Yesterday I discussed how the first Mr. Olympia Larry Scott reshaped his biceps somewhat from bulbously long and thick to more tweaked and peaked.
His results appear to verify researcher Chris Beardsley’s observations that muscles can grow in length from stretch resistance, which creates more size at the ends of the target muscle—or muscle fibers can increase in diameter from contraction, or contractile force, which thickens the muscle more near the center, a.k.a. the belly of the muscle.
Scott had built his long, thick biceps with preacher curls. Then, as an experiment in muscle morphing, he made an exercise switch. That apparently de-emphasized growth at the muscles’ ends and created more peak from thickening the belly.
Is that just some kind of weird coincidence or is shaping a muscle, to a degree, possible? Scott’s results made me think maybe yeah, but most scientists kept saying nah.
Obviously, a muscle can’t be reattached to make it longer, but perhaps a 5 to 10 percent difference in development at the insertion can change a muscle’s shape somewhat, as in Scott’s case…
Throughout my 45 years of training, I remember how emphasizing certain exercises appeared to trigger growth in either the central belly of the muscle or at its ends. For example…
Standing, bent-over concentration curl seemed to improve my biceps peak. It’s top-range contracted-position emphasis appeared to develop my biceps in the center belly area. It was an Arnold favorite (Art Zeller photo)…
To be fair, Arnold’s right biceps had an unreal freak peak, while his left was only moderately high. Genetics and insertion points cannot be changed, and if shaping is possible, the percentage isn’t huge…
As for my results, I thought that maybe I was imagining things, but every time I dropped concentration curls from my routine, my biceps flattened out. Perhaps I was just better at contractile-force production with concentration curls as opposed to standing curls…
You would think any type of curl would produce optimal contractile force at the key point on the range—where the forearm is about a third of the way up; however, other types of curls, like standing, didn’t have resistance through the top end like concentrations.
In other words, concentration curls had unique contractile force from the strongest point to the very top contracted position. Interesting that I did notice more of a peak when I did cable curls, which had concentration-curl-like top-end force/tension.
As for end development, or thickening at the muscle’s insertion point, from loaded stretch…
Under-grip pulldowns for lats, which provide elongation and a pull on that muscle when arms are extended, created more low thickness and jutting out of the muscle at the insertion down by my waist…
I got that same type of insertion development in my triceps down at my elbow from high-incline extensions, which elongates the triceps.
Imagination or other explanations? I’m still mulling it over…
Some researchers appear to be coming around to Beardsley’s conclusion; however, many still say muscle shape is completely genetically determined. Me? After 45 years in the gym, I’m still learning (a.k.a., trying to figure this shit out).
New: Get the ideal exercise for each muscle, the best add-on moves for ultimate mass, complete 35-minute workouts, exercise start/finish photos and details on building muscle fast and efficiently in Old Man, Young Muscle.
And you still get The Muscle-On, Belly-Gone “Diet” ebook FREE for a limited time when you add Old Man, Young Muscle to your mass-building library. Go HERE.
Till next time, train hard—and smart—for BIG results.
Steve Holman
Former Editor in Chief, Iron Man Magazine
www.X-Rep.com
Recommended
Get The 7-Minute “Miracle Fix” for Stubborn Belly Fat
Researchers from The Proceedings of The Nutrition Society are suggesting this “blood flow hack” is the fastest way to melt off frozen belly fat with minimal effort.
So if you want to switch on your fat-switch in just 7 minutes—without going to the gym or running on the treadmill, then check this out: