Doug Brignole training videos

[pellius]

So, you don't think doing front squats will develop your legs differently than doing back squats?

Leg extensions are a quad exercise.  Will your quads develop differently doing leg extensions vs. doing squats?

Will tricep cable pushdowns develop the triceps the same as tricep French presses?

Well, a lot of these situations can be very subtle and often requires a somewhat nuance response which often elicits a much deeper discussion unpacking a variety of implications both known and some newly brought to light as a result of this much deeper inquiry and exchange of ideas and perspective.

Fortunately, in this case, that doesn't apply. So my answer can be quite direct and unequivocal and that would absolutely, positively not. No difference at all.

The rate and to what extent your muscle develops will vary with the movement. For example, the leg extension doesn't seem to give enough stimulus to your squads as a pressing movement will. I think this has to do with how much more limited you are loading the muscle with resistance in the extension than you would with the hack squat. But how your quads will actually look and develop, the appearance of the muscle, will be the same. The exact same.

[pellius]

So, you don't think doing front squats will develop your legs differently than doing back squats?

Leg extensions are a quad exercise.  Will your quads develop differently doing leg extensions vs. doing squats?

Will tricep cable pushdowns develop the triceps the same as tricep French presses?

As a clarification, I do want to distinguish between muscle groups that have various functions such as the shoulder. Doing just front delt movements at the expense of rear delt movements will result in an unbalance overall shoulder development. Front delts will develop and the rears will remain pretty much the same. Same with traps. If you are just doing shrugs you will develop your "upper traps" but it won't have nearly the affect on your lower, midback portion of the trap as evidence with Mentzer.

But if you do squats exclusively or hacks exclusively it will have a different effect on your body as the squats also include a lot of lower back and glute action. So though this might effect the degree to which your quads respond and grow, the actually look, disregarding any size discrepancy, will remain the same. Exactly the same. You won't get more upper, lower, outer, inner development doing one or the other. The shape of your quads as it grows will be entirely dependant on it's genetic predisposition.

Like Brignole said, "Try it". Try do just squats for six months and then do hacks for six months. The only difference you will experience, if any, is with the size of the muscle. The actual shape and how it developed will go unchanged. Do any variation of tricep or biceps movements and see if it makes one iota of a difference in the shape of your muscle.

Dorian, when training that guy who does those "London Real" videos remarked, somewhat sarcastically how silly he thought it was that you could develop your inner or outer calf depending on toe position. As if your outer calf just suddenly shuts off because you point your toes out. Even if pointing your toes out feels like it is putting more stress on your inner calf it is trivial. Your whole calf is contracting no mater what angle your toes are.

 

[pellius]

As you can see, Mentzer had very good upper traps but non-existant lower traps. I've seen amateurs mid level placing at local shows with better mid-backs.

A lot is genetic. Many can get enough mid back stimulation just with rows. Others may require more direct stimulation. All the published back routines by Mike consisted always of the Nautilus Pullover followed by underhand close grip over head pull downs.
What followed varied, either bentover DB rows, seated cable rows using the V shaped handle, or, in his last video, dead lifts which, as Brignole points out, only puts isometric tension throughout the spinal column and no real extension and contraction of the back muscles. That all comes from the legs and glutes. So I don't really consider the deadlift a back exercise per se but much prefer keeping the legs slightly bent and actually bending back and forth using the low back muscles. But in either case, as with the rest of the back routine, the low traps are not targeted as something like barbell rows would.

[Hypertrophy]

As you can see, Mentzer had very good upper traps but non-existant lower traps. I've seen amateurs mid level placing at local shows with better mid-backs.

A lot is genetic. Many can get enough mid back stimulation just with rows. Others may require more direct stimulation. All the published back routines by Mike consisted always of the Nautilus Pullover followed by underhand close grip over head pull downs.
What followed varied, either bentover DB rows, seated cable rows using the V shaped handle, or, in his last video, dead lifts which, as Brignole points out, only puts isometric tension throughout the spinal column and no real extension and contraction of the back muscles. That all comes from the legs and glutes. So I don't really consider the deadlift a back exercise per se but much prefer keeping the legs slightly bent and actually bending back and forth using the low back muscles. But in either case, as with the rest of the back routine, the low traps are not targeted as something like barbell rows would.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292437161_An_Examination_Of_Muscle_Activation_And_Power_Characteristics_While_Performing_The_Deadlift_Exercise_With_Straight_And_Hexagonal_Barbells

The erector spinae sure do contract with the deadlift.

