Long or Short Muscle Bellies?

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]belligerent wrote:
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???

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.[/quote]

You are retarded. He has short muscle bellies. Period. I didn’t even write, “extremely” in this thread. Simply typing a lot doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You are retarded. He has short muscle bellies. Period. I didn’t even write, “extremely” in this thread. Simply typing a lot doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.

[/quote]

My bad, you wrote “very short” instead of “extremely short,” so clearly I distorted your intent there. My sincerest apologies.

Your insistence that muscle/tendon length has “jack shit” to do with muscular potential betrays a seious ignorance of basic geometry. Even slight differences in length make huge differences in size. Aspect ratios being equal, a four inch long muscle has 177% more volume than a three inch long muscle. One inch in length nearly doubles the size of the muscle.

You’ve mentioned that calves are a weakness for you. Ever wonder why that is? It’s because you have SHORT MUSCLE BELLIES in that group, a fact which can be easily seen in your pics.

Consider the essential difference between muscle groups. Why is the latissimus dorsi so much bigger than the abductor digiti minimi of the hand? It’s because the lats run to a length of several feet, while the hand muscle is about an inch long.

Why are the arms of a gorilla so much more muscular than a human’s, despite the fact that a gorilla eats nothing but foliage? It’s because the gorilla’s arm muscles are drastically LONGER.

Why are taller people usually more physically powerful than shorter people (on average)? It’s because taller people have longer body segments which in turn carry longer muscles.

Why do elite sprinters typically have longer legs than average people? Is it because longer legs cover more ground? No, it’s because longer legs carry longer muscles, which in turn can produce more force to apply the ground.

Far from having “jack shit” to do muscular potential, length is THE primary determinant of muscle size, and is far more important than any aspect of training or diet.

43

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You are retarded. He has short muscle bellies. Period. I didn’t even write, “extremely” in this thread. Simply typing a lot doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.

My bad, you wrote “very short” instead of “extremely short,” so clearly I distorted your intent there. My sincerest apologies.

Your insistence that muscle/tendon length has jack shit to do with muscular potential betrays a seious ignorance of basic geometry, and the simple fact that, in the context of muscle, length is the primary limitor of volume.

You’ve mentioned that you have a hard time building calves. Ever wonder why that is? It’s because you have SHORT MUSCLE BELLIES in that group, a fact which can be easily seen in your pics.

[/quote]

I have seen people with long calf muscles that appear to go to their ankles who still have small calves after years of training. You can not PREDICT how big someone can get by how long or short their tendons are. Are you seriously implying that you can tell how big someone can get by this alone?

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You are retarded. He has short muscle bellies. Period. I didn’t even write, “extremely” in this thread. Simply typing a lot doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.

My bad, you wrote “very short” instead of “extremely short,” so clearly I distorted your intent there. My sincerest apologies.

Your insistence that muscle/tendon length has jack shit to do with muscular potential betrays a seious ignorance of basic geometry, and the simple fact that, in the context of muscle, length is the primary limitor of volume.

You’ve mentioned that you have a hard time building calves. Ever wonder why that is? It’s because you have SHORT MUSCLE BELLIES in that group, a fact which can be easily seen in your pics.

I have seen people with long calf muscles that appear to go to their ankles who still have small calves after years of training. You can not PREDICT how big someone can get by how long or short their tendons are. Are you seriously implying that you can tell how big someone can get by this alone?[/quote]

There is truth to this… Plenty of guys with long or medium-length biceps and triceps, yet they have trouble getting their arms to grow…

You are certainly handicapped with short calf-belly length in terms of overall appearance, but the fact remains that some guys’ calves will still fill-out fast (the part that is there), yet other guy’s have trouble getting to grow what they have…

Length of attachments and other attributes (peak, location of the primary mass, individual heads, sweep…) sure affect how you look, but they don’t really tell you whether the muscle grows fast (compared to others) or not.

