Your thoughts...Can a muscle be shaped?

[iron asylum]

I was in the gym today listening to a gym trainer ( I call them red shirts) talking to a newbie about training. I always here about "shaping exercises" and I have to say I don't believe in them. I don't believe you can actually shape your muscle with exercise movements. You can make it bigger or you can knock off the training and make it smaller but you cannot change your gentic shape of it. I don't know why I'm posting this up here...It just hit me to do so because it's friday night and I'm bored. For instance you can't really give yourself a better peak on your bicep can you unless you have a natural peak in your bicep. You can just make it bigger. Whatever your muscle genetics are..that's what they are. Anyone agree or disagree?

 

[ScMc]

I agree. You can train different heads of a muscle but muscle shape has everything to do with genetics.

 

[jcap28]

when they say that, i think they are talking about getting more definition (losing bfat) so i guess isolation movements with higher reps would be "shaping" exercises

 

[azul]

when they say that, i think they are talking about getting more definition (losing bfat) so i guess isolation movements with higher reps would be "shaping" exercises

Not even. What is it about higher reps that make you lose bodyfat? Nothing...

How your muscles look depend on their size, the amount of bodyfat you have, and surrounding muscles (as in, small triceps might make large biceps look even larger).

 

[ScMc]

nice sig azul. I like your style bro. You make me want to fuck a bitch

 

[Nelson Montana]

Yes and no. You're correct that a muscle shape is determined by genetics. We've all been told that concentration curls build peak and barbell curls build mass and that's bullshit. It's the muscle doing the same thing under resistance. You can't make a muscle look different with a specific movement. They only contract.

However...

You can mold muscles in different ways. In other words, if you do only bench presses you can wind up with "bunchy" pecs but that doesn't mean you have a genetic disposition for it or it can't be overcome with training the chest from certain angles.

They say pullovers don't really expand the ribcage but they sure do give a nice upper body stretch which effects posture and stature.

Presses behind the neck get a bad rap for being hard on the shoulders but they too force the muscles to work in a way that gives a "widening" illusion.

Preacher curls don;t really develop the lower bicep, they just fail to hit the entire bicep since they're essentially a "half" curl.

So a muscles shape is a muscles shape, but the way you train can make a difference on your over-all appearance.

What irritates me most about "trainers" is this notion of hitting the "stabilizer muscles." Now THAT is a bunch of horseshit. They have people standing on beachballs and what not. It's utter nonsense.

 

[goin on 4T]

Yeah I have to agree with Azul, I have always been big but never had shape to my muscles the reason is I wasn't eating right and working out right. High reps and loosing body fat will bring out shape then training the muscles to bring out the peaks, veins and strations is more for a serious BBer. Now I would say that proBBers have a greater degree of genetic ability to grow proportionately.

 

[REFORMATA]

Nelson: I concur with your post, amost in its entirety.

I would like to challenge you to take all your seated and or supine, as well as prone position exercises, and subtract the bench, replace it with a ball.

I am wondering if this is the method you were referring to as "horseshit", as this, as well as other balance and core-activating exercises are absolutely amazing for competitive athletes. Stabilizer muscles are just as important, if not more important to individual development as prime movers.

Take your rotator cuff, for instance. An underdeveloped rotator cuff is highly prone to serious injury, I actually know this from first hand experience. This is where specific rotator cuff exercises, as well as stabilizer muscle-recruiting lifts come in handy.

This is especially imporant for a very underdeveloped individual, who has much enthusiasm for lifting weighta and wishes to do so, injury free.

And to the original poster..I believe, and this is just my take on it, that your "red-shirted individual" was speaking about hypertrophy causing exercises. I.e., high rep, low weight, so that; one may preform the exercise with intense accuracy and form, and create a high pump that fully fills the activated muscle group..which in turn does two things: teaches that specific muscle group how to properly "flex", not just create force. As well as actually stretch the fascia encasing the muscle fibers...

Again, I agree with nelson. A muscle is a muscle, which does one thing:contract. The only deciding factor when it comes to movement is partial or full range of motion.


Good day to you gents.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Nelson: I concur with your post, amost in its entirety.

I would like to challenge you to take all your seated and or supine, as well as prone position exercises, and subtract the bench, replace it with a ball.

I am wondering if this is the method you were referring to as "horseshit", as this, as well as other balance and core-activating exercises are absolutely amazing for competitive athletes. Stabilizer muscles are just as important, if not more important to individual development as prime movers.

Take your rotator cuff, for instance. An underdeveloped rotator cuff is highly prone to serious injury, I actually know this from first hand experience. This is where specific rotator cuff exercises, as well as stabilizer muscle-recruiting lifts come in handy.

This is especially imporant for a very underdeveloped individual, who has much enthusiasm for lifting weighta and wishes to do so, injury free.
Good day to you gents.

Seperate issue bro. If you want to develop balance, you do balancing exercises. That has nothing to do with muscle growth. And for most people that type of training is just an injury waiting to happen. What's the point of some 45 year old 150 pound housewife doing presses while sitting , or standing, on a ball?

And stabilizers work naturally with the movement of a muscle. You can't just work a stabilizer alone. Now are there movements that aren't bodybuilding exercises that help a specific athletic endeavor? Of course, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[REFORMATA]

I think the point I was attempting to make was that some exercises do not activate as many muscle groupings as they could, if body positioning was changed.

And, good sir..I would humbly tell you that there are NUMEROUS benefits to your analogy of a 45 yr old woman doing seated presses on a balance ball. A few being: core strength, improved pelvic and spinal posturing, as well as the stabilizer muscles we discussed..

The balance issue, I agree, is indeed a seperate issue. I am not speaking about gymnastics here, just forcing your body to balance freeweight V.S using steel equiptment which forces your body into the correct posture. HOWEVER this type of equipment is IDEAL for certain individuals and their specific goals.

Woah....how on earth did we go from muscle shaping to stabilizer activities?

haha, now back to my hazelnut coffee...mmm....