Long or Short Muscle Bellies?

Training Bodybuilding
61

I don’t think anyone is unaware that a 15 inch arm 40 inches long has more total mass than a 15 inch arm 30 inches long.

But in bodybuilding (and all weightlifting) when does a person ever care about absolute mass? It is always about mass proportional to the frame, and just how does length factor in here? A 5’6 guy 180 lbs will always look bigger than a person 6’6 220 lbs even though hes got shorter and ‘smaller’ muscles. The 5’6 guy obviously has less total mass than the 6’6 guy (and who wasn’t already aware of this?), but he doesn’t NEED to have the same total mass as the longer 6’6 guy to achieve the same look.

Same goes for strength. A bench press isn’t defined as moving a weight 12 inches, its defined as moving a weight from chest to lock out. So you have longer and stronger limbs, but then you have to move the weight a further distance. You get no advantage.

62

[quote]Kanada wrote:
if black people have small calves, and its for springing, then do white people have better calf attachment for stopping and hauling?[/quote]

A lot of black people have big calves, but the mass is typically concentrated proximally (higher, closer to the knee). This is because the proximal tendon is short while the achilles tendon is long. In most situations, the calves function primarily as stabilizers of the ankle, while the power for propulsive force comes from the hips and thighs. I don’t know of too many situations that call for uber-strong calves apart from doing calf raises.

63

very rarely on football fields I have seen fast people with big calves…some docs told me that calf just absorbs the shocks when the foot hits the ground and that calf is very poor linked to the kws (power) generated (mainly from ass&hips)in sprint.
out of contest, never saw sprinters with Dorian Yates calves:-)

64

[quote]buzza wrote:
very rarely on football fields I have seen fast people with big calves…some docs told me that calf just absorbs the shocks when the foot hits the ground and that calf is very poor linked to the kws (power) generated (mainly from ass&hips)in sprint.
out of contest, never saw sprinters with Dorian Yates calves:-)[/quote]
My calfs are 16 inches and I’ve never particularly isolated them, or trained long enough for them to be that naturally big because of weight lifting.

My best event has always been sprinting. The bigger the muscle the more explosive force available, assuming you have trained right.

You don’t see endurance runners with giant calves who say the mahoosive calves help them absorb shocks which therefore hinder their speed and allows them to take a more steady speed for longer a la endurance style.

The simple reason you never saw sprinters with Dorian Yates calves is because they’re not pro bodybuilders. The only reason you draw comparison at all is because sprinters tend to be pretty big with low bodyfat. That is because they know bigger muscles allow them to sprint faster.

So your whole argument is pretty invalid really.

65

[quote]BruceLeeFan wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:
very rarely on football fields I have seen fast people with big calves…some docs told me that calf just absorbs the shocks when the foot hits the ground and that calf is very poor linked to the kws (power) generated (mainly from ass&hips)in sprint.
out of contest, never saw sprinters with Dorian Yates calves:-)[/quote]
My calfs are 16 inches and I’ve never particularly isolated them, or trained long enough for them to be that naturally big because of weight lifting.

My best event has always been sprinting. The bigger the muscle the more explosive force available, assuming you have trained right.

***no way, wrong…
so bbers would be stronger than PLers?
bigger the muscle(bber) the more explosive force you generate???
I was taught that “explosive strenght is the ability to fire out most part of your muscle fibers for no more than 5 sec”.
so it’s a matter of CNS not muscles.
more, size of muscles involved doesn’t matter at all,CNS yes.
body of evidence; Volkov is one of the greatest bencher of the planet, he weights 107kg/235lb and bench 306kg/674lb, He doesn’t look BIG at all…

You don’t see endurance runners with giant calves who say the mahoosive calves help them absorb shocks which therefore hinder their speed and allows them to take a more steady speed for longer a la endurance style.

The simple reason you never saw sprinters with Dorian Yates calves is because they’re not pro bodybuilders. The only reason you draw comparison at all is because sprinters tend to be pretty big with low bodyfat. That is because they know bigger muscles allow them to sprint faster.

So your whole argument is pretty invalid really.[/quote]

really? :slight_smile:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2250/getimg.jpg

this is Gold Olympic lifting winner at last Games, so where are the bigger muscles=more explosive force avalaible???
are we talking of objectively comparable performances??
this athlete shows -again- that explosive strenght is total different animal from muscle size,objective performances are different from muscle size,IMO.

imo, you apply BB rules to different fields,no offence intended.

66

[quote]buzza wrote:
really? :slight_smile:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2250/getimg.jpg

this is Gold Olympic lifting winner at last Games, so where are the bigger muscles=more explosive force avalaible???
are we talking of objectively comparable performances??
this athlete shows -again- that explosive strenght is total different animal from muscle size,objective performances are different from muscle size,IMO.

imo, you apply BB rules to different fields,no offence intended.

