New To Peat: Weightlifting?

[stevrd]

The general principle (as I understand it), is to first heal from the PUFA exposure and then later tweak macros and calories to get your desired result. Most people when they start Peating seem to have some metabolic dysfunction going on either from PUFA consumption, carb/calorie restriction or both. I liken it to the concept of “reverse dieting” in that we’re trying to stimulate (glucose) metabolism while minimising fat gain. I reason that we should be in a caloric surplus mainly from carbohydrates (sugars over starches) and minimising PUFAs (the metabolic brake). The problem with eating in a caloric surplus is that most of the fat you eat, is stored rather than burned. This is of course saturated fat and can be burnt later (more easily than PUFAs I’m assuming). Cutting fat completely will make most of us feel like crap but eat too much and you’ll stack it on.

There are quite a few people on here that are playing with macro variations to find one that suits them right now. We are all different people at different stages of healing so for every success story someone will follow and run into trouble. Why did you start looking into Peat’s work man?

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting anecdotes and n=1, then extrapolating that to mean that a certain way of eating is optimal. Just because it worked for one person, doesn't mean it will work for someone else. It's also not entirely wise to mix health with aesthetics, because in some ways they are two completely different goals. Sometimes somebody needs to gain body fat for hormones to self-regulate. And remember this, like it or not, one can find just as many low-carb paleo and IIFYM folks who have ripped, muscular physiques. You can get similar effects with a cocaine addiction, mind you. Doesn't mean we should emulate them.

The key is to eat maintenance calories, but macros to be in a balance, something like 25/25/50 pro/fat/carb. If you try to go on a zero fat diet long term, you will crash. Dietary fat enhances both fat and water soluble vitamin absorption. If metabolic rate or activity level increase, however, the percentage of fat calories does not need to increase proportionally to total calories. In other words, for someone on a 2500 calorie diet, consuming 25% of calories from fat would be about 70g/day, which is adequate for most people to prevent deficiency and avoid symptoms of macro restriction. Increasing calories to 3000/day does not mean that that person would have to increase fat intake to 84g of fat to remain within 25%. In that case, a higher proportion of their calories can come from carbohydrates or protein. Deciding which macros to increase would then be determined on goals. For exercise purposes, it is not entirely necessary to increase protein, but for someone who needs wound healing, protein needs increase tremendously.

 

[2thecloudsabove]

Yeah there were several studies done that seem to support a breakdown of macros like that. I guess then, it sounds like there are two primary things that are opposed to what I thought to be the case...

1.) Sugar > Starch
2.) SFA > MUFA (I already knew about PUFA)

It may depend. My body for example preferences doesn't agree with that, but more like this,

1. Starch >>>> Fruits
2. MUFA = SFA >>>>>>>>PUFA 10-15% (4:1 O6:O3)

Thats what It works best for me, after trying almost everything. Starchy foods, like sourdough spelt bread, potatoes, lentils, pasta... give me not just perfect digestions but a powerful cleanest energy feeling like nothing else does. I add some fruit/honey occasionally when strenous physical activity or as food desserts.

 

[Cirion]

So far after two days... seems like sugar gives me a pretty good mood, but does not satisfy me much. I also think that fat is a necessity for me, given that I thrived pretty well on Keto for like two years (it's about the only diet I've ever done where I actually stayed on it for a good amount of time), where my libido was highest in my life pretty much. I mostly quit keto though because I didn't like my muscles looking flat, my gym performance suffered, and I had a hard time controlling my weight. To be honest though, looking back, I think one reason it may have failed was because I had PUFA too high. I ate lots of nut butters and what not while on it. I'm thinking I'll have starch instead of sugar as my last meal, to try to last me through the night. Sugar just does not last for me, and I really don't want to have to wake up every hr or two to eat more sugar... unrealistic maintenance that I don't really wanna deal with. Eating sugar as my carb for the last meal results in low blood sugar at night... despite insane calories (4000-5000) I have little to no nocturnal/morning wood, probably because of the blood sugar crashes. With my calories already that high, I don't particularly relish the thought of adding yet even more, to keep my blood sugar up at night. My energy levels are lowest in the morning and improve as the day goes on and I pump myself full of sugar and saturated fats it seems.

