sometimes it looked thinner... and I know about bodyfat, water, upper pec got bigger, but I can't stand the thought of my chest getting thinner at the bottom as it grew and got slightly longer.

Like in this pic of Arnie he's pretty young (and before olympia days)... but just for example... is the very lower part of his pec (parallel to the nipple area and down) thicker here then compared to him in his olympia days when his chest was overall bigger and had obviously grown more?

Also just out of curiosity, just how much of an affect or influence does gravity have in muscular development? Des gravity influence the direction the the direction fibers grow, at all? For example, some people's abs are thicker at the bottom of each abdominal muscle, is that just genetics or is b/c gravity was able to pull down on it over time throughout it's development? I know that sounds silly but I'm just asking for self confidence and reasurrance.

Montague · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:11:16 PM »

Quote from: tgw85 on January 07, 2011, 08:56:03 PM

Like in this pic of Arnie he's pretty young (and before olympia days)... but just for example... is the very lower part of his pec (parallel to the nipple area and down) thicker here then compared to him in his olympia days when his chest was overall bigger and had obviously grown more?

I know that sounds silly but I'm just asking for self confidence and reasurrance.

No, it's not silly at all.

Lots of people fear looking like an Olympia-caliber Arnold.

Perfectly normal.

tgw85 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:12:24 PM »

So as long as you don't have any connective tissue problems 'down there' then the said conn. tissue membranes should be able to resist this gravity causing 'sagging/getting longer and thinning (even though it would still be hypertrophying).... and instead should be able to hold the lower fibers together and firm and continue to allow the bottom to grow thicker, even as it got slightly 'longer/dropped' right!?

tgw85 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:26:00 PM »

Quote from: Montague on January 07, 2011, 09:11:16 PM

No, it's not silly at all.

Lots of people fear looking like an Olympia-caliber Arnold.

Perfectly normal.

Well I don't know if that was a joke or if you were serious, but I'm serious about bodybuilding and I happen to think an 'olympia-caliber Arnold' body is one of the most beautiful pieces of hardworking art that I can only dream of having one day.... but I probably won't with this type of 'chest thinning' mentality.... that is why I have been so fervent in seeking and explaination. SO, to answer the question, which I suppose you have already but just to reinforce... in the recent pic of Arnold (this is really young before his olympia days when overall his chest was smaller).... that should NOT be the MOST THICK his very lower pecs (parallel to nipple area and down) have EVER been, correct? The very bottom should have kept generally getting thicker as they grew and as he got older, correct? BTW thanks for taking your time to help me.