[/quote]

Obviously individuals will vary in terms of neurological efficiency and leverage/lever lengths, so it’s not really a matter of whether one individual can achieve a greater explosive force level than another who might be somewhat smaller in terms of muscular size but have better neurological efficiency and better leverages, but rather the fact that the absolute potential explosive strength ceiling is coorelated to that individual’s muscular cross sectional area.

So, if Volkov were to gain another 20lbs of lean mass (doing so smartly through strength gains and dieting), he would have the potential to be even stronger (of course he would have to again gain the ability to maximally recruit that extra mass).

Also, things change depending on whether we are talking about absolute strength or relative strength. If we’re talking about absolute strength, then guys like Mendelson totally blow Volkov out of the water in terms of explosive strength. Yes, he’s considerably heavier, but since we’re talking about muscular size (and muscle is a dense/heavy tissue) that only helps to prove the point.

Mendelson’s raw world record:

Finally, Jeremy Hoornstra is a more impressive bencher than Volkov IMO. He has benched close to Volkov’s world record raw in competition and claims to have lifted more than Volkov’s world record raw while training.

Hoornstra benching (raw) in the gym (yes, it’s touch and go, but he has hit 635 in competition):

You cannot say that he doesn’t have some substantial muscle mass on him.

67

I agree with Sento.

You can’t argue that volkov is better because he is less muscular?

That my friend. Is the opposite to this sites philosophy.

68

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]buzza wrote:
really? :slight_smile:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2250/getimg.jpg

this is Gold Olympic lifting winner at last Games, so where are the bigger muscles=more explosive force avalaible???
are we talking of objectively comparable performances??
this athlete shows -again- that explosive strenght is total different animal from muscle size,objective performances are different from muscle size,IMO.

imo, you apply BB rules to different fields,no offence intended.

[/quote]

So, if Volkov were to gain another 20lbs of lean mass (doing so smartly through strength gains and dieting), he would have the potential to be even stronger (of course he would have to again gain the ability to maximally recruit that extra mass).

*******I agree mostly with all you wrote ,
the ability to recruit how many fibers as possible is the key imo,if no the extra lean mass doesn’t matter.

record raw in competition and claims to have lifted more than Volkov’s world record raw while training.

Hoornstra benching (raw) in the gym (yes, it’s touch and go, but he has hit 635 in competition):

You cannot say that he doesn’t have some substantial muscle mass on him. [/quote]

of course I can’t, liked this kind of body but the point , for me, is ;
“how many bbers of the same size of Hoornstra can’t lift like him?”.
again, very imo, it’s a matter of CNS training and not very much of muscle size…

69

Hoornstra has trained like a bodybuilder (he IS a bodybuilder as well as a powerlifter) from the start.
The difference between him and someone of similar size training the same way is leverage/genetics.

He also has pretty bad muscle belly shape/length… Won’t ever do as well in bodybuilding as he does in powerlifting because of that.

70

Some of J.H.'s sessions from his log:

Not too different from what I do for example, in terms of how his routine is set up…
I do a little more high rep stuff.

Note: I don’t think he lists all warm-ups on smaller exercises like laterals…

Ah, and look, he even does curls. Can you imagine.

He does extensions with 365lbs (!) too off the top of my head, maybe even more…

71

I think he’s incline benched 585 for reps too… Damn.

72

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hoornstra has trained like a bodybuilder (he IS a bodybuilder as well as a powerlifter) from the start.
The difference between him and someone of similar size training the same way is leverage/genetics.

He also has pretty bad muscle belly shape/length… Won’t ever do as well in bodybuilding as he does in powerlifting because of that.

[/quote]

CC, for Leverage you mean short arms&long torso to help a limited ROM on bench? or what?
about genetics,could he stand to an highr volume/intensity that an “average” advanced guy?

Mikael from Italy

73

[quote]buzza wrote:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hoornstra has trained like a bodybuilder (he IS a bodybuilder as well as a powerlifter) from the start.
The difference between him and someone of similar size training the same way is leverage/genetics.

He also has pretty bad muscle belly shape/length… Won’t ever do as well in bodybuilding as he does in powerlifting because of that.

[/quote]

CC, for Leverage you mean short arms&long torso to help a limited ROM on bench? or what?
about genetics,could he stand to an highr volume/intensity that an “average” advanced guy?

Mikael from Italy[/quote]

Torso length has nothing to do with it (unless maybe you go for a big arch? I dunno, hoornstra doesn’t arch much beyond the basic setup).

Yeah, short-ish arms, thick barrel chest.

74

Oh, and of course Hoornstra has been spending a lot of time in the same weight-class(es) too. There’s a big difference between “just got to 242” and “has been sitting at 242 and training hard with a high protein intake for a decade”.