 

[Cirion]

There are quite a few people on here that are playing with macro variations to find one that suits them right now. We are all different people at different stages of healing so for every success story someone will follow and run into trouble. Why did you start looking into Peat’s work man?

I've tried basically every other diet under the sun and have never been happy with anything I've gone with. The only diet I've ever had any sort of success with longer-term is Keto, aka zero carb (often <10g), or at least Ultra high fat , low carb. I noticed an interesting effect on Ultra high fat / low carb, and it is one reason I decided Keto wasn't going to work long term... While I had a very strong libido (strongest in my life in fact), I noticed that I had chronic low level aches and pains - especially coupled with working out. I believe now carbs are required for optimal health. So now I'm just trying to find that right mix of fats and carbs that will work for me...

For what it may be worth, I believe some of my better-libido days were when I had grass fed beef (1 lb worth) literally every day. I also ate lots of 90% Cocoa. Aka, lots of saturated fats... surprise surprise eh?

One thing I definitely miss from my Keto days is the sustainable, constant energy. No blood sugar crashing (unless I cheated and ate carbs), and I actually had energy in the morning... in fact so much so, that I'd often wake up super early by accident. Never happens these days, I end up sleeping like 12 hrs a night, and still wake up tired. I'm really so over that, and ready to have energy again!

Peat is just another way of eating I want to try because I haven't tried it yet. I used to post on the anabolicmen forums before they shut down the forums, and many people there ate the Peat way - that's how I first heard about it, so I've lurked on these forums awhile but never truly took the plunge before.

Also, I'm impressed with the knowledge of both Peat and lots of members here like Haidut. I have to admit, their intelligence when it comes to diet exceeds mine dramatically, and I respect that. It makes me feel like there's something to all this.

At the end of the day, a lot of what is said here resonates with me and makes sense. Which is, at the end of the day, the goal is to repair the metabolism (Whether that's higher fat or lower fat or whatever) and the rest will basically fall in to place.

 

[Cirion]

Fatigue and excessive DOMS is usually a sign of poor cardiovascular work capacity, often from being sedentary. This is why it's good to do some type of LISS, which could even be just walking. The heart needs to be conditioned to an extent, just not excessively. Frequent training can help but is prohibitive for some people who work a lot. For me, I am able to keep my CNS functioning well by using linear periodization. Many people who experience CNS fatigue do not know how to program properly. They think they can just train the same way week in, week out, always going 100% on everything. This is a recipe for failure and plateaus.

I do the workouts below 2-3x per week on a rotation, resting 3-5 minutes between sets:

Workout A
Squat/Standing Press/Bent Over Row
Workout B
Bench/Deadlift/Weighted Pull Ups

*pushups and chin ups for GPP, walking outside in the sun nearly every day.

I use something like this to program/periodize my training:

The intensity doesn't get difficult until the 5th week. Then on week 6 you have somewhat of a deload, by decreasing the volume. Then the intensity gets very difficult on weeks 8-10. Then I take a week off after I hit a PR. This way, I am periodizing my volume and intensity, taking breaks from each one, and only training very intensely every few weeks or so, not for prolonged periods like many people do.

I have been lifting on and off for about 10 years and I can say that the issue with "CNS burnout" in most individuals has to do with either (A) training above 85% of 1RM for prolonged periods of time, (B) too much volume to recover from, or (C) too much cardio to recover from. What this boils down to is that the volume or intensity is too much to recover from for the individual. And it is highly individual, because a type A personality who works 80 hours per week and has children to provide for is going to have compromised recovery abilities, compared to say, the average high school/college student or a you tube star that works out for a living.

I pretty much agree with all of this. However, unfortunately, for someone like myself, who is metabolically challenged, (speaking for myself, at least), I can NEVER go all out (not even for a week or two at a time) or my endocrine system takes an IMMEDIATE nosedive - from the first session. I must be pretty messed up now then lol. Unfortunately, I think for metabolically challenged individuals, all extremely difficult exercises should cease until the problem is solved. That said, I do like your layout, and intuitively it's what I've often done in the past to make some decent gains. I don't know that I've ever done a 2x2 protocol before though. Perhaps that is low enough volume to not tax you too much, not sure, never done that exactly. I would think it's OK, as long as you aren't doing a true 2 rep max that causes adrenaline to skyrocket. The only way you can go 100% all the time without crashing and burning is pretty much AAS & LOTS of food lol. However, even then, you'll hear stories about people tearing a pec or something, or a bicep, etc...