Plenty of guys with short triceps who have quite a lot of mass sticking out at the back of their arm… The attachments only make them look skinny in shirts, because there you only see the area right above the elbow… Where those guys only have tendons.

45

[quote]matsm21 wrote:
orville burke[/quote]

Orville! I trained at 5th ave gym in Brooklyn where he trained back in the early 80’s.

46

As mentioned earlier to prevent arguing semantics, the take-away is the play the hand you’re dealt and work your absolute best to reach your potential. You can look good with whatever attachments you got if you beat yourself into the ground . . . except for those simply cursed altogether for bodybuilding.

47

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Plenty of guys with short triceps who have quite a lot of mass sticking out at the back of their arm… The attachments only make them look skinny in shirts, because there you only see the area right above the elbow… Where those guys only have tendons.

[/quote]

I was wondering about the triceps attachments the other day. Many years ago I rwas reading a bbing mag and one of the authors said you could judge your potential tricep size by measuring the distance from the top of your horse shoe to your elbow. The shorter the distance the greater the potential for growth. Any truth to that?

The head of my horse shoe is like 6 inches away from my elbow joint and the author said that was poor potential. It’s always kind of bugged me and I wish I never read that lol.

48

Long muscle bellies, short muscle bellies. People need to just start worrying about getting bigger. You can’t change your muscle belly length anyways.

X has named some guys on both ends of the extreme (Beckles, and Oliva) and both have good looking arms. Arms I would definately be proud to have, and hope to have for that matter.

If you have those muscle bellies and anything in between, get to a 20" arm or more, and your arms will deffinately be impressive.

49

270×502 28.6 KB

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Plenty of guys with short triceps who have quite a lot of mass sticking out at the back of their arm… The attachments only make them look skinny in shirts, because there you only see the area right above the elbow… Where those guys only have tendons.

I was wondering about the triceps attachments the other day. Many years ago I rwas reading a bbing mag and one of the authors said you could judge your potential tricep size by measuring the distance from the top of your horse shoe to your elbow. The shorter the distance the greater the potential for growth. Any truth to that?

The head of my horse shoe is like 6 inches away from my elbow joint and the author said that was poor potential. It’s always kind of bugged me and I wish I never read that lol.[/quote]

Like was said above, you can’t necessarily judge a muscle’s potential for size based on a singular variable. Look at the picture of Paul Demayo’s tricep, pretty damn big, yet he’s got a quite a ways from his elbow to his horseshoe.

50

If more time was spent thinking about beer bellies as there is about muscle bellies everyone would be better off.

51

I used to think I had short muscle bellies and terrible genetics.

Then I started working out and eating a lot. After awhile, my perspective was that my chest couldn’t grow.

Now my perspective is that I do indeed have long muscle bellies, however, my genetics are pretty decent and all my parts grow pretty well provided that I eat and they get the right stimuli.

My current belief is that stubborn growth muscles and muscle belly length are mutually exclusive.

52

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Why are the arms of a gorilla so much more muscular than a human’s, despite the fact that a gorilla eats nothing but foliage? It’s because the gorilla’s arm muscles are drastically LONGER.[/quote]

Wrong.

53

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Plenty of guys with short triceps who have quite a lot of mass sticking out at the back of their arm… The attachments only make them look skinny in shirts, because there you only see the area right above the elbow… Where those guys only have tendons.

I was wondering about the triceps attachments the other day. Many years ago I rwas reading a bbing mag and one of the authors said you could judge your potential tricep size by measuring the distance from the top of your horse shoe to your elbow. The shorter the distance the greater the potential for growth. Any truth to that?

The head of my horse shoe is like 6 inches away from my elbow joint and the author said that was poor potential. It’s always kind of bugged me and I wish I never read that lol.

