That is just lighting, being in contest shape and oiled up.
[quote=“asmonius, post:25, topic:281753”]
There are a bunch of Strawmen in these replies. I’ll try to address them objectively.
Please, show me said evidence other than 2 very different periods in Larry’s 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 doesn’t “prove”, it “evidences”. Big difference. The “major play” to become relevant is speculation. It also negates the reality of the change. “Mass”, “gear”… It sounds like you are acknowledging that there is an apparent change. I’m good with that, as I said, this isn’t going to “prove” 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, up…and he is not flexing the same as the older photo.
To say you can change the genetic makeup of your muscle is not anything I’ve seen without oil, or other injections or implants, nor has anyone else. If this were really “well evidenced”, I would think I and those who have done this for decades would know this…right? But you, you have broken the “code”, evidenced by these amazing photos!
I didn’t say change the genetic make up. You did. A muscle can gain size, correct? Doesn’t change the genetic makeup. A muscle can add or subtract sarcomeres (length). Doesn’t change the genetic make up. One can emphasize parts of muscles with separate innervations (sternal, clavicular, sternocostal pecs). Doesn’t 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, it’s not evidence. It’s “you can do it, depending on exercise selection”.
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 “google experts” that post up bs that they think proves a point, when it doesn’t. 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, didn’t say it was proof. I said it was evidence. Whether you realize it, or not, most knowledge is not deductive, it’s inductive. Meaning, evidence accumulates from various sources, which tends to point to a “truth”. You also may not realize, that most of this inductive evidence is anecdote and observation. Example-I’ll bet you wouldn’t get into a cage with starving tiger wearing a meat necklace. But I’ll also bet you never read a “study” saying you couldn’t do it.
I guess those born with bad genetics have no excuse anymore, there was NEVER any real excuse…this really is laughable. I cannot believe someone posted this, well evidenced my you know what.
What’s laughable is the massive Strawman argument you are making here. This has little to do with “genetics”; it has to do with adaptation (optimizing length/tension points, or WHATEVER the “reason” our bodies adapt in the way they do). Just like the fact that you can build bigger muscles doesn’t 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 “Google experts”. The armchair experts are the ones who say you CAN’T build “peak” or emphasize “inner” or “outer” chest. YOU are the one arguing with basically every Mr. Olympia, Universe, America and saying they are wrong. I’m simply evidencing what these guys believe and have believed. The “Google experts” are the ones on BB.com telling Ron Coleman he doesn’t 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 “I don’t know about “best” but it works well, likely because of the stretch provided by flexing the hips”. We use it a lot in our training programs." That’s 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 doesn’t 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 “meh” 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).