 

[stevrd]

I pretty much agree with all of this. However, unfortunately, for someone like myself, who is metabolically challenged, (speaking for myself, at least), I can NEVER go all out (not even for a week or two at a time) or my endocrine system takes an IMMEDIATE nosedive - from the first session. I must be pretty messed up now then lol. Unfortunately, I think for metabolically challenged individuals, all extremely difficult exercises should cease until the problem is solved. That said, I do like your layout, and intuitively it's what I've often done in the past to make some decent gains. I don't know that I've ever done a 2x2 protocol before though. Perhaps that is low enough volume to not tax you too much, not sure, never done that exactly. I would think it's OK, as long as you aren't doing a true 2 rep max that causes adrenaline to skyrocket. The only way you can go 100% all the time without crashing and burning is pretty much AAS & LOTS of food lol. However, even then, you'll hear stories about people tearing a pec or something, or a bicep, etc...

I hear you man, and to your point, when my metabolism was terrible, I could barely do one hard session without messing myself up for a couple of weeks. Are you a very lean individual? Like sub 10% body fat? Sometimes the endocrine system is messed up when one is too lean. Gaining a few pounds of fat (if too lean) can help tremendously. I am a Registered Dietitian who helps people out with endocrine issues, and these issues are all too common in young men and women who work out a lot. Most often the individual who is trying to get stronger in the gym, but experiencing excessive, CNS-crushing fatigue, and hormonal issues is grossly over estimating how much calories he/she is eating. Most people underestimate their calories, but a minority of people, especially Type A people who work out a lot, tend to over estimate. And they typically don't realize how much more calories are required for their activity levels. Sometimes I recommend that people take a couple months off to rest and re-feed (like Matt Stone says), then slowly re-introduce exercise, taking long breaks between sets. And when they do reintroduce exercise, they need to be cognizant of how much they are eating. On lifting days, it's not a bad idea to eat 500-1000kcal over maintenance, and sip a sugary/salty drink while working out (to prevent high cortisol/serotonin).

You may benefit from trying just sets of triples and working on technique for a while. When I was recovering from low metabolism, I experimented with things and found that I could do heavy sets of 3 reps without any fatigue issues. Of course, I built up to it, but I got pretty strong from that. A stupid simple program is 3x3, which is very effective and doesn't tend to fry the CNS. I'm not too up on the science, but I did read that above 3 reps taps into the metabolic-fatigue system more, relying less on ATP, and producing more lactate. I find that CNS fatigue has a lot to do with metabolic fatigue training (i.e. trying to produce the biggest pump possible and inducing excessive lactic acid production), especially with compounds. An example is 20 rep squats. IMO they wreck the CNS and are not a good program to follow long term. Basically anything that induces hyperventilation is a bad idea.

The biggest key for me and the people I've coached is to pay attention to your breathing and how you feel while working out. You should never get to a point where you are light-headed or out of breath. This is why I suggest a minimum of 3 minutes rest between sets. But ideally you should just give yourself as much time as you need so that you can replicate your sets. Even when doing LISS, I suggest trying to breathe through the nose, but light mouth breathing can be OK. Hyperventilating actually does not improve cardiovascular fitness, as shown from Dr. Maffetone.

 

[Sobieski]

Personally I'd be very vigilant about going heavy... If your metabolism/endocrine system isn't working you'll also be at greater risk of injury (again speaking from experience).

 

[Sobieski]

Also, to add to my previous post, the more I do and the more I see, I become increasingly convinced that the average natural male can maximise most of their natural potential muscular size with basic body weight training alone. Max strength is another matter however.

I think weight training being the modus operandi for getting big/lean/ripped is the result of marketing and business on behalf of gyms/ fitness industry dating back to the 50's. It's impossible to make much money out of people if they realise they can achieve their goals in the comfort of their homes with minimal equipment, if any.

 

[stevrd]

Also, to add to my previous post, the more I do and the more I see, I become increasingly convinced that the average natural male can maximise most of their natural potential muscular size with basic body weight training alone. Max strength is another matter however.

I think weight training being the modus operandi for getting big/lean/ripped is the result of marketing and business on behalf of gyms/ fitness industry dating back to the 50's. It's impossible to make much money out of people if they realise they can achieve their goals in the comfort of their homes with minimal equipment, if any.

