Triangle Buff Men envy?

[thekrown]

Notice how there is so much hate towards chicken-leg-triangle-puff-chest guys from squatters?

Well if you haven't, just read a thread with "want big chest, arms" and you'll probably find some squatter saying "Squat!" or sometish like that.

It came as a shock to me because it's rather interesting to see many guys just pump bench and curls and achieve a massive upper body but have legs about the same size as my fat cat, and that isn't very big.

Why would squatters try to get people who don't want to squat to squat in order to achieve big man chest and huge arms? Doesn't make sense, it's already been done without squatting! I see these big-puff-triangle-chicken-leg guys all over the place.

So what's the deal? I'm a fellow squatter myself and I deadlift as well. My chest and arms aren't nearly as large as these chicken leg guys but they sure can't squat and dead worth ****. I always get funny faces from them when I load the bars.

If caloric surplus is what is required to gain mass, then where the hell does "must squat to get big" come from?

Go check this mofo out...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...sque-limb.html

Clearly this guy does not squat yet he has a bigger forearm than 90% of the people on this forum alone and he's tiny.

I don't know his routine but it probably had a lot to do with training the body part he wanted improved and eating a lot.

If you take that into account, along with the chicken-leg-puff-superman-V-chest and it seems clear as a blue sky on a sunny day that squatting is not even remotely close to being a requirement to mass.

Simple logic says training the desired body part in addition to a heft many meals is the secret here. Not squats.

[grim83]

Notice how there is so much hate towards chicken-leg-triangle-puff-chest guys from squatters?

Well if you haven't, just read a thread with "want big chest, arms" and you'll probably find some squatter saying "Squat!" or sometish like that.

It came as a shock to me because it's rather interesting to see many guys just pump bench and curls and achieve a massive upper body but have legs about the same size as my fat cat, and that isn't very big.

Why would squatters try to get people who don't want to squat to squat in order to achieve big man chest and huge arms? Doesn't make sense, it's already been done without squatting! I see these big-puff-triangle-chicken-leg guys all over the place.

So what's the deal? I'm a fellow squatter myself and I deadlift as well. My chest and arms aren't nearly as large as these chicken leg guys but they sure can't squat and dead worth ****. I always get funny faces from them when I load the bars.

If caloric surplus is what is required to gain mass, then where the hell does "must squat to get big" come from?

Go check this mofo out...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...sque-limb.html

Clearly this guy does not squat yet he has a bigger forearm than 90% of the people on this forum alone and he's tiny.

I don't know his routine but it probably had a lot to do with training the body part he wanted improved and eating a lot.

If you take that into account, along with the chicken-leg-puff-superman-V-chest and it seems clear as a blue sky on a sunny day that squatting is not even remotely close to being a requirement to mass.

Simple logic says training the desired body part in addition to a heft many meals is the secret here. Not squats.

You want to know why squats (and deads) get mentioned, its because they cause a hormone surge that benching and curls simply cant match. also because guys like that need to be enlightened

[SwiftyX]

Overall surges in testosterone and GH don't amount to much if anything. The triangle men do what they do because it's thier main focus. If you put yourself on not only a specialization routine....but a specialization routine which you neglected everything else....whatever the part you chose would eventually gain the results you wanted.

Is it a foolish way to train...yeah....but the point remains. Im my life I've found that the people with the biggest bi's and chest, work bi's and chest all the time and almost exclusivly.
The guys with the best phisiques overall.....don't train like morons.

[thekrown]

You want to know why squats (and deads) get mentioned, its because they cause a hormone surge that benching and curls simply cant match. also because guys like that need to be enlightened

I've heard of this as well and these surges don't have any impact whatsoever on hypertrophy, there was a thread posted a few days ago with a link to this study. If I can find it I will link it here.

[Hut*Hut]

Overall surges in testosterone and GH don't amount to much if anything. The triangle men do what they do because it's thier main focus. If you put yourself on not only a specialization routine....but a specialization routine which you neglected everything else....whatever the part you chose would eventually gain the results you wanted.

Is it a foolish way to train...yeah....but the point remains. Im my life I've found that the people with the biggest bi's and chest, work bi's and chest all the time and almost exclusivly.
The guys with the best phisiques overall.....don't train like morons.

exactly. check out bodyspace too, allot of guys with impressive upper bodies have pitiable squats and deadlifts.

[CookAndrewB]

I'm not sure I understand the point of the thread? Am I to think "why should I squat, I could look like the human fiddler crab over there!??!"

Look, That guy is an utter fcuktard, and I can't even begin to list you all the reasons that he would probably be even more dominant if he had a much more wholistic approach to training.

