[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Phil Heath would be another example of a BB’er with long muscle bellies and good peaking biceps. He has some of the best (if not the best) arms in BB’ing right now.
Please don’t beat me for my dumb question guys but… He has low Lats too right?
Who should I look up for a good example of high Lats?
Wolf would be the most prominent example for high lat attachments.
Mind you, as with biceps (peak and length of individual bicep heads as well as location of peak), how you look depends on many factors.
Wolf has high lats, which can make someone’s back look smaller overall or even kill your taper if you have a wide-ish waist… But he has a narrow waist and his lats flare out well, and scapular ROM/position during a lat spread plays a very large role in how your lats ultimately look in a pose…
When it comes to biceps, how your wrist is turned, what angle you hold the arm at etc and even how your shoulders are positioned in a front-double-bi etc all change how your bis appear…
[/quote]
Yeah, I wouldn’t say his back looks small at all, ha ha. But he seems to have a more T taper than a V.
It seems like he had a disadvantage though, if you compare this to someone who’s back just looks wider with low lats.
maybe the pic will work this time…
google orville burke.
he has some of the highest lats but yet one of the most impressive backs I’ve ever seen.
Apart from lats do you guys find any corrolation between long muscle bellies and more impressive traps?
My traps are very good for my weight and go all the way to my neck especially when I pose.
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
Apart from lats do you guys find any corrolation between long muscle bellies and more impressive traps?
My traps are very good for my weight and go all the way to my neck especially when I pose.[/quote]
Uhh, if your traps didn’t go to your neck, you would have half a neck.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
People with short muscle bellies seem to have more impressive looks to their arms when they are still relatively small…however, long muscle bellies have always looked more impressive overall if the size is there.
Sergio Oliva had long muscle bellies and quite possibly some of the best looking arms in the world at the time short of Arnold.
Albert Beckles had very short muscle bellies and while he also looked impressive, between the two, Oliva would win.[/quote]
Albert Beckles did not have short muscle bellies. His biceps just originated high proximally, closer to the shoulder joint, and had slightly longer tendons on the distal ends than most elite bodybuildders. But his biceps were by no means short. No-one with short muscles can hope to reach that level of development.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BruceLeeFan wrote:
Apart from lats do you guys find any corrolation between long muscle bellies and more impressive traps?
My traps are very good for my weight and go all the way to my neck especially when I pose.
Uhh, if your traps didn’t go to your neck, you would have half a neck. [/quote]
Of course. I mean they’re lesnar like. Some people just don’t seem to have traps like that.
In bodybuilding, longer muscle bellies are ALWAYS advantageous. Even a slight difference in muscle length makes a great difference in muscle size. The only time shorter muscle bellies are advantageous is in certain sports that favor less mass in certain muscle groups, i.e. smaller calves are advantageous for running.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
i.e. smaller calves are advantageous for running.
[/quote]
Can you explain that?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
belligerent wrote:
i.e. smaller calves are advantageous for running.
Can you explain that?[/quote]
The further a muscle is situated from the torso, the further it has to be moved through space, and the more burdensome its mass is to displace. You can imagine that it would be much harder to run while wearing ankle weights than it would be to run while wearing an equally heavy weight vest. It’s also the same reason why skinny tires are advantageous in road cycling. In any situation, it is most efficient to minimize mass located distally from the axis of rotation.
The calves don’t produce much propulsive force for running; instead, they’re primarily shock absorbers. Most of the propulsive power for running is generated by the muscles of the hips and thighs. Therefore it is advantagous to carry the most important muscles close to the torso, and the least important muscles further away from it.
Note that blacks commonly have big glutes and thighs, while also having skinny calves with long achilles tendons. Evolution has endowed blacks with long muscle bellies in the glutes and hamstrings and short muscle bellies in the calves, which arrangement is favorable for running.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Professor X wrote:
People with short muscle bellies seem to have more impressive looks to their arms when they are still relatively small…however, long muscle bellies have always looked more impressive overall if the size is there.
Sergio Oliva had long muscle bellies and quite possibly some of the best looking arms in the world at the time short of Arnold.
Albert Beckles had very short muscle bellies and while he also looked impressive, between the two, Oliva would win.
Albert Beckles did not have short muscle bellies. His biceps just originated high proximally, closer to the shoulder joint, and had slightly longer tendons on the distal ends than most elite bodybuildders. But his biceps were by no means short. No-one with short muscles can hope to reach that level of development.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but WHAT?
He is the poster boy for short biceps muscle bellies. LOL at “slightly longer tendon”. There aren’t many (if any) with a longer tendon on a pro stage.
[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BruceLeeFan wrote:
Apart from lats do you guys find any corrolation between long muscle bellies and more impressive traps?
My traps are very good for my weight and go all the way to my neck especially when I pose.
Uhh, if your traps didn’t go to your neck, you would have half a neck.
Of course. I mean they’re lesnar like. Some people just don’t seem to have traps like that.[/quote]
Your profile lists you at 144lbs. Are you sure YOU have traps like Brock Lesner?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Professor X wrote:
People with short muscle bellies seem to have more impressive looks to their arms when they are still relatively small…however, long muscle bellies have always looked more impressive overall if the size is there.
Sergio Oliva had long muscle bellies and quite possibly some of the best looking arms in the world at the time short of Arnold.
Albert Beckles had very short muscle bellies and while he also looked impressive, between the two, Oliva would win.
Albert Beckles did not have short muscle bellies. His biceps just originated high proximally, closer to the shoulder joint, and had slightly longer tendons on the distal ends than most elite bodybuildders. But his biceps were by no means short. No-one with short muscles can hope to reach that level of development.
I’m sorry, but WHAT?
He is the poster boy for short biceps muscle bellies. LOL at “slightly longer tendon”. There aren’t many (if any) with a longer tendon on a pro stage.[/quote]
Yeah, was thinking the same thing.
Muscle belly length (at least in the biceps) is pretty much determined by the length of the tendon at the distal end (the longer the tendon, the shorter the muscle belly). Beckles had longer tendons at the distal end than just about every other pro. Thus, he had “short” muscle bellies. How you can argue that I don’t know.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, but WHAT?
He is the poster boy for short biceps muscle bellies. LOL at “slightly longer tendon”. There aren’t many (if any) with a longer tendon on a pro stage.[/quote]
“Short” and “long” are relative terms.
Beckles’ biceps are shorter than Sergio Oliva’s, but are still far longer than average.
You’re also forgetting that the biceps have three tendons, two on the proximal end and one on the distal end. You can’t see the proximal end of the muscle because it’s obscured by the deltoid, but Beckles has short tendons on the proximal side.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, but WHAT?
He is the poster boy for short biceps muscle bellies. LOL at “slightly longer tendon”. There aren’t many (if any) with a longer tendon on a pro stage.
“Short” and “long” are relative terms.
Beckles’ biceps are shorter than Sergio Oliva’s, but are still far longer than average.
You’re also forgetting that the biceps have three tendons, two on the proximal end and one on the distal end. You can’t see the proximal end of the muscle because it’s obscured by the deltoid, but Beckles has short tendons on the proximal side.[/quote]
Far longer than average?
I mean, I know you’re full of shit on this…and I’m sure YOU know you are full of shit…but what do we tell the children???
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Far longer than average?
I mean, I know you’re full of shit on this…and I’m sure YOU know you are full of shit…but what do we tell the children???[/quote]
You have a distorted perception of what average biceps length is. Beckles may be on the short end up the spectrum for pro bodybuilders, but saying that he has “extremely short” muscle bellies is like saying that Donald Trump is extremely poor because he’s only the 134th richest person in America.
If you have a longer muscle belly on your calves and biceps does that mean your genetics are pretty good for bodybuilding? I’m still heaps small but I do have longer muscle bellies and i have read that the longer the muscle belly the better genetics you have (in terms of building muscle) idk if its true or not so yeah 
[quote]kaoticz wrote:
If you have a longer muscle belly on your calves and biceps does that mean your genetics are pretty good for bodybuilding? I’m still heaps small but I do have longer muscle bellies and i have read that the longer the muscle belly the better genetics you have (in terms of building muscle) idk if its true or not so yeah
[/quote]
Your ability to build muscle has jack shit to do with the length of tendons alone. There are a lot of you trying to use one or two variables (like tendon length or wrist circumference) to determine genetic ability. That makes no sense.
No one is going to know how well you can build muscle UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY BUILD IT.