It all depends on one's goals. For someone wanting to build reasonable amounts of muscle and be very physically fit, fine. If somebody wants to build the most skeletal muscle as possible, calisthenics just doesn't cut it. Maybe for upper body, but it will result in somebody who is upper-body dominant with poor lower body strength, weak spinal erectors, weak glutes/hamstrings. Most of the leg exercises for calisthenics are quad dominant. No need to fear weight lifting. It should be respected, just like anything else. It has it's advantages over calisthenics. Less prone to muscle imbalances, trains the whole musculature more efficiently and effectively. For example, if you want to train overhead strength, the learning curve to do hand stand pushups is much more difficult, progress is much less efficient. It's safe to say that people who can really do them correctly (not leaning against a wall) are less than .001% of the population. If one wants lower body strength and size, calisthenics is terrible for that goal.

As far as marketing is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of equipment is utter garbage. This is why all one really needs for strength training/weight lifting is a home squat rack set up with a barbell and weights. Nothing else is required. One can get to his genetic potential with that alone. But I see no reason to skip on either. Calisthenics and weight training compliment each other very well and should be done concurrently. Both of them expose weaknesses and areas one needs to improve on. For example, someone may be really strong at rows but weak at pullups. This is probably because they are carrying excess body fat and need to lose weight. Someone could be very strong at pull ups and weak with rows. This could be because he has weak hamstrings/glutes/spinal erectors that cant support the stability required to row.

One only really needs 6 movement patterns to train the body completely: vertical/horizontal press, vertical/horizontal pull, squat, and floor pull. This will carry over into any athletic arena well. And with weight training one can get consistently stronger and bigger with two workouts per week. Calisthenics is not that efficient, so for busy individuals, it can be problematic. The problem with most fitness gurus out there is that they are spreading the illusion of complexity. Calisthenics gurus are not immune to this either. One doesn't need to be able to do handstand push ups, ring muscle ups, pistol squats, etc, to have a good physique. If anything, if strength and size are one's goals than these things are just detractors. If one wants to stick to only calisthenics, then just pull ups/chin ups/inverted rows, push ups/ inverted push ups are enough, and one can add weight for a challenge. Legs are another story.

 

[Hans]

the average natural male can maximise most of their natural potential muscular size with basic body weight training alone

Do you mean like pushups, and one legs squats, etc? Like without any weight except bodyweight?

 

[Hans]

It all depends on one's goals. For someone wanting to build reasonable amounts of muscle and be very physically fit, fine. If somebody wants to build the most skeletal muscle as possible, calisthenics just doesn't cut it. Maybe for upper body, but it will result in somebody who is upper-body dominant with poor lower body strength, weak spinal erectors, weak glutes/hamstrings. Most of the leg exercises for calisthenics are quad dominant. No need to fear weight lifting. It should be respected, just like anything else. It has it's advantages over calisthenics. Less prone to muscle imbalances, trains the whole musculature more efficiently and effectively. For example, if you want to train overhead strength, the learning curve to do hand stand pushups is much more difficult, progress is much less efficient. It's safe to say that people who can really do them correctly (not leaning against a wall) are less than .001% of the population. If one wants lower body strength and size, calisthenics is terrible for that goal.

As far as marketing is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of equipment is utter garbage. This is why all one really needs for strength training/weight lifting is a home squat rack set up with a barbell and weights. Nothing else is required. One can get to his genetic potential with that alone. But I see no reason to skip on either. Calisthenics and weight training compliment each other very well and should be done concurrently. Both of them expose weaknesses and areas one needs to improve on. For example, someone may be really strong at rows but weak at pullups. This is probably because they are carrying excess body fat and need to lose weight. Someone could be very strong at pull ups and weak with rows. This could be because he has weak hamstrings/glutes/spinal erectors that cant support the stability required to row.

One only really needs 6 movement patterns to train the body completely: vertical/horizontal press, vertical/horizontal pull, squat, and floor pull. This will carry over into any athletic arena well. And with weight training one can get consistently stronger and bigger with two workouts per week. Calisthenics is not that efficient, so for busy individuals, it can be problematic. The problem with most fitness gurus out there is that they are spreading the illusion of complexity. Calisthenics gurus are not immune to this either. One doesn't need to be able to do handstand push ups, ring muscle ups, pistol squats, etc, to have a good physique. If anything, if strength and size are one's goals than these things are just detractors. If one wants to stick to only calisthenics, then just pull ups/chin ups/inverted rows, push ups/ inverted push ups are enough, and one can add weight for a challenge. Legs are another story.

