Bob Cicherillo's Advice on Form

Bob Cicherillo makes two points I found interesting, not having heard
them before -- true?

1) to work "outside" of a muscle (say, pecs), adopt close grip; to
work "inside" of a muscle, use wide grip

2) when curling dumbbells, wrist should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
-- otherwise, it's mostly forearms


As regards Point One, I've always thought the opposite true; for
example, I feel the inner pecs more with a close grip!

Concerning Point Two: I do seem to feel my biceps more with a so-
called flat wrist! Anyone else?

Also, what was the deal with Arnold's advice on having one's pinkies/
little fingers higher than one's thumbs when doing something like
curls or lateral raises?? I don't seem to feel any difference.

Prisoner at War wrote:
> Bob Cicherillo <snip> true?

-=snip 1) as I have no opinion=-

> 2) when curling dumbbells, wrist
> should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
> <snip>otherwise, it's mostly forearms

-=snip 1) again=-

> <snip> I do seem to feel my
> biceps more with a so-called
> flat wrist! Anyone else?

(raises hand)

> Also, what was the deal with
> Arnold's advice on having one's
> pinkies/little fingers higher than
> one's thumbs when doing
> something like curls or

(raises hand with pinky held higher)

I'd say the "sc-called flat wrist" and "pinkies/little fingers higher
than one's thumbs" advice is basically the same thing with the same
result: greater supination and therefore involvement of the biceps.

> lateral raises?? I don't seem
> to feel any difference.

Stand in front of the mirror. Even someone with shoulders as narrow as
mine, I suspect, can feel as well as see a greater contraction in
their delts with the "little fingers higher than one's thumbs" than
without.

Two cents and all.

--
Curt

On May 22, 4:54 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob Cicherillo makes two points I found interesting, not having heard
> them before -- true?

after i saw all the ads after he won the masters-whatever last year, i
took a look back in my magazine archive and found a profile of him in
the late 80's where he was a new guy to watch out for. odd that i'd
never actually hear of him 'til 2006, though.

> 1) to work "outside" of a muscle (say, pecs), adopt close grip; to
> work "inside" of a muscle, use wide grip

this concept is something that many in the iron game consider a myth.

> 2) when curling dumbbells, wrist should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
> -- otherwise, it's mostly forearms

dumbbell curls are performed mostly with the forearms if your wrists
aren't "flat." doubtful. supinated or pronated, curling a dumbbell
depends on biceps strength.

> Also, what was the deal with Arnold's advice on having one's pinkies/
> little fingers higher than one's thumbs when doing something like
> curls or lateral raises?? I don't seem to feel any difference.

arnold had some strange advice for adding 'peak' to the biceps...

In news:1179935159.262679.210250@w5g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com,
kcmunchkin@gmail.com <kcmunchkin@gmail.com> typed:
> On May 22, 4:54 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Cicherillo makes two points I found interesting, not having heard
>> them before -- true?
>
> after i saw all the ads after he won the masters-whatever last year, i
> took a look back in my magazine archive and found a profile of him in
> the late 80's where he was a new guy to watch out for. odd that i'd
> never actually hear of him 'til 2006, though.
>
>> 1) to work "outside" of a muscle (say, pecs), adopt close grip; to
>> work "inside" of a muscle, use wide grip
>
> this concept is something that many in the iron game consider a myth.
>
>> 2) when curling dumbbells, wrist should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
>> -- otherwise, it's mostly forearms
>
> dumbbell curls are performed mostly with the forearms if your wrists
> aren't "flat." doubtful. supinated or pronated, curling a dumbbell
> depends on biceps strength.
>
>> Also, what was the deal with Arnold's advice on having one's pinkies/
>> little fingers higher than one's thumbs when doing something like
>> curls or lateral raises?? I don't seem to feel any difference.
>
> arnold had some strange advice for adding 'peak' to the biceps...

Dianabol.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

On May 22, 3:54 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob Cicherillo makes two points I found interesting, not having heard
> them before -- true?
>
> 1) to work "outside" of a muscle (say, pecs), adopt close grip; to
> work "inside" of a muscle, use wide grip
>
> 2) when curling dumbbells, wrist should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
> -- otherwise, it's mostly forearms

I'd say he's wrong on this. I do know that he's against using a
straight bar on many exercises, due to possible problems with the
wrist. I personally have never had a problem with using a flat bar
for curls or any other exercises, but I do use the EZ bar occasionally
for curls. I personally feel most trainees do too many sets for
biceps, and many don't even bother doing them (at least some of the
time) with any supination. And then they wonder why their biceps
aren't growing.

