Author Topic: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?  (Read 20713 times)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2005, 02:11:48 AM »
Seems to be your calling card, Pumpster old chap. Somebody posts the reasons why X isn't Y, and you either ignore it or just repeat what you said before. Incidentally, I did mention Platz above - right from the very beginning - and as stated, he's the exception that proves the rule.

I concur that evidently it appears prioritisation is the main reason why legs exploded after this era.

Regarding squats vs leg press - the reason why the leg press is relatively easier is because (a) your back is supported and (b) it's more isolating for the quad (with some hams) than the squat, which as we know is probably THE ultimate all-body exercise (or the only one that comes close). Naturally the leg press will seem less taxing *on your body* as only really your legs are doing any work (and mostly your quads, depending on foot position - for most people it's mostly quads.) That doesn't mean as a *quad* exercise it isn't as effecient, or possibly even more so, depending on the weights being used (with full reps, proper form etc.)

Regarding squates and structure, Dorian Yates himself (and we know, we know, he's no Paul Dillet), stated that, "... I perservered with the exercise until October of 1989, when I finally accepted my structure - narrow hips, longish legs - was not ideal for heavy barbell squats. Instead, I began to rely on leg presses and Smith Machine squats as mass builders for thighs. However, I still recommend that everyone, beginners in particular, earn their thigh-building spurs with barbell squats. You should cease doing them only if you feel, as I did, that they're causing more harm than good."

He adds: "For stimulating sheer quad mass, the leg press is my exercise of choice. Beware, however, because it is one of the most abused and misused exercises in the bodybuilding repertoire. The sport abounds with erroneous claims from guys citing leg-preses in excess of 1,500 pounds. These guys may indeed have 1,500 pounds loaded on the machine, but they certainly aren't using a full range of motion. What most of these guys do is set the supporting backboard at such an extreme upright angle that their knees can only move four or five inches during their so-called 'reps'. They're doing only a partial movement and, thus, achieving only a partial stimulation of the thigh muscles."

Dorian, incidentally, claims he maxed out at 1,265 pounds on the leg press.

As usual, there are no hard and fasts - if it works for you, it works. And that's it.

  Actually, the ultimate all-body exercise is the dead-lift. Just so you'll know...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Zugzwang

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • adirtyjob.blogspot.com
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2005, 02:30:56 AM »
  Actually, the ultimate all-body exercise is the dead-lift. Just so you'll know...

First, I think that's a matter of opinion - must people seem to think it's the squat. Secondly, was there really a need to quote my entire post for that!?
adirtyjob.blogspot.com

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2005, 02:48:35 AM »
Squat, cleans, clean n' jerk are the best all-rounds. Deadlifts fairly far down the list.

Anyone still using "old chap" is immediately discredited. So last-century. What a self-righteous bore.

Make sure to substantiate how you know that Dillet and others barely used basic exercises like squats, the claim is laughable. Yates still does Smith Machine squats.

Immediately backpeddling, it's then mentioned that oh, squats are mainly good for just the build-up stage, aren't needed for maintenance..? Maintenance is the E-Z part, I'll be maintaining on a Gazelle when i'm 83.




Zugzwang

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • adirtyjob.blogspot.com
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2005, 02:54:42 AM »
Anyone still using "old chap" is immediately discredited. So last-century. What a self-righteous bore.

Another winning comeback! You're out-of-control, you animal. ;D
adirtyjob.blogspot.com

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2005, 03:01:56 AM »
Righto; we'll discuss further over a lemon cordial following the cricket match, old chap.. 8)

I know the reasons why leg press is less stressful on the bod, what's unclear is whether the newer 45 angle leg press is any better than the vertical leg press available back in the day. The 45 degree leg press is about the only difference in equipment from back in the day. The *best* leg press frp, the 70s was probably the Universal Machine leverage leg press-probably as good or better than anything made now.

Leg extensions aren't great and are tough on the knees; for the same purpose a good hack machine is better.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2005, 03:33:12 AM »
First, I think that's a matter of opinion - must people seem to think it's the squat. Secondly, was there really a need to quote my entire post for that!?

  Wrong. The dead-lift has been show to activate more muscle groups, than the squat. Both Mike Mentzer and Joe Gold agreed.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Zugzwang

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • adirtyjob.blogspot.com
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2005, 07:41:13 AM »
  Wrong. The dead-lift has been show to activate more muscle groups, than the squat. Both Mike Mentzer and Joe Gold agreed.

I think the squat works 75 per cent of the body's muscles to a varying degree; where is this alternative proof that the dead lift is numero uno?
adirtyjob.blogspot.com

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2005, 07:44:34 AM »
squats involve more muscle groups because of where the weight is being held, more muscles are called into play to both move and support the weight.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2005, 08:15:30 AM »
squats involve more muscle groups because of where the weight is being held, more muscles are called into play to both move and support the weight.

  Nope.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2005, 08:17:00 AM »
  Nope.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
you've obviously never been in a gym a day in your life.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

Mars

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 27707
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2005, 08:21:05 AM »
He only saw gyms from pics.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2005, 08:32:51 AM »
you've obviously never been in a gym a day in your life.

  Yet, I know very well how to do a workout, with your sister. ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #62 on: December 19, 2005, 08:35:00 AM »
  Yet, I know very well how to do a workout, with your sister. ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE
yeah she told me all about it especially the part where you had to watch gay porn to get it up.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #63 on: December 19, 2005, 08:45:02 AM »
yeah she told me all about it especially the part where you had to watch gay porn to get it up.

  Yeah, and the gay porn came from your stash ;D. By the way, sorry that I stepped on your Justin album :-*. Girl, don't leave your stuff around like that!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

XS

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • Getbig!
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2006, 04:03:31 PM »
Lots of good reasons in this thread.  Biggest for me was the CRANKED-UP drug stacks..  Longer stacks and higher dosages w/ a better understanding of how to maximize there effects... 





XS

VGalanti

  • Pros
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
  • COOL
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2006, 04:21:32 PM »
pussies.

OK OK...FOR THE FIRST TIME...YOU SAID SOMETHING I AGREE WITH....LOL, OH NO, SAY IT AINT SO.

THIS GUY IS GREAT
ANIMAL

HOSTILE

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Im talented, yes Im gifted Never boosted, never sh
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2006, 06:33:05 PM »
this is why  ::) ::)

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Why was there such an improvement in pro leg mass after the 1970s?
« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2006, 06:33:58 PM »
monster teardrops.
Jaejonna rows 125!!