I'm 33

[maunde]

I hope this is the right section. It's the closest I could find.

Here's my story:

I used to be very fit, but I was training for fitness, not for any specific goal such as size, strength etc. It was all functional and I was very functional.

For ten years I haven't done anything.

In the last two months I decided to start again. Mainly because I want to hit the clubs before I am all wrinkled and obviously past my prime in appearance, and be someone who strangers will want to talk to for a night of fun.

So I am training for appearance.

I also decided I don't want to be lazy and soft and with teenager arms (I have shrunk! I dieted instead of exercising for the last ten years). I never have trained biceps before. I did every muscle except biceps when I used to train.

I also decided I want bone density and muscle mass for the rest of my life, so I don't get a walking frame when I'm ooooold. I also want lower body fat as there are cardiovascular related issues.

So this is also for health.

So this is a new direction for the rest of my life.

I've been doing it for about three months now hitting the shakes also.

My question is, apparently there is x amount of muscle I can obtain, related to my genetic potential.

Now, if I do a full body workout, will that affect the size of my shoulders?

As in, if I didn't train biceps or calves, would that 'genetic potential' result in increased muscle mass elsewhere?

Is muscle maximum related to total weight of muscle or is it related to total size of each individual muscle?

Would I get huge arms if I only ever trained arms and never trained anything else?

Thanks.

[SuffolkPunch]

A full body workout would presumably include shoulders - so yes, it would affect the size of your shoulders.

Muscle growth is localised. You can't expect them to grow if you don't train them. Things like biceps and calfs are trained indirectly from main compound exercises like rows, pullups, squats, deadlifts etc. By "indirect", I mean that they are trained but aren't necessarily the main target of the training.

This is enough when you are relatively new to lifting. Ultimate potential (something most people never have to worry about) would not be reached without direct targetted exercises.

[maunde]

A full body workout would presumably include shoulders - so yes, it would affect the size of your shoulders.

Muscle growth is localised. You can't expect them to grow if you don't train them. Things like biceps and calfs are trained indirectly from main compound exercises like rows, pullups, squats, deadlifts etc. By "indirect", I mean that they are trained but aren't necessarily the main target of the training.

This is enough when you are relatively new to lifting. Ultimate potential (something most people never have to worry about) would not be reached without direct targetted exercises.

What I meant was, does my genetic potential mean I can sustain x amount of muscle on my frame, and therefore, If I ONLY worked one bicep, could I get a hulk arm, or, does it mean each specific muscle can only reach a specific size?

[SuffolkPunch]

I would be pretty sure its a limit imposed per muscle. There is the issue of systemic fatigue and recovery becoming a limiting factor if training the whole body. There is some slim evidence that very advanced lifters can benefit from focusing on one particular muscle group at a time while just doing maintenance work on other groups. Again, this is in the realms that 99.99% of people will never reach.

Limits are not hard limits by the way. Think of it more like a natural decay curve - it never quite reaches zero but as close as makes no practical difference.

[maunde]

I would be pretty sure its a limit imposed per muscle. There is the issue of systemic fatigue and recovery becoming a limiting factor if training the whole body. There is some slim evidence that very advanced lifters can benefit from focusing on one particular muscle group at a time while just doing maintenance work on other groups. Again, this is in the realms that 99.99% of people will never reach.

Limits are not hard limits by the way. Think of it more like a natural decay curve - it never quite reaches zero but as close as makes no practical difference.

Okay so no single arm hulk adventures

[SuffolkPunch]

Sorry, nope

[xTeTe]

Is muscle maximum related to total weight of muscle or is it related to total size of each individual muscle?

Would I get huge arms if I only ever trained arms and never trained anything else?

Thanks.

I'd think this is fairly obvious, but if you only train one muscle or muscle group... you'll only gain in those areas and will be small in others. If you only train upper body every day and never do anything for legs... yeah, you'll look like Johnny Bravo.

Your body is only capable of carrying a certain amount of muscle naturally regardless of how much or less you work certain areas. It isn't an aggregate... your wrist/arm bone structure will only allow a certain amount of muscle on your arms... your ankle size/leg bone structure in your legs will only allow you to carry so much muscle in your legs.. etc etc. You'll fill out to a maximum potential for every muscle group.. how even you want your body to look up to that point is up to you. That's why I'd advise you to stick to a full body workout so that everything progresses equally.. even though it will never be exactly equal but you get what I mean.

[maunde]

Thanks for that.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

I'm doing full body but I wasn't doing obliques because I thought I could refocus the oblique growth elsewhere.