Ken

kcmunchkin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179935159.262679.210250@w5g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On May 22, 4:54 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Cicherillo makes two points I found interesting, not having heard
>> them before -- true?
>
> after i saw all the ads after he won the masters-whatever last year, i
> took a look back in my magazine archive and found a profile of him in
> the late 80's where he was a new guy to watch out for. odd that i'd
> never actually hear of him 'til 2006, though.
>
>> 1) to work "outside" of a muscle (say, pecs), adopt close grip; to
>> work "inside" of a muscle, use wide grip
>
> this concept is something that many in the iron game consider a myth.
>
>> 2) when curling dumbbells, wrist should be "flat" to emphasize biceps
>> -- otherwise, it's mostly forearms
>
> dumbbell curls are performed mostly with the forearms if your wrists
> aren't "flat." doubtful. supinated or pronated, curling a dumbbell
> depends on biceps strength.
>
>> Also, what was the deal with Arnold's advice on having one's pinkies/
>> little fingers higher than one's thumbs when doing something like
>> curls or lateral raises?? I don't seem to feel any difference.
>
> arnold had some strange advice for adding 'peak' to the biceps...
>
>

The LAST person to get advice from on bodyparts is someone who has a great
bodypart. Arnold would be the last guy to get advice from regarding biceps
training as he was a genetic freak. Arnold would have had that peak on his
biceps is all he ever did were straight barbell curls. I would not ask
Dorian Yates about calf training, but I would ask him about his biceps
training as his arms made progress and he did not have the greatest genetics
for arms. People have to realize that they can NOT change the shape of their
muscles. They were born with certain insertions, muscle bellies etc. I used
to see guys who would do hack squats for hours thinking it would give their
thighs an outer sweep. You are either born with a sweep or you aren't.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Yes the pinkie higher then the thumb thing is effective in hitting the
posterior delts. With my delt structure this exercise seemed
natural.. And perhaps arnold was somehow correct with some exercises
he advised, but, well, maybe not everything. I often see some
bodybuilders sway or jerk the weight which makes me think, "are these
guys for real, with those techinique would they really grow some
quality muscles?" Somehow, i give much credit to us, gym rats, for
breaking our molds, with or without drugs, trained with much knowledge
than some other freaks in the pro division who know less.

I'd rather be a gym rat, than a corporate rat..
-musclehedz

A clarification on my would-be clarification: it's not a "pronated
grip" either, exactly, that Cicherillo advises...if anything, it looks
more like a "bent" wrist instead of a flat one, as he calls
it...you're supposed to curl with your wrist bent (at an angle), as if
pronated backwards -- as if someone's doing some karate thing on your
wrist, bending it backwards...that's the kind of grip he advises for
curls!


On May 23, 9:24 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I should clarify: what Cicherillo means by a "flat wrist"
> seems to be pronation, not supination! (Pronation is when your fist,
> when pumping your biceps, is facing away from you -- right?)
> Unfortunate word choice on his part, but that's what he appears to
> mean by the term.
>
> <SNIP>

On May 23, 4:04 pm, Ken <Omaha8_Be...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd say he's wrong on this. I do know that he's against using a
> straight bar on many exercises, due to possible problems with the
> wrist. I personally have never had a problem with using a flat bar
> for curls or any other exercises, but I do use the EZ bar occasionally
> for curls. I personally feel most trainees do too many sets for
> biceps, and many don't even bother doing them (at least some of the
> time) with any supination. And then they wonder why their biceps
> aren't growing.
>
> Ken


Funny...supination on curls feels like cheating to me...I typically
wind up doing it on my very last reps, when the muscles really
exhausted and without thinking I naturally "curl" my wrists
(supination) which, at a certain angle -- past the sticking point of
the movement -- seems to really help me complete the rep, insofar as
the weight's now moving itself....

On May 23, 6:54 pm, ThE ViRuS <sweet_rusk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes the pinkie higher then the thumb thing is effective in hitting the
> posterior delts. With my delt structure this exercise seemed
> natural.. And perhaps arnold was somehow correct with some exercises
> he advised, but, well, maybe not everything. I often see some
> bodybuilders sway or jerk the weight which makes me think, "are these
> guys for real, with those techinique would they really grow some
> quality muscles?" Somehow, i give much credit to us, gym rats, for
> breaking our molds, with or without drugs, trained with much knowledge
> than some other freaks in the pro division who know less.

Actually, Arnold advises that it's okay to cheat -- most recently in
Muscle Mag International's March issue of this year -- using body
motion and momentum, only to do it carefully and consciously,
intelligently, with a specific goal in mind (kinda like the notion of
forced reps when you have a spotter). Certainly you saw all the pros
in "Pumping Iron" doing just that many times.

> I'd rather be a gym rat, than a corporate rat..
> -musclehedz

Is that something? I agree with that. I would love to be a personal
trainer. I could, I believe. But I don't like the hustling for
clients stuff. Too much like sales to me -- and I've done sales,
years of sales, and I'm sick of sales.