Maybe I'm missing something... anyone? Can anyone tell me what value this post has and what I can learn from it?

[brudman]

Maybe I'm missing something... anyone? Can anyone tell me what value this post has and what I can learn from it?

Somehow it's become counter-intuition for people that benching makes for a bigger chest, curling makes for bigger biceps, and squatting makes for bigger legs.


Oh and Grim, take a look at this study. Scroll down to the summary if you wish to skip the reading exercise.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-2825

[grim83]

I've heard of this as well and these surges don't have any impact whatsoever on hypertrophy, there was a thread posted a few days ago with a link to this study. If I can find it I will link it here.

dont worry about it, it doesn't matter, science can only help change my opinion on something im not 100% on, this is one of those times when i will call bull**** in the face of a study. Look most of my gains have come when i spent a bit of time squatting and deadlifting, when i took both out of my program my progress went to a snails pace.

[NeoginCF]

Squats use 80% of your body's muscle
Deadlifts use 70%
Bench press uses 20%

U get why they advise to do squats?

[thekrown]

Let the war begin.

[grim83]

Somehow it's become counter-intuition for people that benching makes for a bigger chest, curling makes for bigger biceps, and squatting makes for bigger legs.


Oh and Grim, take a look at this study. Scroll down to the summary if you wish to skip the reading exercise.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...html#more-2825

my problem here is that it was unclear as to how they performed their tests (granted i didn't read the my comments section), all it said was that they had 12 participants perform 2 protocols on different days, and the study lasted 15weeks. While i would like to assume they split the group and then compared there was nothing stating this, so at best i have to assume that the study was null and void. Also one thing i would have loved to see instead was that they compared the effects of the arm only group to a fullbody (Only compounds) group, why well because the full body group would have been hitting the arm muscles with a heavier resistance granted the arms would no longer be prime movers.

[TexAss]

[nick.v]

my problem here is that it was unclear as to how they performed their tests (granted i didn't read the my comments section), all it said was that they had 12 participants perform 2 protocols on different days, and the study lasted 15weeks. While i would like to assume they split the group and then compared there was nothing stating this, so at best i have to assume that the study was null and void. Also one thing i would have loved to see instead was that they compared the effects of the arm only group to a fullbody (Only compounds) group, why well because the full body group would have been hitting the arm muscles with a heavier resistance granted the arms would no longer be prime movers.

agreed.

squatting for me is simple. when my squat gets stronger, my deadlift gets stronger, when my deadlift get stronger, my back gets stronger. when my back gets stronger, by biceps grow and my bench goes up. the results of a strong squat are seen all over.

[CookAndrewB]

dont worry about it, it doesn't matter, science can only help change my opinion on something im not 100% on, this is one of those times when i will call bull**** in the face of a study. Look most of my gains have come when i spent a bit of time squatting and deadlifting, when i took both out of my program my progress went to a snails pace.

I hate these "either or" arguments. I don't think the recommendation started off as some idea that squatting alone would make your arms grow. That is a gross misrepresentation of the advice given.

The idea, when properly presented, should be an argument for how the body will reach its maximum potential by using a balanced approach.

From an evolutionary perspective, what would be the benefit of a man with a huge upper body and tiny legs? If you are being hunted, your mobility is going to suffer, yes? You have two options, fight or flight. Neither is well served by this arrangement of heavy upper body mass with no lower body strength (mass may or may not reflect strength, sorry chicken calf guys). It would then be reasonable to assume that your body will develop in a manner that would keep you alive, and limit your upper body gains to something that your getaway sticks can deal with.

Now, that is largely theory, but these are the same outlooks that give us good reasons why you don't see bodybuilding marathon runners, and you don't see strongmen built like Minute Bol. All these adaptations make sense over the course of human evolution and development.

This doesn't say that you can't have a big upper body and small legs, but we can predict that you will limit your upper body development if you don't have the wheels to get you around.

...plus you look like a tool.

[LB49s]

I'm not sure I understand the point of the thread?

The point of the thread is that if someone starts a thread that is asking how to get bigger arms, chest or shoulders, the response should not be "You have to squat to get big". It is relly quite silly. I am a squater and believe that it helps my body as a whole getter bigger and stronger, it is definately not a requirement for a big upper body. I know several guys that can bench, with full ROM, over 400 lbs and would probably not be able to squat 225.

[CookAndrewB]

The point of the thread is that if someone starts a thread that is asking how to get bigger arms, chest or shoulders, the response should not be "You have to squat to get big". It is relly quite silly. I am a squater and believe that it helps my body as a whole getter bigger and stronger, it is definately not a requirement for a big upper body. I know several guys that can bench, with full ROM, over 400 lbs and would probably not be able to squat 225.