[pamith]

Overthinking how to do exercises is silly, just lift, get stronger, and you will get bigger

[pellius]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292437161_An_Examination_Of_Muscle_Activation_And_Power_Characteristics_While_Performing_The_Deadlift_Exercise_With_Straight_And_Hexagonal_Barbells

The erector spinae sure do contract with the deadlift.

I try to be clear when I write but also try to avoid going into every specific detail and leave it and hope the reader will understand. I am verbose enough and I actually, believe or not, try to not write so much. But it seems if I am not absolutely specific then someone will always call me on it.

I made clear that in the deadlift the back muscles are under isometric" tension and not going through the extension and contraction of a joint in movement.
I thought it would be understood that by saying "isometric" tension one could reasonably conclude that to be in that state the muscle still has to contract. But it is contracting to hold and stabiliize a position. By saying extension and contraction I would have assumed one would understand that the muscle is now contracting to stimulate the movement of a joint.

With the dead lift there is some bend/straighen movement of the lower back but it is only for a short range of motion which you want minimize. The rest of the back muscles are contracting to stabilize the movement. Remember when someone is instructing a neophyte in the proper technique of a dead lift, or simply picking up a heavy object, it is to keep the head up, back straight and stiff, and lift with your legs and hips. The goal is to use as little of the back muscles as possible to maximize strength and leverage.

[pellius]

Overthinking how to do exercises is silly, just lift, get stronger, and you will get bigger

How has that worked out for you?

[Humble Narcissist]

Overthinking how to do exercises is silly, just lift, get stronger, and you will get bigger

Just follow Johnny Falcon's workouts on Youtube.  He had terrible form, listened to terrible music to pump himself up, was probably on meth and had a great physique.

[bigbychoices]

    i just have to chime in . yes you can change the look of your muscles. even the shape. I know some of the text book experts will argue that you cant but yes you can. ever see people do partial reps in the squat?  turnip thighs. big at the top and small the rest of the way. ( so much for the theory that all fibers contract or they dont. cuz if they did then partials would build the entire thigh . right? )  or do wide grip bench press. the outer pecs get more developed.  only lower "burns" on curls. does the whole bicep grow?  nope.  tricep has 3 muscles . do each one grow equally on all exercises?  again nope.. and yes turning the toes on calves ( and even leg exercises) does in fact cause different growth in areas than just straight up and down. where you feel the burn the pain the soreness is where you will get the growth. NOT from a book saying something that isnt true. some may call it "bro science"  but i call real world truth.  some of you will just argue to argue.  also everyone responds differently to different things. so experiment DONT be a slave to text books or whats worked for this person or that person. 

[bigbychoices]

  does anyone notice that rick seems to be looking like "wtf are you saying. you expect people to believe this crap lol "   almost like he is so bored and un interested in hearing doug.   and before people start in i didnt say doug is wrong or anything. i just said thats the way rick seems to be looking. 

[IroNat]

I think we are really agreeing for the most part, that muscles can respond differently to different exercises.

Pellius has himself used the deltoids as an example.

Your own genetics and muscle attachments ultimately determine how you look.

Where the arguments arise is when people, for example, say you can develop your bicep to resemble Arnold or Larry Scott, by doing a certain exercise. 

If you genetically do not have biceps peaked like mountains you can do concentration curls until the end of time and you still won't have those peaks.  However, your biceps will improve as much as possible for you.

You can only develop your own bicep to it's potential.

At the same time, only doing barbell curls will not develop your biceps to their maximum potential.

[IroNat]

  does anyone notice that rick seems to be looking like "wtf are you saying. you expect people to believe this crap lol "   almost like he is so bored and un interested in hearing doug.   and before people start in i didnt say doug is wrong or anything. i just said thats the way rick seems to be looking. 

Ric was just waiting for an opportunity to start talking and monopolize the conversation. 