Agreed, but if it comes to really fine tuning a physique, it does get more "complicated". The basic exercises you mentioned and even "One doesn't need to be able to do handstand push ups, ring muscle ups, pistol squats, etc, to have a good physique." is not good enough. Yes you can get big and strong, but not well rounded off, unless you fine tune with additional exercises and techniques.
It almost looks to me that more and more people want to combine powerlifting and bodybuilding (strong and big), but in that process, many neglect major parts of their physiques due to thinking you only need the basic exercises.

 

[stevrd]

Agreed, but if it comes to really fine tuning a physique, it does get more "complicated". The basic exercises you mentioned and even "One doesn't need to be able to do handstand push ups, ring muscle ups, pistol squats, etc, to have a good physique." is not good enough. Yes you can get big and strong, but not well rounded off, unless you fine tune with additional exercises and techniques.
It almost looks to me that more and more people want to combine powerlifting and bodybuilding (strong and big), but in that process, many neglect major parts of their physiques due to thinking you only need the basic exercises.

I agree with you that for bodybuilding purposes one probably should include additional exercises. That's why people start with compounds and then finish with isolation exercises. What I am preaching about is just getting big and strong, building skeletal muscle, not necessarily bodybuilding. My personal goals are not to step on stage and show symmetry. I do it for health, fitness, and longevity purposes. My belief from my own experience as well as the available research is that one can at least reach 90% of his muscular potential with those 6 basic movement patterns. I believe trainees should look to a variation of those 6 movement patterns to build a foundation. Then, if they are interested in bringing up weak areas, like lagging biceps or traps, they can focus on those later. The problem is the wrong message is being presented towards novices, or even intermediates. Complexity is constantly pushed on them from bodybuilding magazines, T-nation, etc. To someone who has a keen eye for this sort of thing, the complexity of it all just look like clever marketing tactics to prey on teens and young adults who haven't lived enough to know that most of that crap doesn't work. For example, that novices need 4 different isolation exercises per muscle group to hit each muscle from a different angle, and that there is some magical hypertrophy rep range, is complete BS. This all leads to confusion and detracts them from what really matters- building a foundation. A lot of the classic bodybuilders from the 70s era preached that if somebody hasn't built a foundation, like a good 20lbs of muscle on his frame, then he has no business doing isolation work. And my point in saying all this basically boils down to this: do we really want to be telling a 130 pound weakling that the reason his biceps are small is because he lacks concentration curls and hammer curls?

 

[Hans]

I agree with you that for bodybuilding purposes one probably should include additional exercises. That's why people start with compounds and then finish with isolation exercises. What I am preaching about is just getting big and strong, building skeletal muscle, not necessarily bodybuilding. My personal goals are not to step on stage and show symmetry. I do it for health, fitness, and longevity purposes. My belief from my own experience as well as the available research is that one can at least reach 90% of his muscular potential with those 6 basic movement patterns. I believe trainees should look to a variation of those 6 movement patterns to build a foundation. Then, if they are interested in bringing up weak areas, like lagging biceps or traps, they can focus on those later. The problem is the wrong message is being presented towards novices, or even intermediates. Complexity is constantly pushed on them from bodybuilding magazines, T-nation, etc. To someone who has a keen eye for this sort of thing, the complexity of it all just look like clever marketing tactics to prey on teens and young adults who haven't lived enough to know that most of that crap doesn't work. For example, that novices need 4 different isolation exercises per muscle group to hit each muscle from a different angle, and that there is some magical hypertrophy rep range, is complete BS. This all leads to confusion and detracts them from what really matters- building a foundation. A lot of the classic bodybuilders from the 70s era preached that if somebody hasn't built a foundation, like a good 20lbs of muscle on his frame, then he has no business doing isolation work. And my point in saying all this basically boils down to this: do we really want to be telling a 130 pound weakling that the reason his biceps are small is because he lacks concentration curls and hammer curls?