On May 24, 12:06 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Funny...supination on curls feels like cheating to me...I typically
> wind up doing it on my very last reps, when the muscles really
> exhausted and without thinking I naturally "curl" my wrists
> (supination) which, at a certain angle...

supination of the hand at the wrist-joint actually means that you're
moving your thumb (if it's the right hand) in a clockwise direction.
like if you stuck out your thumb like you're hitchhiking and then turn
it to 3 o'clock.

curling up at your wrists like a wrist curl? that's something
else...don't know what to call it.

On May 24, 3:52 pm, "kcmunch...@gmail.com" <kcmunch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> supination of the hand at the wrist-joint actually means that you're
> moving your thumb (if it's the right hand) in a clockwise direction.
> like if you stuck out your thumb like you're hitchhiking and then turn
> it to 3 o'clock.
>
> curling up at your wrists like a wrist curl? that's something
> else...don't know what to call it.


Pronation is when, if making a fist while pumping your biceps, your
fist faces away from the biceps, right? And supination is when the
fist is facing towards the biceps...so when I have a supinated grip
while doing curls, at a certain point the weight helps to moves
itself....

Oh, BTW, I should mention that I'm talking about inclined curls, not
concentration curls or those done standing up -- perhaps that makes a
difference....

On May 23, 11:06 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 23, 4:04 pm, Ken <Omaha8_Be...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd say he's wrong on this. I do know that he's against using a
> > straight bar on many exercises, due to possible problems with the
> > wrist. I personally have never had a problem with using a flat bar
> > for curls or any other exercises, but I do use the EZ bar occasionally
> > for curls. I personally feel most trainees do too many sets for
> > biceps, and many don't even bother doing them (at least some of the
> > time) with any supination. And then they wonder why their biceps
> > aren't growing.
>
> > Ken
>
> Funny...supination on curls feels like cheating to me...I typically
> wind up doing it on my very last reps, when the muscles really
> exhausted and without thinking I naturally "curl" my wrists
> (supination) which, at a certain angle -- past the sticking point of
> the movement -- seems to really help me complete the rep, insofar as
> the weight's now moving itself....

By supination, I not only mean rotating the palm as in dumbbell curls,
but also doing barbell curls with a straight bar with your hands
already in this position. I've seen many weightlifters always do
barbell curls (and preacher curls) with an EZ bar and I think they are
missing out on some biceps stimulation if they NEVER use a straight
bar for curls.

Ken

On May 24, 4:21 pm, Ken <Omaha8_Be...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> By supination, I not only mean rotating the palm as in dumbbell curls,
> but also doing barbell curls with a straight bar with your hands
> already in this position. I've seen many weightlifters always do
> barbell curls (and preacher curls) with an EZ bar and I think they are
> missing out on some biceps stimulation if they NEVER use a straight
> bar for curls.
>
> Ken



Well, Cicherillo claims that them tender elbows come from using
straight bars. I do agree with him that the EZ curl hand position is
much more natural and thus probably more efficient.

Hope I'm not missing anything by only doing dumbbell incline curls!
That's all the biceps I do these days. I've done other exercises like
preacher curls, concentration curls, standing curls, etc., but they
all feel the same to me, in terms of muscle action, so I do incline
curls 'cause it's the most comfortable.

On May 24, 4:21 pm, Ken <Omaha8_Be...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> By supination, I not only mean rotating the palm as in dumbbell curls,
> but also doing barbell curls with a straight bar with your hands
> already in this position. I've seen many weightlifters always do
> barbell curls (and preacher curls) with an EZ bar and I think they are
> missing out on some biceps stimulation if they NEVER use a straight
> bar for curls.
>
> Ken

maybe.

it is true that straight bar curls do hurt my elbows after a while.

it's also true that some people have latched onto the concept of "full
range" training...in that ez bar curls do not allow for full
supination of the wrists...but, how much are you really losing out
on? considering that a full range curl with the biceps being in full
contracted position woul be with your elbow above your head and your
pinky touching your back.

barbell curls. dumbbell curls. machine curls (on a decent machine).
all good.

Robert Sc(huh?) wrote:
[...]

> The LAST person to get advice from
> on bodyparts is someone who has a
> great bodypart.

That's an absurd exaggeration.

> Arnold would be the last guy to get
> advice from regarding biceps training
> as he was a genetic freak.

A genetic freak with ONE peak.

http://ironage.us/articles/images/bi...arnold-edu.jpg

He's a bodybuilding legend and, yes, a genetic freak, god, what have
you, but there's a reason he emphasized his right peak. I snipped the
part where 'bert offers the truism that you can't change muscle shape.
Arnold's inability to achieve symmetry wrt his biceps is testimony to
that, imo. I mean if Ahnuld can't get it right then what hope is there
for lesser mortals?

