Weights w/o Q (1 Viewer)

[B l e h.]

I did weights for about half a year last year stopped durring the chrissie holidays n havent been going to the gym since due to lack of motivation =/

My arms are pretty well defined and my chest is heading in the right direction

But have you ever noticed how some blokes have square pecs and others have sort of roundish ones ?

Is there some sort of routine or special technique that you have to follow to get the square look?

 

[|Axis_]

maybe the round ones have a thicker layer of fat / floppy muscle?

big heavy weights, slow movement = muscle growth
light weights, fast, many reps = tone & distinction
:uhhuh:

 

[Cyph]

Perhaps a better question to ask would be why are you only concerned about your upper body?

Over 2/3 of your body is made up of your legs and lower back - are you squatting and deadlifting?

Talking to a bloke last night who asked if I went to the gym, when I told him yes, his first question was, 'how much do you bench press?'.

Why is it Westernised views of strength and looking good are broad shoulders, big chest and well defined abs? It results in gyms full of chicken legs with a weak core to boot!

Anyway, in answer to your question, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... perhaps some pictures would better serve to help your question? I guess it's somewhat genetic - then dependent on the fat over it?

Btw, |Axis_, that's complete and utter bullshit. The visibility of a muscle (read: tone) is dependent on how much fat you have over it.

 

[ND]

Damn straight Cyph. Up at the gold coast a while ago i saw this guy with massive traps/pecs/bis/tris/delts (he was obviously juicing), but had tiny tiny legs, it was the funniest thing ever.

Yeh i think it'd be genetic, same as how some people have bis with big peaks, and some don't peak at all.

I'm excited to be getting back to the gym this semester after having ages off. I'm gonna start bulking, but i'm not looking forward to the amount of eating you have to do... ah well, still beats cutting (i hate cardio).

 

[capsicum]

I'm excited to be getting back to the gym this semester after having ages off. I'm gonna start bulking, but i'm not looking forward to the amount of eating you have to do... ah well, still beats cutting (i hate cardio).

6 small meals a day unless ur a serious body builder, which u will need 8! haha and protein every meal...about 1.8-2g/kg of your bodyweight for hypertrophy. u know, i did weights for half a year too and unfortunately i had to stop due to some changes which aren't exactly good. but im still planning to recommence my regime, even though i shouldn't be...

 

[B l e h.]

hrmmm, apparently It's already genetically determined. =[ Wide, close, flyes, cables etc ain't gonna help. Your pecs are the shape that they are. You can only make them bigger in that shape and you can't target one edge of it (or any other muscle). You can place emphasis in a head but thats as good as it gets, and since pec major only has 2 heads, you can either hit one (lower: sternal) or the other (upper: clavicular). Even then, both will fire to some extent.

ahh well, hope my pecs turn out aiight as opposed to tom cruise's

 

[ND]

6 small meals a day unless ur a serious body builder, which u will need 8! haha and protein every meal...about 1.8-2g/kg of your bodyweight for hypertrophy. u know, i did weights for half a year too and unfortunately i had to stop due to some changes which aren't exactly good. but im still planning to recommence my regime, even though i shouldn't be...

Yeh when i first started i was eating 6 a day, but i soon went to 5. Bring on the tinned tuna. *gag*

 

[|Axis_]

Btw, |Axis_, that's complete and utter bullshit. The visibility of a muscle (read: tone) is dependent on how much fat you have over it.

as you said, it's "dependant on how much fat you have over it". the less fat, the more visible the muscle is. what part of what i said didnt make sense / offended you??

i'm quite sure if i ripped off all of someone's skin and fat, i would VERY EASILY SEE THE PERSON'S MUSCLES.

maybe my message wasnt clear -

FAST AEROBIC EXERCISES HELP BURN OFF FAT IN BETWEEN MUSCLES SO THAT INDIVIDUAL MUSCLES SEEM DISTINCT, OR SO THAT FAT COVERING THE MUSCLES SEEM TO FOLLOW THE SHAPE OF YOUR MUSCLE.

but u could still be thin and "toned" if u eat little. to bulk up, take an increased amount of carbs and use heavy weights so that individual muscles increase in size.

dont say this is nonsense unless you have proof that this does not work for ANY person on this earth.

 

[Cyph]

|Axis_, a lot of people seem to think lower weight and high reps will magically make their muscles visible... they don't know that nutrition is probably the single most important thing for losing fat.

And, what good is getting ripped if you don't have any muscle underneath from lifting big, heavy weights?

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one way to lift... and that's HEAVY! Look at powerlifters, very few reps but they lift big weights and they have physiques more impressive than body builders IMO. with body builders, nobody comes close to Ronnie Coleman and he is another person who lifts HEAVY.

Look at marathon runners and sprinters - the way they train and their resulting physiques.

 

[ND]

Axis, the problem is with this statement:

light weights, fast, many reps = tone & distinction

Are you saying that you're doing this as cardio? (which is what i think you were implying in your last post) Doing high rep sets with low weights as cardio would be completely pointless, it wouldn't use nearly as much energy as even running. Try HIIT.

 

[Cyph]

Hey ND,

what's your routine like?

Maybe I'll start a thread.

 

[mr_speedy]

yeah it is genetics, but also doing flat, incline, and decline work different areas of your pecs. decline works lower, while incline works upper.

 

[B l e h.]

yeah it is genetics, but also doing flat, incline, and decline work different areas of your pecs. decline works lower, while incline works upper.

heh yep, i'll just stick to those