May 25, 2019, 12:36:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: squat stance...whats yours..?  (Read 14527 times)
Badger
*****
Posts: 2351

To press a lot, you must press a lot. -Sheiko


Email
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2015, 09:23:59 AM »

Logged
Badger
*****
Posts: 2351

To press a lot, you must press a lot. -Sheiko


Email
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2015, 09:29:25 AM »



Insertion points are where and how the muscle is attached to the skeleton. It is purely genetic in that muscle is the shape it is and and can only really get bigger or smaller. I don't beleive someone can change the shape of the their muscles or lengthen them.

A lot of the older bodybuilding folklore (Arnold) referred to using exercises to lengthen the bicep etc.
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2015, 12:10:48 PM »


  True Davey , BUT if one performs exercise that eliminate hip and gluteal activation the lower thigh musculature ( vastus medialis / lateralis ) appear more prominent due to minimising muscular size in the hip & gluteal area.  Sissy squat and heels raised hack are great examples .

 

   Thigh development with only sissy squat and raised heel hack squat



   Thigh development with back squat as the mainstay of leg training ( note the bigger inner & upper & hips thigh that detract somewhat from the lower thigh development )

    T.
Logged
Badger
*****
Posts: 2351

To press a lot, you must press a lot. -Sheiko


Email
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2015, 12:47:12 PM »

Your post clearly demonstrates the effect that can be achieved by controlling the development of certain muscle groups. For instance when bodybuilding I avoided any direct oblique work to make my waist as small as possible to make my quads look larger and deadlifted with straps in a (probably unneeded) attempt to ensure symmetry in my back muscles.
Logged
Badger
*****
Posts: 2351

To press a lot, you must press a lot. -Sheiko


Email
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2015, 01:00:12 PM »

In hindsight Vince Gironda really knew his onions when it came to classical physique sculpting  Cool
Logged
Trow
*****
Posts: 701


« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2015, 02:26:55 PM »

Always respect your opinion Turpin but I'm not convinced. I think the main difference in the pictures is primarily due to how much leaner you are in the first, especially as the lower quad musculature tend to naturally have less fat, hence why they appear more prominent. You could also argue that minimising hip and glute development could make the legs look a bit more 'spindly' so to speak.

p.s. Badger, just had a nostalgic childhood flashback ha
Logged
Glen Danbury
*****
Posts: 4279


fuelled by EQ nutrition


WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2015, 03:37:45 PM »

Always respect your opinion Turpin but I'm not convinced. I think the main difference in the pictures is primarily due to how much leaner you are in the first, especially as the lower quad musculature tend to naturally have less fat, hence why they appear more prominent. You could also argue that minimising hip and glute development could make the legs look a bit more 'spindly' so to speak.

p.s. Badger, just had a nostalgic childhood flashback ha

agreed.

thing I always notice at shows was that there is competitors wiith good quad development look unbalanced and poor symmetry as they lack hip and adductor mass.

I would actually vsay tge reason I often eon overalls as a lightweight was due to my glute and adductor mass giving me a more complete look
Logged
p0stscript
***
Posts: 232


« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2015, 05:37:07 PM »



why is there no like button when you really need it for once.
Logged
Damon Eaton
*****
Posts: 1368


Damon "The Truth" Eaton. Free Agent.


Email
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2015, 06:00:37 PM »

I think squatting with constant tension has its place as does squatting heavily with full ROM and locking out at the top.

I don't however feel that depth has to be sacrificed if constant tension squats are being used you just avoid lock out at the top and recovering between reps.

I squat with my feet just wider than my hips which isn't too wide in comparison to most it suits me best and is the most comfortable fluent position.
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2015, 09:48:23 PM »

Always respect your opinion Turpin but I'm not convinced. I think the main difference in the pictures is primarily due to how much leaner you are in the first, especially as the lower quad musculature tend to naturally have less fat, hence why they appear more prominent. You could also argue that minimising hip and glute development could make the legs look a bit more 'spindly' so to speak.

p.s. Badger, just had a nostalgic childhood flashback ha

agreed.

thing I always notice at shows was that there is competitors wiith good quad development look unbalanced and poor symmetry as they lack hip and adductor mass.