--
Curt

"Bully" <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> arnold had some strange advice for adding 'peak' to the biceps...

> Dianabol.

And this is more true than many people will admit.

You can only have a peak when muscles are forced to grow to the max.

I witnessed the same in muscles like trapezius, brachialis/brachioradialis
and the teres muscles;

No matter how hard i trained, these muscles seemed "stubburn."'

They grew after a good AS cycle.

--
Pete

"ThE ViRuS" <sweet_rusky29@hotmail.com> schreef:

> Yes the pinkie higher then the thumb thing is effective in hitting the
> posterior delts.

I think doing laterals that way will only fuck up the shoulder joint.
Because the pink is raised higher than the thumb, the humerus is rotated in
a very weird way...

Trust me.

If you want to hit the post-delts, use the peck fly and sit reverse, or the
low wheels on the cable cross-overs.

With dumbells, the resistance curve is going to result in more trap than
delt action.

> with my delt structure this exercise seemed
> natural..

Some of the younger guys in my gym ask me what i do for rear delts. I told
them nothing.
Then they see me pound away at the front press machine, and ask why i only
work front delts.

I dont, i say...

>And perhaps arnold was somehow correct with some exercises
> he advised, but, well, maybe not everything. I often see some
> bodybuilders sway or jerk the weight which makes me think, "are these
> guys for real, with those techinique would they really grow some
> quality muscles?"

Whats a quality muscle?

--
Pete

On May 26, 5:36 am, "Pete" <phouts...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>
> I think doing laterals that way will only fuck up the shoulder joint.
> Because the pink is raised higher than the thumb, the humerus is rotated in
> a very weird way...
>
> Trust me.
>
> If you want to hit the post-delts, use the peck fly and sit reverse, or the
> low wheels on the cable cross-overs.
>
> With dumbells, the resistance curve is going to result in more trap than
> delt action.

Interesting! I too seem to notice much more trap actions than rear
delt work. But, though I had my initial misgivings about the bent-
over lateral raise -- including a strained neck for two days! -- it's
seems to be coming along fine now. It's does for me ~45% of what a
deadlift does for me: really gets my heart pumping and I feel most
muscles working.

I love the reverse pec deck flyes, too. Haven't done much cable
machines; probably next year, when I get bored of this year's
routines!

> Some of the younger guys in my gym ask me what i do for rear delts. I told
> them nothing.
> Then they see me pound away at the front press machine, and ask why i only
> work front delts.
>
> I dont, i say...

Funny you mention front presses...those are notorious for harming the
shoulder! You did say "machine," though, so I guess maybe that
eliminates the dangerous spots...I'll have to look into it myself I
guess. I'm just too in love with the "romance," the bravado of free
weights....

> Whats a quality muscle?

He probably means one that works as well as it looks -- i.e., true
strength, as opposed to mere water-infused hypertrophy.

> --
> Pete

On May 25, 5:12 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A genetic freak with ONE peak.
>
> http://ironage.us/articles/images/bi...arnold-edu.jpg
>
> He's a bodybuilding legend and, yes, a genetic freak, god, what have
> you, but there's a reason he emphasized his right peak. I snipped the
> part where 'bert offers the truism that you can't change muscle shape.
> Arnold's inability to achieve symmetry wrt his biceps is testimony to
> that, imo. I mean if Ahnuld can't get it right then what hope is there
> for lesser mortals?
>
> --
> Curt



Well, there's never perfect symmetry between corresponding body
parts. For example, most women have differently sized breasts!

But I've seen Arnold's double-biceps shots...they seems identical
enough to me....

Anyway, bodybuilding is, as Bob Cicherillo notes, about illusion,
appearance. And that's why I stress enjoyment rather than
results...results are preordained; enjoyment is all your own.

On May 26, 11:02 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Anyway, bodybuilding is, as Bob Cicherillo notes, about illusion,
> appearance. And that's why I stress enjoyment rather than
> results...results are preordained; enjoyment is all your own.

vince gironda was mr. illusion himself. he was maybe 170 lbs...and
looked about 170 soaking wet. odd considering that he suggested
consuming massive amounts of fertilized eggs and raw milk per day.
maybe he never got that big 'cause he was hell-bent against squats.

he rambled on and on about the "illusion" of the body. contrast that
with someone like jim quinn who told the tiny audience i was
in...during a twinlab junket in '94...that he just wanted to get on
stage, do a most muscular pose, and see who was the biggest. jim
quinn is enormous in person. major endomorph genetics.

i blame gironda for perpetuating a lot of nutritional nonsense that
continues to live on in the bodybuilding circles of today...gironda
was the king of concepts that time forgot.

as for results being "preordained"...not true. while your genetics in
some ways limit your strength or size growth, most people are nowhere
near their genetic limitations and would literally shock everyone
around them if they started on a sane lifting routine and actually
grew to their capability.

