bullshit, now you are trying to dig yourself out a hole. I never said the upper part of the lats do not grow, nor did I claim the widest part of the lats isn't the upper portion. All I said is that most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower part.
And guess what? You're wrong. You made a very bad analogy by comparing muscle fibers to air, and the fascia to the latex of a balloon. There is no correlation, between muscular hypertrophy, and the geometrical deformation of the muscle in a way similar to the way the latex fibers of a balloon are deformed by oxygen and hydrogen. Like I said, I
dare you to prove that.
Furthermore, your point is irrelvant, because it doesen't matter where most of the increase occurs, but rather where if there is a geometrical
change in the muscle. Is there? No: the shape of the muscle remains the same. You claimed that the lats increase mostly in the lower part. I didn't challenge that premisse especifically, but rather the
consequence of it. The consequence of it is there the only deformatioin which occurs to the muscle is in regards to size; there is no geometrical change caused by this hypertrophy. The proof? Because the muscle grows, yet it's
shape remains the same. Get it? You used innaproipriate semantics trying to establish a correlation between the areasd of the muscle that grow the most and how the muscle is deformed geometrically as this this growth occurs, and the simple fact is that you're wrong: the muscle
might grow more in the lower part, but this is immaterial because the growth in
shape is symmetrical, with the upper part of the muscle extending further than the lower part. Period.
Furthermore, I am the one who is arguing that muscles grow proportionally - NOT you. You claim the muscle grows the same amount regardless of the area of the muscle. This implies that muscles grow disproportionally.
No, I argued that where the fibers especifically hypertrophy is irrelevant to the distribution of this growth when it comes to geometry; or when it comes to shape. Take the picture of a bodybuilder from the back. Now, add 50 lbs of muscle. The lats will, essentially, become much wider and thicker, but there will be no deformation as far as
geometry goes. Do you understand? Teh muscle will not become wider in the lower part - which would be the case if your hypothesis were coorect -, but will remain structurally stable geometrically. Once again, you made an analogy comparing a muscle to a balloon, and tried to dfemonstrate that the muscle would suuffer a geometrical defomration akin to it. This is incorrect, and you can't demonstrate, topologically, that this would occur. Compare the shape of a deflated balloon to an inflated one, and you would realize that the specific deformation caused by the inflation of gases, such as oxygen and hydrogen, to the latex structure is
very different from the one caused by the hypertrophy of the actin and myosin myofibrils to the fascia that contains the muscle. The ballon changes form far more dramatically than the muscle. When a muscle grows, it stretches proportionally. Look at a hypertrophied latissimus, and you'll see that, while most of it's growth might have occurred in the lower part of it, it wasn't geometrically deformed, remaining basically with the same shape. Case closed.
According to you, if a bicep increases 2" at the middle then it will also increase 2" at the tendon.
It doesen't matter, because the region where the growth occurs does not change the
proportions
od the muscle. The biceps hypertrophy mostly far from the tendon, but it proportins of increase between the area close to the tendon and the one far from it remains stable, or a mathematical constant. Understand?
Let me demonstrate with pics. Here is how a nomal muscle grows.
A hypertrophied muscle is like a large version of itself. It's not like a ballon, which goes from a wrinkled strip to a perfect sphere...
Here is how a muscle grows according to you.
According to me, a mucle grows symmetrically, given that the geometrical proportions reamins tghe same.
If we superimpose a before and after pic of a normal muscle, here is what it would look like. The middle portion grows faster than both ends.
Irrelevant to the proposition at hand, given that, if this were the case, the middle of the lats would stretch further than the upper part as the muscle grows, and this is obviously untrue.
You misunderstand what I said. I never claimed the upper part of the lats do not grow. I merely said most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower part.
And you misunderstood what I said: that the area where the muscle increases the most causes no change to the shape of the muscle when it comes to proportions.
Even though the lower lats may grow more, the upper lats still increase in size too, albeit at a slower rate. It's impossible for the lower lats to be wider than the upper lats simply due to its position. The lower lats are situated much closer to the medial axis. There are cases where the lowers lats are almost as wide as the upper lats though. For example:
To assume inpossibility, you'd have to establish this as a mathematical absolute. What I mean by this is that you have to demonstrate that, no matter how much the latissimus grew, it would
never become wider at the bottom part. It doesen't matter the position where the two parts of the muscle are in relation to the medial axis: if th emuscle grew more at the lower half, then obviously at some point it would surpass the upper part in width. Since this never happens, no matter how the much the muscle grows, means that your axiom is incorrect, that no matter where the growth occurs the most, the muscle remains geometrically stable and that the growth is proportional
as far as shape goes. Give up, boy. You're not in my league.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