Really? You know "several guys" that can't squat 225 but have a legit 400lb bench?

Every day this place makes me thankful of the people I know, and for my home gym.

[bigtallox]

Notice how there is so much hate towards chicken-leg-triangle-puff-chest guys from squatters?

Well if you haven't, just read a thread with "want big chest, arms" and you'll probably find some squatter saying "Squat!" or sometish like that.

It came as a shock to me because it's rather interesting to see many guys just pump bench and curls and achieve a massive upper body but have legs about the same size as my fat cat, and that isn't very big.

And there are just as many squatters who have both massive legs and upper bodies. Given the choice of being unballanced or ballanced which would you choose? Thus, saying "squat!" is good advice, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.

If caloric surplus is what is required to gain mass, then where the hell does "must squat to get big" come from?

Correct training ensures that the caloric surplus goes into building muscle not fat. I never see anybody (with any experience) say squat = big, they say squat + food = big. You're twisting things and thus a borderline troll, IMHO.

Go check this mofo out...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...sque-limb.html

Clearly this guy does not squat yet he has a bigger forearm than 90% of the people on this forum alone and he's tiny.

I don't know his routine but it probably had a lot to do with training the body part he wanted improved and eating a lot.

If you believe he got that way because of his training, I have a bridge to sell you.

[bigtallox]

Maybe I'm missing something... anyone? Can anyone tell me what value this post has and what I can learn from it?

Yeah, He's a troll. I probably shouldn't have responded to him.

[thekrown]

And there are just as many squatters who have both massive legs and upper bodies. Given the choice of being unballanced or ballanced which would you choose? Thus, saying "squat!" is good advice, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.



Correct training ensures that the caloric surplus goes into building muscle not fat. I never see anybody (with any experience) say squat = big, they say squat + food = big. You're twisting things and thus a borderline troll, IMHO.




If you believe he got that way because of his training, I have a bridge to sell you.

In order of your quotation replies:

1. I train properly and answer your question on which type of physique I am after.

2. It's all over these forums. Most of the time however, the mention if food is less often seen only because it is assumed one must know correct diet is a key ingredient to building size. Thus, the question on whether squatting is a requirement* or not is the real question. I say it's not. If it is, the above link with pop-eye forearm guy and chiken-leg-big-chest guys would not exist.

3. Are you saying that he built such a beastly forearm by arm wrestling alone? Eating alone? Squatting alone? Come on, he had to train the forearm and eat, but the squatting benefits are obviously not present on his physique.

[DuLac]

Really? You know "several guys" that can't squat 225 but have a legit 400lb bench?

Every day this place makes me thankful of the people I know, and for my home gym.

Before I started squatting in August, I could Bench press 100 pounds more than I could properly squat. While that isn't a 175 pound difference, it is definitely a marked one.

Since I started squatting in August, I've added 2.75" to my legs and 0.75" to my arms.

My legs are now each larger in circumference than a size 0-1 female. I have difficulty shopping for fashionable jeans now, since I can barely fit into them, even though i have a 34" waist. Do I think it helped me get bigger arms chest shoulders and back? No.

Was I training primarily the upper body, in a triangular-man way before August? Yes.

Did anyone call me chicken legs or reference my small-ish legs? Nope. Never.

Did I get complemented on my chest and called 'Big Guy' ? Quite a bit.

To each their own. Squatting is good for developing hamstrings and glutes. If someone doesn't want to be a powerlifter or a bodybuilder, though, I wouldn't push squats on them.

[bigtallox]

2. It's all over these forums. Most of the time however, the mention if food is less often seen only because it is assumed one must know correct diet is a key ingredient to building size. Thus, the question on whether squatting is a requirement* or not is the real question. I say it's not. If it is, the above link with pop-eye forearm guy and chiken-leg-big-chest guys would not exist.

No you cannot assume anything, and just because something is all over this board doesn't mean anything. There are lots and lots of inexperienced people who post here who think they know what they're doing because they've lifted for a couple months. Also, not everybody is created equal. The point of all of this is that if somebody is having a hard time building upper body size, suggesting eating and squatting ( if they aren't ) IS sound advice.

If you're squatting but you haven't developed much upper body size, then my advice would be to squat more and eat more. I base on personal experience. I know what works, I used to be skinny, but now I have a 60" chest and 33" quads.

3. Are you saying that he built such a beastly forearm by arm wrestling alone? Eating alone? Squatting alone? Come on, he had to train the forearm and eat, but the squatting benefits are obviously not present on his physique.

There is NO WAY THAT GUY IS LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF HIS TRAINING. There are genetic mutations that cause stuff like that.

[CookAndrewB]

To each their own. Squatting is good for developing hamstrings and glutes. If someone doesn't want to be a powerlifter or a bodybuilder, though, I wouldn't push squats on them.

If someone is just a recreational lifter, then who cares what they do? If they come here complaining that their "I'll do what I want" attitude has created a sh!t physique... duh

I'm not sure what your story was meant to illustrate. It didn't at all address my primary point of "If you want to obtain your maximal development, a balanced approach is necessary."

From your anectdotal evidence, you trained in a balanced fashion and grew, with a .75" increase in arm size. I'm not saying (nor is anyone) that the squats somehow created a training effect in your biceps. This is the conclusion that everyone is screwing up around here.

No squats/deads = robbing yourself of your maximum potential. If you are ok with that, then so be it. I'm interested in more out of myself, but I'm also a competitive athlete and not just a guy doing curls so a few dudes at work can call me bro and ask me how much I bench.

[thekrown]

No you cannot assume anything, and just because something is all over this board doesn't mean anything. There are lots and lots of inexperienced people who post here who think they know what they're doing because they've lifted for a couple months. Also, not everybody is created equal. The point of all of this is that if somebody is having a hard time building upper body size, suggesting eating and squatting ( if they aren't ) IS sound advice.

If you're squatting but you haven't developed much upper body size, then my advice would be to squat more and eat more. I base on personal experience. I know what works, I used to be skinny, but now I have a 60" chest and 33" quads.


There is NO WAY THAT GUY IS LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF HIS TRAINING. There are genetic mutations that cause stuff like that.

I think people should come to the realization that while squats are not a requirement to mass, they certainly are good. I do them myself, but I don't think it should be the be all end all of advice. I much prefer the idea that the focus and effort required to do heavy squats is what translates into better results, not the squat itself.

[LB49s]

Really? You know "several guys" that can't squat 225 but have a legit 400lb bench?

The gym I used to go to would have 5+ of these guys in there almost everytime I would go in. It was funny, because me and my buddy would get looked at funny when we would squat, DL or do power cleans. My current gym there are a few people that squat, but most of the other people that actually work thier legs use 1/4 ROM in the smith machine or leg press and spend the rest of the time on the seated calf machine. I guess they figure that no one see's anything else. I do live in the a vain city though.

And there are just as many squatters who have both massive legs and upper bodies. Given the choice of being unballanced or ballanced which would you choose? Thus, saying "squat!" is good advice, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.

As I said above, I choose to squat and think it is a good general recomendation, but everytime I read a thread about getting bigger arms chest, there are at aleast a few that go "You have to squat! Period. End of Thread". These types of statements/advice demonstrate a lack of knowledge and narrowmindedness. Oh, by the way, you can get big legs using the leg press and not squating, but it may not be the most efficient way.

[DuLac]

If someone is just a recreational lifter, then who cares what they do? If they come here complaining that their "I'll do what I want" attitude has created a sh!t physique... duh

Well that is the point of this thread, I believe. Recreational lifters come on here and ask about a specific bodypart or parts, and get info on squats instead.

I'm not sure what your story was meant to illustrate. It didn't at all address my primary point of "If you want to obtain your maximal development, a balanced approach is necessary."

From your anectdotal evidence, you trained in a balanced fashion and grew, with a .75" increase in arm size. I'm not saying (nor is anyone) that the squats somehow created a training effect in your biceps. This is the conclusion that everyone is screwing up around here.

My story illustrates training specificity: I started doing squats, my legs grew. I was always doing arms, and they grew too. If someone wants huge Clive-like arms, to the detriment of chest/shoulders/back/legs, it is certainly do-able.

No squats/deads = robbing yourself of your maximum potential. If you are ok with that, then so be it. I'm interested in more out of myself, but I'm also a competitive athlete and not just a guy doing curls so a few dudes at work can call me bro and ask me how much I bench.

I think this is also the point of the OP. Many people on here with large post-counts and rep-totals are serious athletes. They provide serious-athlete advice to anyone who asks any question, which may or may not be appropriate for that individual's goals.

Personally, I like deadlifts, but don't really like squats. I am going to switch to front squats this week and see if I prefer them to the high-bar back squats. I don't mind having average legs, as long as I have an above-average upper body. I think this is the opinion of most males, given the glut of upper-body-focused questions on these forums.

[thekrown]

I think this squat preaching comes from the infamous starting strength routine. I don't recall the author of this routine preaching above all else that squats are key, but it seems the forums have somehow evolved to that level.

Many beginners see "the key to the program and why it works is squats", since it's built around the squat and doing it 3 times a week, and mix it up with "squat and you'll put on mass".

[DuLac]

I think this squat preaching comes from the infamous starting strength routine. I don't recall the author of this routine preaching above all else that squats are key, but it seems the forums have somehow evolved to that level.

Many beginners see "the key to the program and why it works is squats", since it's built around the squat and doing it 3 times a week, and mix it up with "squat and you'll put on mass".

Hmm let me see if I can find the quote that everyone uses, which I agree, is probably the source of the 'YOU MUST SQUAT ALWAYS' advice.

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wi..._Mark_Rippetoe

here it is:

There is simply no other exercise, and certainly no machine, that produces the level of central nervous system activity, improved balance and coordination, skeletal loading and bone density enhancement, muscular stimulation and growth, connective tissue stress and strength, psychological demand and toughness, and overall systemic conditioning than the correctly performed full squat.

[grumble1]

Personally, I like deadlifts, but don't really like squats. I am going to switch to front squats this week and see if I prefer them to the high-bar back squats. I don't mind having average legs, as long as I have an above-average upper body. I think this is the opinion of most males, given the glut of upper-body-focused questions on these forums.

This post made me sad. People should be better than creating weird, unbalanced physiques for vanity. Legs are important too! Also, since the legs are the force-generators of the body, you'll feel the results all day.

I see people with big chests, biceps and abs and a small back and legs, and they strut around thinking they look awesome. They do not look awesome.

[DuLac]

This post made me sad. People should be better than creating weird, unbalanced physiques for vanity. Legs are important too! Also, since the legs are the force-generators of the body, you'll feel the results all day.

I see people with big chests, biceps and abs and a small back and legs, and they strut around thinking they look awesome. They do not look awesome.

Out of curiosity, starting with 16" biceps, you tell me what is a balanced physique in terms of circumferences:
Neck
Chest
Waist
Hips
Legs
Calves
Forearms.

Then do the same for this imbalanced physique for the vain/not-awesome people that you see all the time. (srs)

Go!

[fatdaddy67]

Regarding the study...

I am very skeptical about this study. We have no idea what the parameters were. Did these guys eat on a bulk diet? Probably no. Did they eat a massive meal post-workout? Probably no. Did they live for progression? Probably no. How many sets did they do for legs? Was it 4 sets of 8 reps, heaviest weight possible? Probably no.

I respect Lyle at Body Recomp, but he was quick to connect the dots on a study that most likely didn't mirror real life training and diet scenarios. This is really exposing his bias more then it is showing me convincing data.

Whatever way you slice it, the study revealed that there was more "free and total testosterone and IGF-1 with the peak occurring approximately 15 minutes after the leg work." I like that. Imagine the difference if they were trained by athletes and not scientists.

The squat impacts the entire body. My biceps strain because of heavy squatting. So, is the growth of my biceps from extra hormones or from the impact of the squat being taxing, full body? Who cares. It's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

I'll take the "testosterone in hand", thank you very much.

This also brings the debate back to...who's more right, the scientist or the man with real life, working experience of 20+ years?

Most of the classic lifters did full body work, and it stimulated the full body. They did far less direct work on smaller muscle groups then modern naturals, yet had impressive size. Heavy compounds lifts are good, regardless of the scientific angle.

"Is it hormones that cause the growth, or is it the full body stimulation that caused the growth?" I don't need a study to tell that my hormones are far more jacked after squats then wrist curls. Sheesh. Does this hormonal spike impact long term muscle growth? It sure can't hurt.

The primary issue I have with most lifting studies is that they aren't done with real-world training and diet. But nearly every routine/study uses "untrained" individuals. These people have piss poor form, and piss poor training guidance. Now if Dave Tate was training them, then I would take the data more seriously.

I knew that my hormones were elevated from squats. I didn't need a study to tell me that. Does that directly lead to more bicep muscle? Hmm, maybe it would if the study was done over 2 years, with a constant focus on progression of heavy weight, and a healthy, above maintenance caloric intake.

When I hear that squats DO cause a hormonal spike, I think:

A) That there MUST be a reason why the body spikes test, GH and IGF-1 after exercises like squats. The body doesn't do this for fun...or to be spontaneous, or wacky and crazy. It HAS a purpose.

B) This PURPOSE leads to more muscle and or strength. This purpose is a reaction to a training stress. The body is responding to an attack. It WILL be better suited to handle that attack the next time around.

Does this make sense? I hope so. Because the body sure isn't reacting hormonally for fun in an effort to confuse the scientists.