Prisoner at War wrote:
> Pete wrote:
[...]

> > Whats a quality muscle?

There's a multiple choice question if I ever saw one!

Which muscle do you want?
[] a. fluffy muscle
[] b. quality muscle
[] c. fast-twitch muscle
[] d. slow-twitch muscle

> He probably means one that
> works as well as it looks
> i.e., true strength, as opposed
> to mere water-infused hypertrophy.

There's a lot to be said for water-infused hypertrophy, though. Or
histamine-induced? I'm almost certain I mentioned my allergy shot-
induced triceps previously.

While I was working at GNC during my first spin through college, a
customer commented on my arms. For a split second I basked in the "Hey-
Mister-Muscle-Man!" glory that Ahnuld and, yeah, Schuh probably had to
deal with frequently and then confessed that my noticeable jump in arm
size was an allegic reaction to an allergy shot in each arm.

So bring on the water-infusion, right?

In other trivia (or "dribbel" according to E?), I was Googling and
found this:

"ORIGIN Latin musculus, diminutive of mus 'mouse' (some muscles being
thought to be mouse-like in form)."

See:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/muscle

Perhaps the creator of Mighty Mouse was a Latin major looking for
work?

Screams towards Robert Schuh's kill file:

HEY, 'BERT, WHAT WAS THAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT HOW LOW THIS NEWSGROUP
HAS FALLEN? COME ON! THIS IS PUBMED-QUALITY SCHTUFFF, MAN! /kf scream

--
Curt

kcmunchkin wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:

> > Anyway, bodybuilding is,
> > as Bob Cicherillo notes, about
> > illusion, appearance. And that's
> > why I stress enjoyment rather than
> > results...results are preordained;
> > enjoyment is all your own.
>
> vince gironda was mr. illusion himself.
> he was maybe 170 lbs...and
> looked about 170 soaking wet. odd
> considering that he suggested
> consuming massive amounts of
> fertilized eggs and raw milk per day.

Didn't he also recommend a billion dessicated liver tabs per day?

> maybe he never got that big 'cause
> he was hell-bent against squats.

heh )

I know you're familiar with the term turnip thighs if you've read any
of Vince's articles.

> he rambled on and on about the
> "illusion" of the body.

King of the twisting pose, iirc. He'd stand to the side and then twist
his shoulders to face the camera to create that greater illusion of
tiny waist versus broad shoulders.

I wonder if he created the imaginary-lats walk. I'm guilty of that.
When I first started lifting, high on muscle magazines and lat spreads
pics, I could be found walking the halls of junior high sporting the
gunslinger look - hands hip level but held out about a foot to each
side as if to say "Draw, pardner!" while imitating the look (if
nowhere near the muscle) of a '70s Schwarzenegger.

> contrast that with someone
> like jim quinn who told the tiny
> audience i was in...during a
> twinlab

I'd just like to say that chocolate Gainer's Fuel was the BOMB in the
late '80s! /gnc fanboy exclamation

> junket in '94...that he just
> wanted to get on stage, do a
> most muscular pose, and see
> who was the biggest. jim
> quinn is enormous in person.
> major endomorph genetics.

He was a beast. Whatever happened to him - another Google destination!
Thanks.

Don Ross had an article in one of the mags about doing the opposite of
what most bodybuilding authors were recommending. He directed his
readers to take a few weeks and follow a routine with their strong
points as the focus. Stating that symmetry wasn't the be all and end
all and to just take your good parts and go for it. That advice
would've probably made Gironda pull his hair out.

Iirc, Ross graciously sent me a postcard the one time about the Arnold
Classic. Hey, I may have this wrong, but I remember (a tricky thing at
best) that a woman was complaining about the cheering going on -
probably my cheering, actually - and I passed that on to Ross in a fan
letter. He replied, something like "Go ahead and cheer - bodybuilding
ain't golf!"

Rest in peace, Ripper.

> i blame gironda for perpetuating
> a lot of nutritional nonsense that
> continues to live on in the bodybuilding
> circles of today...gironda was the
> king of concepts that time forgot.

That's a humour nom, imo. The king of concepts that time forgot. )

> as for results being "preordained"...
> not true. while your genetics in
> some ways limit your strength or
> size growth, most people are nowhere
> near their genetic limitations and
> would literally shock everyone
> around them if they started on
> a sane lifting routine and actually
> grew to their capability.

I love it when you channel Darden. Wait, he's still alive. So what's
the word I'm looking for? Regardless, a drink chip is waiting for you
at the MFW juice bar, kc. Great reading.