I agree that the world is projecting the wrong image and it's ALL about making money and smuggling with young men's brains.
Yes your goal is not symmetry, but people who read bodybuilding magazines etc, most likely have that goal in mind. Just doing standard compounds will not create a great physique. Even doing an isolation movement such as BB curls will not give good biceps. Yes maybe big biceps, but it would be embarrassing to pop a bicep and it lacks all kinds of definition. What then would be the point of being big for those guys?
I'm not coming up for traditional bodybuilders however, (most of them are all liars, steroid abusers and just trying to push a product), I'm just clarifying that in order for someone who is interested in bodybuilding to achieve a great physique, standard compounds just won't cut it, especially if you're natural.

Plus if you have great symmetry you can actually look bigger than someone who is bigger than you, who lacks symmetry.

 

[stevrd]

Even doing an isolation movement such as BB curls will not give good biceps. Yes maybe big biceps, but it would be embarrassing to pop a bicep and it lacks all kinds of definition. What then would be the point of being big for those guys?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that by doing different curl variations, that you can change the shape of the bicep? Give it more definition? None of the research I have read suggests that you can do that. The shape of a muscle is determined by genetics, which determine tendon lengths and muscle belly insertions. In other words, somebody can't just select certain curl variations, and train them to have bicep peaks that look like Arnold or Robbie Robinson. Unfortunately we are dealt a hand and have to work with what we have. I'm not saying different exercise variations have no use. Incline dumbbell curls are great for biceps due to the stretch and thus help to strengthen the tendons more than barbell curls.

Also there are plenty of people who just do compounds who have excellent physiques. Many of the power lifters and olympic lifters in the sub 200# classes are just as lean and muscular, pound-for-pound as bodybuilders in the same weight class. Sure, the distribution of where muscle lies on their frames may slightly vary, but not often enough for anybody other than a bodybuilder to notice. If power lifting is such poor choice for body development, then why is it so common to see power lifters transition over to bodybuilding?

 

[YourUniverse]

I built my best body with programming which was about 90% compounds... Ive also heard the stance that muscle shape is pre-determined due to bone structure and insertions, and to that I say, welcome to Peating, where people are changing their morphology in a way that seems routine and probably empirically repeatable - wider jaws, thicker wrists, and etc.

Studies require funding, and funding is dependent on there being a profit to be made (probably 99% of the time), so waiting for a study to back up clinical testing can be folly... which is my response to the idea that hitting muscles from different angles wouldn't change its shape.

Also fairly skeptical that calisthenics can build the best natural body possible... Natural lifters respond best to intensity - heavier weight, closer to 1RM. At some point in your development, you'll be so fit and well-adapted that push ups for sets of 60 would barely induce any growth stimulus, and you wouldn't be particularly muscular

 

[stevrd]

I built my best body with programming which was about 90% compounds... Ive also heard the stance that muscle shape is pre-determined due to bone structure and insertions, and to that I say, welcome to Peating, where people are changing their morphology in a way that seems routine and probably empirically repeatable - wider jaws, thicker wrists, and etc.

Studies require funding, and funding is dependent on there being a profit to be made (probably 99% of the time), so waiting for a study to back up clinical testing can be folly... which is my response to the idea that hitting muscles from different angles wouldn't change its shape.

Also fairly skeptical that calisthenics can build the best natural body possible... Natural lifters respond best to intensity - heavier weight, closer to 1RM. At some point in your development, you'll be so fit and well-adapted that sets of 60 would barely cause physiological change.

Fair enough, but with a caveat. I'm open to the idea that people can change morphology but unfortunately, there is NO actual evidence to show it. All I've read is Peat claiming he grew an inch later in life, and some people on a forum stating their jaws widened or ears got smaller after taking certain hormones, etc... I take these things with a grain of salt. Look, everyone has his/her own unique experience. We can't take that away from them. Genetics is not the be all end all. But we can't completely throw out genetics. To do so would be delusional. Any reasonable person can say that if somebody is 5'5" at 30 years old, it doesn't matter what he does, he is not going to get any taller. Suggesting otherwise causes more harm then good. Why don't we give people realistic goals to shoot for, instead of creating a sort of neurosis and false hope?

