I guess we are all just use to Ronnie Coleman training like a beast, then you have Jay doing this workout as his "hardest training ever" and "new wheels"
Jay's legs have NOT improved in the past few years size at all (while his upper body has improved massively). Look at the difference from the 1999 Olympia, and the 2009 Olympia
As you can see, there is very little, if any, size difference over a 10 year period, if anything they might be smaller now. (However, his leg "detail" is MUCH better but this is entirely due to him being just so damn lean and dry here in 2009, plus maybe subtle differences in "muscle majority" just from years of lifting which packs more sarcomeres in the area).
Why haven't his legs gotten any better really over TEN YEARS, yet the rest of his upper body has exploded? I'm willing to bet any money he's pushed his upper body that much harder over 10 years than he has his lower body, and specifically he's a lot stronger in his chest/back/arm exercises than he was 10 years ago... but why does this matter?
Well, there are essentially 3 main factors responsible for muscle hypertrophy after muscle injury (weight lifting) to complete the repair process. First, satellite cells (which are formed from differentiation from stem cells) fuse and form something called myoblasts. Second, myoblasts fuse and then bind to injured muscle tissue, while also donating nuclei and affecting the formation of new muscle fibers, third, typical muscle protein synthesis in the "traditional sense" (DNA- mRNA- protein) occurs. (1)
This process is HIGHLY dependent on local growth factors, but formation of these growth factors is influenced by higher loads. To quote (2)
"Skeletal muscle stem (satellite) cells supporting growth/regeneration are thought to be activated and incorporated into growing myofibers by both endocrine and locally expressed autocrine/paracrine growth factors, the latter being load sensitive."
In other words, in order to continue the hypertrophy process, one MUST keep emphasizing progressive overload. Obviously, for bodybuilding purposes I'm not advocating powerlifting style lifts where someone does high weight for a few reps and low volume, but rather it is key that the person keep overloading in a particular rep range.
So, giving the example of Jay Cutler, it's not much surprise that his legs have hardly changed over the last 10 years, because he's still squatting 365 for 10-12 reps or whatever. For Phil, who I know trains FST-7, the whole "pump" process does produce a lot of the signals for muscle hypertrophy (inflamation, muscle damage, waste products, and so forth)... but I guarantee you, nothing will increase your muscle size more than progressive overload.
In other words, say for example your current squat is 500 x 12 reps, and your current bench is 450x 10 reps, and your current curl is 185 x 10 reps (just pulling these numbers out of this air)... if you were to bring your squat to 650 x 12 reps, bench to 550 x 10 reps, and curl to 225 x 10 reps, then you WILL have bigger legs, chest, and biceps.
1) Anderson, J. The satellite cell as a companion in skeletal muscle plasticity: currency, conveyance, clue, connector and colander. The Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2276-2292.
2) Petrella JK, Kim JS, Cross JM, Kosek DJ, Bamman MM.
Efficacy of myonuclear addition may explain differential myofiber growth among resistance-trained young and older men and women.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Nov;291(5):E937-46.
the genetics are there, the dedication, the meals, the supps, the other supps.
But that is not for everyone! i assure you common guy that is not a pro bb and does not share the same amount of resources that you will grow more if you optimize your gym time with free weights and natural movements.. that includes the deadlift, the squat, bench.. and others that are not crappy piece of machine.
I'm sure that Phil agrees that free weight squat works better than a smith one , at least it has more muscles involved (balance ones.. and so on..), but that is going to be like 0.05% factor in his leg development cause he has everything else mentioned above.. they hurt your back more? I used to say that but i am squatting properlly now that is not a problem anymore..I understand that for a guy that has his carreer built around lifting weights an injury comes into play has a major factor and years of training does leave some bruises in the body.
they are a freakin difficult exercise to do free weight ?; YES ; but that is why they are so freakin awesome too!
but hey 0.05% is 0.05%.. just saying..
Natzo's LOG - Check my workouts!ASC 09 Top 5 pick Champion'10 MM fantasy Football league Champion
Also, what I cited are not "articles", they are scientific papers. The human body works according to science, so yes, while there are some individual differences between person to person, they are pretty damn small.