--
Curt

Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:4657ff96$0$69154$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Bully" <bully62@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> arnold had some strange advice for adding 'peak' to the biceps...
>
>> Dianabol.
>
> And this is more true than many people will admit.
>
> You can only have a peak when muscles are forced to grow to the max.

That is far from the truth Pete. I have seen many guys whom have never seen
a steroid who have a nicely peaked biceps. Muscle shape is all genetic. We
can make our muscles larger, but we can't change the shape. The same is true
for an outer thigh sweep, great calves etc.


>
> I witnessed the same in muscles like trapezius, brachialis/brachioradialis
> and the teres muscles;
>
> No matter how hard i trained, these muscles seemed "stubburn."'
>
> They grew after a good AS cycle.
>
> --
> Pete
>

Pete,
Do you honestly believe this? You are not going to get specific muscles to
grow any more from using AS that you would naturally. All of your muscles
will grow unless you specifically don't train a muscle group. I have seen
guys who have genetically huge legs and smaller upper bodies balance
themselves out by working their upper bodies very hard and just trying to
maintain their legs, but I have never seen anyone change the shape of their
muscle bellies. If we could change the shape of our muscles, there would not
be so many ugly fucking bodies out there. You have to work with what you
were born with.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:4657ff96$1$69154$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "ThE ViRuS" <sweet_rusky29@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>> Yes the pinkie higher then the thumb thing is effective in hitting the
>> posterior delts.
>
> I think doing laterals that way will only fuck up the shoulder joint.
> Because the pink is raised higher than the thumb, the humerus is rotated
> in a very weird way...
>
> Trust me.
>
> If you want to hit the post-delts, use the peck fly and sit reverse, or
> the low wheels on the cable cross-overs.
>
> With dumbells, the resistance curve is going to result in more trap than
> delt action.
>
>> with my delt structure this exercise seemed
>> natural..
>
> Some of the younger guys in my gym ask me what i do for rear delts. I told
> them nothing.
> Then they see me pound away at the front press machine, and ask why i only
> work front delts.
>
> I dont, i say...
>
>>And perhaps arnold was somehow correct with some exercises
>> he advised, but, well, maybe not everything. I often see some
>> bodybuilders sway or jerk the weight which makes me think, "are these
>> guys for real, with those techinique would they really grow some
>> quality muscles?"
>
> Whats a quality muscle?
>
> --
> Pete
>

I have never understood why so many people waste their time with front
laterals. The front delts get so much work from chest exercises that there
is really no need for direct work. The rear delts are best worked with the
reverse peck deck things like you suggested, bent over laterals and lat pull
downs to the rear with a wide grip, light weight with you leaning FAR
forward and squeezing the hell out of the rear delts, rhomboids etc. That
specific exercise makes a big difference, but 99% of everyone uses too much
weight and not enough concentration.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> schreef:

>> You can only have a peak when muscles are forced to grow to the max.

> That is far from the truth Pete.

I dont think so.

A muscle is fixed between two joints, right?

As its size increases, so will its shape. The muscle doesnt get bigger in
all dimensions, it gets larger in certain directions much more so than
others.

You cant have a peak on 16 inch arms.

Of course, we both agree that shape is genetically determined, but you have
to let the muscle grow to the fullest to see what shape it will get.

Arnold didnt have a peak in his younger years, when his arms were not maxed
out.

> I have seen many guys whom have never seen a steroid who have a nicely
> peaked biceps. Muscle shape is all genetic.

We agree on this.

But i am convinced that people with the genetics to get peaked muscles will
get much bigger peaks on steroids. The muscles are bigger. And a peaked
musle that gets bigger gets a bigger peak.

>We can make our muscles larger, but we can't change the shape. The same is
>true for an outer thigh sweep, great calves etc.

Exactly.

But shape will change as a muscle grows, so steroids DO have an impact on
shape. And a dramatic one at that.

> Pete, Do you honestly believe this?

It is what i witnessed. Also in others, especially the brachioradialis.

Pro BBers often have huge brachii, even withoout specific exercises. Just
like the neck.

Ever wondered why that neck got bigger on AS, even without targeting it?

> You are not going to get specific muscles to grow any more from using AS
> that you would naturally.

I witnessed the aforementioned by myself.

Some muscles were getting somewhat bigger, others got a large bigger on my
last cycle (keep in mind that it was a pretty big cycle, and that i was 270
at the beginning of the cycle)

>All of your muscles will grow unless you specifically don't train a muscle
>group. I have seen guys who have genetically huge legs and smaller upper
>bodies balance themselves out by working their upper bodies very hard and
>just trying to maintain their legs, but I have never seen anyone change the
>shape of their muscle bellies.

Again, i agree with this. But if you are a natural, and lets say,
hypothetically speaking, all muscles are evenly developed. A 200 pound guy.
He blows himself up to 300 pounds.

I am willing to bet that certain muscles grow 40%, while others closer to
70.

> If we could change the shape of our muscles, there would not be so many
> ugly fucking bodies out there. You have to work with what you were born
> with.

Yes, but AS will change your appearance, because you get bigger.

And i really am convinced that if you get 50% bigger overall, some muscles
have grown 60% while others 40.

Some women have solid developed quads, hams, glutes anb calves. But not much
muscle in the upper body. When they start a cycle, the legs often get
somewhat bigger, but the upper body changes dramatically.

You never witnessed that?

--
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:46593477$0$49435$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> schreef:
>
>>> You can only have a peak when muscles are forced to grow to the max.
>
>> That is far from the truth Pete.
>
> I dont think so.
>
> A muscle is fixed between two joints, right?
>
> As its size increases, so will its shape. The muscle doesnt get bigger in
> all dimensions, it gets larger in certain directions much more so than
> others.
>
> You cant have a peak on 16 inch arms.

Of course you can. I have seen a peaked biceps on 14" arms.

>
> Of course, we both agree that shape is genetically determined, but you
> have to let the muscle grow to the fullest to see what shape it will get.
>

That is bullshit.

> Arnold didnt have a peak in his younger years, when his arms were not
> maxed out.
>

What does Arnold have to do with anything?

>> I have seen many guys whom have never seen a steroid who have a nicely
>> peaked biceps. Muscle shape is all genetic.
>
> We agree on this.
>
> But i am convinced that people with the genetics to get peaked muscles
> will get much bigger peaks on steroids. The muscles are bigger. And a
> peaked musle that gets bigger gets a bigger peak.

You can still have a nice peak on smaller arms.


>
>>We can make our muscles larger, but we can't change the shape. The same
>>is true for an outer thigh sweep, great calves etc.
>
> Exactly.
>
> But shape will change as a muscle grows, so steroids DO have an impact on
> shape. And a dramatic one at that.
>
>> Pete, Do you honestly believe this?
>
> It is what i witnessed. Also in others, especially the brachioradialis.

What does that have to do with a peak?

>
> Pro BBers often have huge brachii, even withoout specific exercises. Just
> like the neck.

So what? You really need to think before you make these comments. Someone
who is a pro has better genetics overall than the average guy, so using a
pro to make your point is illogical. It would be like making basketball
comments using Michael Jordan as your model.

>
> Ever wondered why that neck got bigger on AS, even without targeting it?

No. The neck gets larger because of the traps etc. Once again, what does
that have to do with a peaked biceps?

>
>> You are not going to get specific muscles to grow any more from using AS
>> that you would naturally.
>
> I witnessed the aforementioned by myself.

I am sorry man, but you come up with some really ass backwards thoughts.


>
> Some muscles were getting somewhat bigger, others got a large bigger on my
> last cycle (keep in mind that it was a pretty big cycle, and that i was
> 270 at the beginning of the cycle)

Pete,
Do you realize that your supposed weight etc. has nothing to do with this
topic? What proof does anyone here have that you don't weigh 160?

>
>>All of your muscles will grow unless you specifically don't train a muscle
>>group. I have seen guys who have genetically huge legs and smaller upper
>>bodies balance themselves out by working their upper bodies very hard and
>>just trying to maintain their legs, but I have never seen anyone change
>>the shape of their muscle bellies.
>
> Again, i agree with this. But if you are a natural, and lets say,
> hypothetically speaking, all muscles are evenly developed. A 200 pound
> guy. He blows himself up to 300 pounds.
>
> I am willing to bet that certain muscles grow 40%, while others closer to
> 70.

That is one of THE most obsurd comments I have ever read. I am sorry man,
but your "experiance" is so limited that you can't even make a logical
statement sometimes.

>
>> If we could change the shape of our muscles, there would not be so many
>> ugly fucking bodies out there. You have to work with what you were born
>> with.
>
> Yes, but AS will change your appearance, because you get bigger.


So what? If you are bigger, you are bigger. Your shape does not change.

>
> And i really am convinced that if you get 50% bigger overall, some muscles
> have grown 60% while others 40.

I am glad that you are convinced. No one else is. THINK.

>
> Some women have solid developed quads, hams, glutes anb calves. But not
> much muscle in the upper body. When they start a cycle, the legs often get
> somewhat bigger, but the upper body changes dramatically.
>
> You never witnessed that?
>
> --
> Pete
>

Once again, what the fuck does that have to do with this? A women will grow
differently as she is introducing male hormones into her system. If you took
Estrogen, you would get larger tits. If a woman does so, she will not
respond the same. You need to stay on topic.



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> schreef:

>> As its size increases, so will its shape. The muscle doesnt get bigger in
>> all dimensions, it gets larger in certain directions much more so than
>> others.

>> You cant have a peak on 16 inch arms.

> Of course you can. I have seen a peaked biceps on 14" arms.

Okay.

>> Of course, we both agree that shape is genetically determined, but you
>> have to let the muscle grow to the fullest to see what shape it will get.

> That is bullshit.

What are you saying?

As a muscle grows the SHAPE does not change ?!?!?!

Are you SURE Robert?

>> Arnold didnt have a peak in his younger years, when his arms were not
>> maxed out.

> What does Arnold have to do with anything?

We were talking about bicep peaks. I used Arnold as an example. He DID have
an amazing peak in his right bicep, didnt he?

And are you saying that his peak was there, just as big in his younger years
as well?

>>> I have seen many guys whom have never seen a steroid who have a nicely
>>> peaked biceps. Muscle shape is all genetic.

>> We agree on this.

>> But i am convinced that people with the genetics to get peaked muscles
>> will get much bigger peaks on steroids. The muscles are bigger. And a
>> peaked musle that gets bigger gets a bigger peak.

> You can still have a nice peak on smaller arms.

And if the muscle increases in size, so will the peak. Or do we have ways
these days to pull the joints further apart ?!?!?!

>>> Pete, Do you honestly believe this?

>> It is what i witnessed. Also in others, especially the brachioradialis.

> What does that have to do with a peak?

Nothing.

>> Pro BBers often have huge brachii, even withoout specific exercises. Just
>> like the neck.

> So what? You really need to think before you make these comments.

Relax, Robert. I know what i am talking about.

> Someone who is a pro has better genetics overall than the average guy, so
> using a
> pro to make your point is illogical. It would be like making basketball
> comments using Michael Jordan as your model.

You miss my point...

>> Ever wondered why that neck got bigger on AS, even without targeting it?

> No. The neck gets larger because of the traps etc.

Excuse me?

Are you saying that testosterone injections will NOT increase the
circumference of the neck ?!?!?!

> Once again, what does
> that have to do with a peaked biceps?

Nothing.

>>> You are not going to get specific muscles to grow any more from using AS
>>> that you would naturally.

>> I witnessed the aforementioned by myself.

> I am sorry man, but you come up with some really ass backwards thoughts.

Backwards? Me? No, i dont think so.

Will you relax a bit? Do you really think that if you inject someone with a
gram of test, that all muscles get, lets say, 50% bigger, or that some
muscles get, lets say 70% bigger, while others just 30%?

Are YOU really sure, Robert? All muscles grow the same %? Are you sure
!?!?!?

>> Some muscles were getting somewhat bigger, others got a large bigger on
>> my last cycle (keep in mind that it was a pretty big cycle, and that i
>> was 270 at the beginning of the cycle)

> Pete, Do you realize that your supposed weight etc. has nothing to do
> with this
> topic?

You miss the point.

>What proof does anyone here have that you don't weigh 160?

Oh, here we go again...

What prooof do we have that i am male, from Amsterdam, Holland?

Perhaps i am a 12 year old girl.

>> I am willing to bet that certain muscles grow 40%, while others closer to
>> 70.

> That is one of THE most obsurd comments I have ever read. I am sorry man,
> but your "experiance" is so limited that you can't even make a logical
> statement sometimes.

You are WRONG, Robert. Some muscles just growq more so then others.

>>> If we could change the shape of our muscles, there would not be so many
>>> ugly fucking bodies out there. You have to work with what you were born
>>> with.

>> Yes, but AS will change your appearance, because you get bigger.

> So what? If you are bigger, you are bigger. Your shape does not change.

Are you fucking stupid ?!?!?!

The shape HAS to change, otherwise it CANNOT grow!

>> And i really am convinced that if you get 50% bigger overall, some
>> muscles have grown 60% while others 40.

> I am glad that you are convinced. No one else is. THINK.

Yeah, please DO!

>> Some women have solid developed quads, hams, glutes anb calves. But not
>> much muscle in the upper body. When they start a cycle, the legs often
>> get somewhat bigger, but the upper body changes dramatically.

>> You never witnessed that?

> Once again, what the fuck does that have to do with this? A women will
> grow differently as she is introducing male hormones into her system. If
> you took Estrogen, you would get larger tits. If a woman does so, she will
> not respond the same. You need to stay on topic.

Sure.

--
Pete

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> schreef:

>> Yes, but AS will change your appearance, because you get bigger.

> So what? If you are bigger, you are bigger. Your shape does not change.

Robert...

That has to be the most STUPID thing i heard here in a while!

ALL the joints are at a *fixed* distance from one another!

Even it a muscle only grows 10%, its shape HAS changed! Did you skip
geometry in high school ?!?!

--
Pete