Like was said above, you can’t necessarily judge a muscle’s potential for size based on a singular variable. Look at the picture of Paul Demayo’s tricep, pretty damn big, yet he’s got a quite a ways from his elbow to his horseshoe.[/quote]

Thanks SG, just what I needed!

54

This has been a really interesting thread. Somebody already mentioned it but I would like to hear other opinions on how much posing has to do with how long the biceps appears. I have a bit of a gap between my elbow and biceps belly but when I flex to a tighter angle like 75 degrees instead of 90, the gap isn’t noticable. Do competative bbers with shorter biceps use techniques to hide it?

And also wouldn’t the relative size of the forearms make a big difference? I would think that large forearms would fill in some of that gap.

55

I think I have long muscle bellies in my biceps.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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 :slight_smile:

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.[/quote]

Okay thanks, just wanted to clear that up :slight_smile:

57

man, i suck. when i flex my biceps at a 90 degree angle between upper arm and forearm, i can put all the fingers except the thumb between the joint and the biceps muscle belly. you can’t say that that doesn’t influence muscle building potential, at least aesthetically wise…it will always look stupid, and a body with short muscle bellies will always appear less muscular and less aesthetically pleasing.

Paul Demayo’s lower and smaller part of triceps is still seem to be inserting near the elbow. people with really short tricepses have that ‘‘just the humerus bone and skin’’ part between the flexed ‘‘horseshoe’’ and the elbow.

ofcourse, we’re all different, and everybody can gain more muscle mass, but there are always certain advantages and disadvantages in our genetics.

why can’t some people get over the fact that sometimes somebody isn’t just lazy, or has some kind of problem with discpline and hard work…sometimes IT WAS easier or tougher for you than some other guy.

if somebody thought he had a problem with something, but then realised it wasn’t a problem when he started eating more and working harder, it doesn’t mean that every guy with problems is in the shoes he once wore.

58

[quote]Short Hoss wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Why are the arms of a gorilla so much more muhttp://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forumscular than a human’s, despite the fact that a gorilla eats nothing but foliage? It’s because the gorilla’s arm muscles are drastically LONGER.[/quote]

Wrong. [/quote]

Monkeys have much greater neuromuscular efficiency than humans, they can exhibit explosive strength to a much greater degree than us. It’s nothing to do with the length of their arms.

59

[quote]WP wrote:

Monkeys have much greater neuromuscular efficiency than humans, they can exhibit explosive strength to a much greater degree than us. It’s nothing to do with the length of their arms.[/quote]

[quote]WP wrote:
Monkeys have much greater neuromuscular efficiency than humans, they can exhibit explosive strength to a much greater degree than us. It’s nothing to do with the length of their arms.[/quote]

I was talking about gorillas and their raw muscular size, not “explosive strength” or whatever you said. The reason gorilla arms are so much bigger than human arms is because the muscle bellies of a gorilla are dramatically longer. From a genetic perspective, muscle volume is largely a product of length. Evolution programs an organism to have bigger muscles in a certain area by granting it longer muscle bellies.

Why are the biceps bigger than the small muscles of the hands? Because the biceps are longer. Why do black women tend to excel in the gluteus maximus area? It’s not red beans and rice, as Sir Mix-a-Lot suggested, but long glute muscle bellies.

It’s clear from reading this thread that most pepole have a poor eye for gauging muscle belly length and underappreciate its importance. Muscle belly length is a vitally important predictor of potential, being especially useful since it is easily observed (assuming the observer knows what he’s looking at). Although length alone does not by any means garuntee proportionate size, it DOES at least potentiate size, so how big you can get in a any given muscle is fundamentally limited by its length. If people would just recognize and accept this simple geometrical reality, it would become obvious why some people are bigger than others, and why an individual may have much better development in some muscles than others despite training efforts. Most symmetry issues simply reflect muscle length discrepancies. It’s really the most important antatomical factor in bodybuilding.

60

if black people have small calves, and its for springing, then do white people have better calf attachment for stopping and hauling?