I would actually vsay tge reason I often eon overalls as a lightweight was due to my glute and adductor mass giving me a more complete look


   I guess being the subjective sport that Bodybuilding / exhibition is we all have different views on what is aesthetically pleasing to ones eye. Personally I don't see anything aesthetically pleasing in thick upper thigh and glutes  , but I DO find an emphasis on lower thigh development appeals & moreso when calf development completes.
    I see many ( especially the long limbed guys ) try in vain to add size to their thighs and utilise the back squat as their exercise of choice , when in actual fact if they concentrated their efforts on targeted lower thigh exercise and moreso calf development their appearance of their legs would be much improved.  

Below :  for me the most aesthetically pleasing makeup of any bodybuilder and ( for me ) the best/most complete leg development too.

 

   T.  
Logged
Glen Danbury
*****
Posts: 4279


fuelled by EQ nutrition


WWW Email
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2015, 10:26:13 PM »

see I disagree there to a certain extent.  taller guys need to be focusing on adductor mass otherwise they end up with decent quad size but still look under developed in the lower body. end effect is the 'lanky' look

that shot is great example of how adductor mass completes the thigh and for me deep back squats hit this perfectly
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2015, 10:30:59 PM »

see I disagree there to a certain extent.  taller guys need to be focusing on adductor mass otherwise they end up with decent quad size but still look under developed in the lower body. end effect is the 'lanky' look

that shot is great example of how adductor mass completes the thigh and for me deep back squats hit this perfectly

  That shot ( to me ) is how lower thigh and full calf development give a complete look to leg development and the small hip structure enhances further.

  T.
Logged
Trow
*****
Posts: 701


« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2015, 10:45:17 PM »

see I disagree there to a certain extent.  taller guys need to be focusing on adductor mass otherwise they end up with decent quad size but still look under developed in the lower body. end effect is the 'lanky' look

that shot is great example of how adductor mass completes the thigh and for me deep back squats hit this perfectly

I would tend to agree with this as well. If a tall long legged bodybuilder doesn't have thick upper quads and a developed glute area, I think they will look even more lanky/spindly than they are probably already predisposed to. That being said I do think the glute area can be overdeveloped e.g. Ronnie Coleman, but this isn't usually an issue in natural bodybuilding. But this is something that is difficult to test and like you say Turpin, subjective, so I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree lol Although I think we probably all agree about Samir Banout being one the most aesthetically pleasing bodybuilders of all time, incredible showing at the 83 olympia
Logged
Glen Danbury
*****
Posts: 4279


fuelled by EQ nutrition


WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2015, 10:59:51 PM »

see I disagree there to a certain extent.  taller guys need to be focusing on adductor mass otherwise they end up with decent quad size but still look under developed in the lower body. end effect is the 'lanky' look

that shot is great example of how adductor mass completes the thigh and for me deep back squats hit this perfectly

  That shot ( to me ) is how lower thigh and full calf development give a complete look to leg development and the small hip structure enhances further.

  T.

I think its arguable that in a natural athlete - when lean, that hip musculature develops minimally. same with midsection work.  vary rare for a natural to be able to develop them to any significant degree to through off symmetry in my opinion.

again going back to full squatting - would find it hard for most to perform this and there lower leg development not to improve along with upper thigh development simultaneously.

I would say for me (I know it might be individual) but my complete leg development is owed to squats and thats including the musculature of the shank
Logged
Turpin
*****
Posts: 1650



« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2015, 11:03:51 PM »

LOL ... I`ll ( respectfully ) agree to disagree . The long limbed natural bodybuilder has little chance of being a `Tom Platz` BUT he can improve appearance by bringing up areas that will make best of his long limbs ( lower thigh & calf development ) .  
 To bring up his upper thigh and adductors will only serve to make his legs appear even more gangly due to the discrepancy between upper / lower leg development .

  T.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Natural Muscle Forum: Discussion on UK natural bodybuilding, weight training, strongman, powerlifting, weight loss, nutrition and supplements
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!