[bigbychoices]

   also text books and doctors say that "cumming"  doesnt have any affect on a mans knees.  so does anyone here have issues with knees after ejaculation? yes. we all do. boxers and other athletes all know that it does in fact hurt the knees. dont believe me then go right ahead and do some squats after you have ejaculated.  so again text books and docs are NOT always right. ( and please guys dont make this into a fag thing like some of you always do)

[bigbychoices]

ok so true. the way your MUSCLES will look is genetics. no matter how you train you wont acheive the same thing as others ( francos split pecs boyers peak/split bicep etc)  but you can change the shape of your own muscles to a certain degree.

[IroNat]

   also text books and doctors say that "cumming"  doesnt have any affect on a mans knees.  so does anyone here have issues with knees after ejaculation? yes. we all do. boxers and other athletes all know that it does in fact hurt the knees. dont believe me then go right ahead and do some squats after you have ejaculated.  so again text books and docs are NOT always right. ( and please guys dont make this into a fag thing like some of you always do)

Missionary position intercourse can be hard on the knees for sure. 

But I think you mean it takes some of the piss and vinegar out of you.  This is for sure the truth.

Mentally, I always felt I could think more clearly if I was getting laid a lot.

[_bruce_]

Doug seems to provide some good info.

[joswift]

Missionary position intercourse can be hard on the knees for sure. 

But I think you mean it takes some of the piss and vinegar out of you.  This is for sure the truth.

Mentally, I always felt I could think more clearly if I was getting laid a lot.

[pamith]

How has that worked out for you?

Pretty good actually, I'm natty for life, no steroids here

[wes]

 

[pamith]

The truth is this, if your max bench is 135 lbs, your chest is almost non existent but by the time you can bench 225 lbs you have at least something, by the time you can bench 315 lbs your chest is substantially bigger and by the time you can bench 405 lbs pretty much your entire upper body is substantially bigger and by the time you can bench 495 lbs you are looking pretty big for sure (with 20'' arms and stuff) also you should improve your squat and your deadlift, by the time you can squat and deadlift 750 lbs your legs are pretty big

[IroNat]

The truth is this, if your max bench is 135 lbs, your chest is almost non existent but by the time you can bench 225 lbs you have at least something, by the time you can bench 315 lbs your chest is substantially bigger and by the time you can bench 405 lbs pretty much your entire upper body is substantially bigger and by the time you can bench 495 lbs you are looking pretty big for sure (with 20'' arms and stuff) also you should improve your squat and your deadlift, by the time you can squat and deadlift 750 lbs your legs are pretty big

I understand the idea but there are powerlifters who squat and bench big but are not big themselves and do not have mass.

There was a 130 lb powerlifter who squatted 700.  He was skinny really.  His legs were called "pliers in shorts".

Likewise superstrong Oly lifters who are not big.

Great strength does not correlate to size.

Anyway that is another topic.

[IroNat]

 

Wes, I'm shocked by your attitude.  This is really important.

[IroNat]

Terrific analogy of an orgasm, Swifty.

[pamith]

I understand the idea but there are powerlifters who squat and bench big but are not big themselves and do not have mass.

There was a 130 lb powerlifter who squatted 700.  He was skinny really.  His legs were called "pliers in shorts".

Likewise superstrong Oly lifters who are not big.

Great strength does not correlate to size.

Anyway that is another topic.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I meant it reaching these strength levels while training as a bodybuilder! Not as a powerlifter! A bodybuilder should never do less than 10 reps, using math calculations a max can be calculated. But make no mistake about it, natties need to get stronger to build mass, idk how it is with steroids but I think even with steroids there's only so much pumping can do, you do eventually have to add weight and get progressively stronger on all your lifts to continue to grow, even when you are on steroids

[IroNat]

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I meant it reaching these strength levels while training as a bodybuilder! Not as a powerlifter! A bodybuilder should never do less than 10 reps, using math calculations a max can be calculated. But make no mistake about it, natties need to get stronger to build mass, idk how it is with steroids but I think even with steroids there's only so much pumping can do, you do eventually have to add weight and get progressively stronger on all your lifts to continue to grow, even when you are on steroids

There is logic in that but the type of training to achieve ultimate strength is more training of the nervous system and connective tissues than of muscles.  This is not to say gaining bodyweight will not provide better leverage and strength but the improvement is not proportional since so much fat is also gained.