Look at the difference between the biceps of Sergio Oliva and Robbie Robinson:

The difference between them is that Robinson's Peaks are higher than Oliva's. This is due to the tendon insertions. Robinson has shorter biceps tendon insertions, which accentuates that "peak" look. No matter what Oliva does, no matter what exercises he chooses or steroids he injects, his arms will never look like Robinson's. This is the point I am making. Am I saying that morphology cannot happen? No, I'm certainly open to the idea, but I'm also a realist. Until there is more evidence, I am not convinced.

 

[YourUniverse]

I dont think I was promoting neurosis with what I wrote, I just think that if you want a bigger upper chest, you should do incline presses, not flat, even if there are no studies yet funded to back you up.

 

[stevrd]

I dont think I was promoting neurosis with what I wrote, I just think that if you want a bigger upper chest, you should do incline presses, not flat, even if there are no studies yet funded to back you up.

There's actually evidence showing greater muscle fiber recruitment for the upper chest from doing decline bench presses: SuppVersity EMG Series - Musculus Pectoralis Major: The Very Best Exercises for a Chiseled Chest - SuppVersity: Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone

I take this with a grain of salt, however, because EMG is related to load, and more motor units firing due to higher weight on a decline would induce a bigger EMG response. Nevertheless, it does make you think. Maybe one actually can build a complete chest with flat or decline bench. And to your point, which you are correct, a heavy weight does tend to induce better muscle gains due to higher intensity, more motor units firing.

You can also get a bigger upper chest from properly performed overhead presses, if you are using the upper chest. No incline presses necessary. The problem is most people only go halfway down or to just their chins, not getting the benefit of upper chest activation. If you do overhead presses correctly, you actually feel your upper chest contracting.

 

[Hans]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that by doing different curl variations, that you can change the shape of the bicep? Give it more definition? None of the research I have read suggests that you can do that. The shape of a muscle is determined by genetics, which determine tendon lengths and muscle belly insertions. In other words, somebody can't just select certain curl variations, and train them to have bicep peaks that look like Arnold or Robbie Robinson. Unfortunately we are dealt a hand and have to work with what we have. I'm not saying different exercise variations have no use. Incline dumbbell curls are great for biceps due to the stretch and thus help to strengthen the tendons more than barbell curls.

Also there are plenty of people who just do compounds who have excellent physiques. Many of the power lifters and olympic lifters in the sub 200# classes are just as lean and muscular, pound-for-pound as bodybuilders in the same weight class. Sure, the distribution of where muscle lies on their frames may slightly vary, but not often enough for anybody other than a bodybuilder to notice. If power lifting is such poor choice for body development, then why is it so common to see power lifters transition over to bodybuilding?

No I wasn't talking about genetics such as short biceps or high calves. I was talking about different exercises which each work a different aspect of the muscle and can bring out different definition. I can attest to this from my own experience. Powerlifters and bodybuilders look differently, if you look closely enough, but yes, the average joe will probably not note such a difference, I might just be over analytic / perfectionistic in this aspect. A lot of powerlifters become bodybuilders because they are not satisfied with their physiques. I think if a person is born with bad genetics, there isn't much they can do about it.
Scientists can only study what is already known, but people who test out new things / experiment / create new information, are the people who really advance science / knowledge.

 

[stevrd]

No I wasn't talking about genetics such as short biceps or high calves. I was talking about different exercises which each work a different aspect of the muscle and can bring out different definition. I can attest to this from my own experience. Powerlifters and bodybuilders look differently, if you look closely enough, but yes, the average joe will probably not note such a difference, I might just be over analytic / perfectionistic in this aspect. A lot of powerlifters become bodybuilders because they are not satisfied with their physiques. I think if a person is born with bad genetics, there isn't much they can do about it.
Scientists can only study what is already known, but people who test out new things / experiment / create new information, are the people who really advance science / knowledge.

Great points, I agree completely. As I stated before, compounds can take you really far, probably giving you 90% of your genetic potential. But sure, if one has lagging areas to work on that just won't grow after already building a foundation, and if he cares enough to change this, then I believe he should add different exercises in to develop these areas more fully.

The problem in most gyms is the opposite scenario: Noobs in the gym who are afraid of lifting heavy and are trying to get big by doing concentration curls and 90lb leg presses. At some point they are going to have to lift heavy and get stronger in the compounds. Unfortunately steroid users compound the confusion, because no matter how a steroid user trains, he can reach higher than his genetic potential. This is why we can't follow people's advice simply because of the way they look. This is why we can see steroid users who can't squat 315lbs.