That is just lighting, being in contest shape and oiled up.
[quote=âasmonius, post:25, topic:281753â]
There are a bunch of Strawmen in these replies. Iâll try to address them objectively.
Please, show me said evidence other than 2 very different periods in Larryâs career, with obvious mass and other things going on (very different look for him with a different/more modern gear usage). You understand this was a major play for Larry in a number of ways to become relevant again, to cash in, per say? (in no way begrudging him that)
He made an intentional attempt to improve his biceps peak. Did it improve or not? Objectively, it improved. I said specifically, it doesnât âproveâ, it âevidencesâ. Big difference. The âmajor playâ to become relevant is speculation. It also negates the reality of the change. âMassâ, âgearâ⊠It sounds like you are acknowledging that there is an apparent change. Iâm good with that, as I said, this isnât going to âproveâ anything. It simply evidence for an inductive argument.
The details of his arm did not change much, as RT_Nomad said, look at his insertions, the gaps, the things that make up the genetics, his bicep is bigger because he is much bigger, his arm had one place to go, upâŠand he is not flexing the same as the older photo.
To say you can change the genetic makeup of your muscle is not anything Iâve seen without oil, or other injections or implants, nor has anyone else. If this were really âwell evidencedâ, I would think I and those who have done this for decades would know thisâŠright? But you, you have broken the âcodeâ, evidenced by these amazing photos!
I didnât say change the genetic make up. You did. A muscle can gain size, correct? Doesnât change the genetic makeup. A muscle can add or subtract sarcomeres (length). Doesnât change the genetic make up. One can emphasize parts of muscles with separate innervations (sternal, clavicular, sternocostal pecs). Doesnât change the genetic make up.
So the question here is "can you emphasize parts of a muscle regionally, specifically different segments along the proximal/distal length? The evidence which, importantly, simply goes along with what bodybuilders experience shows (inner chest, peak, upper/middle/lower lats, etc) is yes. In fact, itâs not evidence. Itâs âyou can do it, depending on exercise selectionâ.
This basically addresses the exact issue:
What is regional hypertrophy, and how does it happen? | by Chris Beardsley | Medium
I made a post recently about the âgoogle expertsâ that post up bs that they think proves a point, when it doesnât. These 2 photos are not proof of anything other than a much smaller Larry, post Mr.O, and one who is making a push for relevance again and is pushing past what he accomplished by any means.
Again, didnât say it was proof. I said it was evidence. Whether you realize it, or not, most knowledge is not deductive, itâs inductive. Meaning, evidence accumulates from various sources, which tends to point to a âtruthâ. You also may not realize, that most of this inductive evidence is anecdote and observation. Example-Iâll bet you wouldnât get into a cage with starving tiger wearing a meat necklace. But Iâll also bet you never read a âstudyâ saying you couldnât do it.
I guess those born with bad genetics have no excuse anymore, there was NEVER any real excuseâŠthis really is laughable. I cannot believe someone posted this, well evidenced my you know what.
Whatâs laughable is the massive Strawman argument you are making here. This has little to do with âgeneticsâ; it has to do with adaptation (optimizing length/tension points, or WHATEVER the âreasonâ our bodies adapt in the way they do). Just like the fact that you can build bigger muscles doesnât make everyone Mr. Olympia, or the fact that you CAN emphasize upper pecs, guarantees everyone will have giant upper pecs you can stand a glass on.
Regarding your âGoogle expertsâ. The armchair experts are the ones who say you CANâT build âpeakâ or emphasize âinnerâ or âouterâ chest. YOU are the one arguing with basically every Mr. Olympia, Universe, America and saying they are wrong. Iâm simply evidencing what these guys believe and have believed. The âGoogle expertsâ are the ones on BB.com telling Ron Coleman he doesnât know how to train.
Have a good week.
DC, DoggCrapp, Dante Trudel.
Ask him yourself he is responsive normally to reasonable inquiry. His likely response âI donât know about âbestâ but it works well, likely because of the stretch provided by flexing the hipsâ. We use it a lot in our training programs." Thatâs just a guess.
My understanding, after reading through Cycling for Pennies, was that the heaviest exercises that target a muscle should be prioritized first. This would usually imply things like weighted chins, row variants, etc.
I scanned back through his original condensed writeup and never saw anything that differs from what I said about prioritizing the heaviest exercises. I have not gone over to IM to search this specifically, it just doesnât seem to be a good fit for that purpose IMO.
Dante is pretty big on them buddy for lats.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvC4352H9rk/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
1 Like
This is one of those exercises that surprised me, in that I thought âmehâ but tried it, and it is at least as effective as chins.
The *slight lean back at the start seems to make a difference, as well as the stretch on the lats from the bottom (similar to a seated row due to the legs forward, causing a cascade of stretch in the lower areas).