Hers a suggestion to make your workout a bit more "UNlame"...Put a 10 pound plate in your mouth while squating and juggle two tennis balss too while you are at it too... because theres more balance involved you'll be a cool dude at your gym ... and also send a letter to IFBB demanding you be handed some sort of a title because your squats arent lame!:footmouth:
For the record, I don't have as much of a cut/dry stance on the smith machine as Tim does. I've used it myself and I find it to be pretty effective for being able to really isolate the force on the muscle as opposed to the joint. (specifically, I like smith military presses, even bench press variations aren't that bad). As unfair as it is, using the mega poundage that top level bodybuilders do isn't "good" for the joints. Yet, it's the price to pay which is necessary to achieve success.
Need an example of this? Look at Ronnie Coleman. The guy trained his ass off, got freakishly strong with 800 lb deadlifts, 500+ pound bench press for high reps, close to 1000lb squats for reps and what, 2500+ leg press for high reps, and everything else he did. With those kind of poundages (and great genetics for building muscle and having good muscle shape), is it ANY surprise that he was the biggest and best bodybuilder in history? However, over time it caught up to him and the injuries took their toll.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in order for someone to be THEIR absolute best, they need to train both hard and smart. In order for a bodybuilder to keep adding muscle, they need to train hard and progressively heavier (like Ronnie did). But at the same time, when you push your body to that limit, you run the risk of injury and need to take steps to limit that risk. This of course means giving the body some time to rest, heal up and have "planned deloading" periods in order to allow the joints to recuperate.
But, if you train like a sissy all the time, you won't make progress. (ie, Jay's legs compared to his upper body, everything on Dennis Wolf over the past few years, Flex Wheeler hardly progressing over his career, and countless other examples).
The biomechanics of the smith machine squat are such that you change the force distribution. There are already stresses on the joints from the squat, but these are amplified when you are locked to a set plane of motion. The only study I have seen on forces in the smith machine squat showed transfer of forces and movement patterns to compensate for the fixed plane of motion. When this is related to the studies on squatting styles and the forces at the joints (referring to the wider stance shifting 1000x the forces from the knees to the hips) you can see what we are dealing with. With a smaller less stabile joint like the shoulder this is even more pronounced.
Now I'm not saying that you can't use a smith machine, but I am saying that for full ROM exercises (exceptions would be lockouts, possibly lunges, possibly shoulder presses) are having to transfer a lot of force as shear stresses. Shearing forces will catch up with the joints eventually. Now using them occassionally is fine, but there are better exercises.
In your own example you state that you have had less knee and back problems. How much of that is due to a possibly counterbalanced bar, or the transfer of force to the hip with less movement of the spine, or a change in the load, or something else? My point is that I'm not relying on personal opinion but on objective measurements. Ironslave is right that I am a bit cut and dried about this, and this is due to my light frame and how poorly I handle bad exercises. Others will tolerate them more or for longer, but it catches up eventually (you would be familiar with the older athletes comments about their shoulders, knees, back, etc).
Ari you would do well to not comment.Originally Posted by Maxmonzter
I agree and disagree. The price you pay for greatness can ultimately decide your standing in regard to other champions. But considering Jay has had the imbalance between his legs for years now, you would think he would address it. Maybe him spending less time on machines and doing some single leg stuff would be a benefitOriginally Posted by Pakiman
But that is completely irrelevant to my point. Jay is shown training, and people are remarking on how tough and hard it is. My point is that this is like reading a pro routine from Muscle and Fiction. We don't see all of the sets, we don't see the other training session that day, we don't understand how hard it is to train when you are that lean, etc. What we see is a guy "promoting" an exercise that most people will get little benefit from and probably do more damage to themselves than a good old fanshioned free weight ATG squat.
Originally Posted by Pakiman
Make your excuses for not squatting properly somewhere else please. I would also like to point out I don't appreciate attacks on myself or others on this board :bball: