Abs and V Cut

[stakd]

This is my first post, but I have been working on my abs for a while now and i have a fairly ripped 6 pack, but i can't seem to get the V cut. My obliques poke out over my hips but it kinda seems to stop right there. Is there something i can do to make it show or is it just genetics? I do a lot of leg raises and reverse crunches and what not, but i was just wondering. Thanks for your help, and also --anyone have any tips on building nice ripped pecs?

[triqqey]

the V-cut comes from the latissimus dorsi (upper back) width being wider than your hips. some great exercises for that would be to do weighted/non-weighted (depends on your strength level) pull-ups, chins, and rows of all sorts. for me, personally, doing the close-grip cable row works great.

also, doing squats will help your body grow a little bit more rapidly due to many factors, one of which that squats stimulate the release of HGH (naturally) at a higher rate than other exercises.

[triqqey]

oh, and "nice, ripped pecs" are from a combination of already bulked up pec muscles combined with a low bodyfat percentage. best way to achieve this is by doing, what else? THE BENCH PRESS!
doing a classic whole body workout while on a bulking diet, then cutting to your heart's content is the most effective way to achieve this. you can go the longer road of trying to keep a low bodyfat percentage while increasing lean muscle mass, but it's faster with the classic bulk/cut method. even if you're not in ripped shape for a month or two, you'll have more lean muscle mass in the long run.

[Ross86]

^^^ agreed

[hrdgain81]

also, doing squats will help your body grow a little bit more rapidly due to many factors, one of which that squats stimulate the release of HGH (naturally) at a higher rate than other exercises.

Squats will help overall symetry, as well as overall health/strength/mass. As for them stimulating GH release, that is a myth. There may be a correlation between intense training and GH release, but that doesnt mean squats are any more effective at it then other movements.

[Eric3237]

I agree except for this bit.

Originally Posted by triggey

you can go the longer road of trying to keep a low bodyfat percentage while increasing lean muscle mass, but it's faster with the classic bulk/cut method. even if you're not in ripped shape for a month or two, you'll have more lean muscle mass in the long run.

Not exactly. I've seen no real evidence that bulk/cut in the sense of 'ripping up' for a little bit each year, ends in more mass of a natural trainee. The fallacy is every body talks about it but very few of them ever really get "ripped" anyway unless they have great motivation to do so as in they are a natural pro. The manipulations you have to go through to get "ripped" are very intense and even somewhat tortuous. Most people mean "defined" and that is not the same thing.

The other thing is that the long method does not necessarily mean gaining from a LOW bf% but from a moderate one. A bodyfat percentage that facilitates mass gain while being able to control somewhat the bf at a moderate RANGE. This allows body recomp to take place over time while not having to go into periods of muscle loss for the sole purpose of looking good in a bathing suit for a couple months out of the year...espeically when most will fall short of that goal and "change goals" again. And that is all it is for most people if you ask me. An excuse to "change goals" when one thing isn't working.

Instead of admitting that this makes sense, of course, the bulk crowd now gathers around the "clean bulk". Which means?

Bulk/cut DEFINITELY is the way to go for a juiced athlete. But for the rest of us saying it is better falls into the category of my signature. I see just as many big and defined guys who don't bulk and cut in that manner.

I'm sure there are people who would do better with it but to say that is is always faster and more effective is just dogma. The whole clean bulk thing sort of proves it. Food is not steroids. You eat more than a cetain amount needed, even of protein, and you don't gain more lean mass than what your body's set point can manage. More protein and food does not equal more mass UNLESS you have artificially inflated protein building. So if you recognize this and control bf% via a "clean" bulk then the only thing left is to believe that the process of "cutting" somehow magically leads to more mass over the long term. Now I've heard people give "scientific" arguments of support this idea but I've never seen any real back up and it sounds ridiculous to me. But if you are willing not to always be in a hurry for the short term changes you can realize some long term changes that will stick much better.

Agree with Hrdgain on the squats. It's just about using as much muslce as possible. Squats represent a singularly intense effort but it's silly to set them apart from anything that is full body and intense enougth. Deadlfits should be the same in a way.

[widdoes2504]

Originally Posted by Eric3237

I agree except for this bit.



Not exactly. I've seen no real evidence that bulk/cut in the sense of 'ripping up' for a little bit each year, ends in more mass of a natural trainee. The fallacy is every body talks about it but very few of them ever really get "ripped" anyway unless they have great motivation to do so as in they are a natural pro. The manipulations you have to go through to get "ripped" are very intense and even somewhat tortuous. Most people mean "defined" and that is not the same thing.

The other thing is that the long method does not necessarily mean gaining from a LOW bf% but from a moderate one. A bodyfat percentage that facilitates mass gain while being able to control somewhat the bf at a moderate RANGE. This allows body recomp to take place over time while not having to go into periods of muscle loss for the sole purpose of looking good in a bathing suit for a couple months out of the year...espeically when most will fall short of that goal and "change goals" again. And that is all it is for most people if you ask me. An excuse to "change goals" when one thing isn't working.

Instead of admitting that this makes sense, of course, the bulk crowd now gathers around the "clean bulk". Which means?

Bulk/cut DEFINITELY is the way to go for a juiced athlete. But for the rest of us saying it is better falls into the category of my signature. I see just as many big and defined guys who don't bulk and cut in that manner.

I'm sure there are people who would do better with it but to say that is is always faster and more effective is just dogma. The whole clean bulk thing sort of proves it. Food is not steroids. You eat more than a cetain amount needed, even of protein, and you don't gain more lean mass than what your body's set point can manage. More protein and food does not equal more mass UNLESS you have artificially inflated protein building. So if you recognize this and control bf% via a "clean" bulk then the only thing left is to believe that the process of "cutting" somehow magically leads to more mass over the long term. Now I've heard people give "scientific" arguments of support this idea but I've never seen any real back up and it sounds ridiculous to me. But if you are willing not to always be in a hurry for the short term changes you can realize some long term changes that will stick much better.

Agree with Hrdgain on the squats. It's just about using as much muslce as possible. Squats represent a singularly intense effort but it's silly to set them apart from anything that is full body and intense enougth. Deadlfits should be the same in a way.

I could not have said it better myself. I completely agree with Eric and Hrdgain on the importance of compounds (squats and deads).

[hrdgain81]

^^ Agreed on all accounts Widdoes and eric. I will say that the bulking/cutting set up can result in a lot of muscle loss if done natty. Adding in drugs on the other hand will stem that tide.

[triqqey]

the real trick is to find out what works for you, individually. that's where every road eventually leads. I've lived by the bulk/cut routine and it's worked quite well for me personally and I only use a multivitamin, flax seed oil, and a thermogenic (when cutting) as my supplements.

"... if you are willing not to always be in a hurry for the short term changes you can realize some long term changes that will stick much better"

^^ couldn't have said it better, kudos to you!

also, I was under the assumption that squats initiate the most muscle fibers at once (the most "bang for your buck"). therefore, I've always thought that more muscles used means more work overall for your body, assuming the intensity is there.
more work = more adaptation = a release of more anabolic hormones, including HGH

[Eric3237]

I agree completely that everyone must find what works for them but that is not about finding your side of two extreme ends of the spectrum. You got three roads and it tends to be the ones on the left and right that were replaced by the middle road. The old roads were more scenic but the new one burns less gas

There tends to be a middle road that is the answer and any time you settle to one extreme or the other it is like fighting gravity. Something always gives. Extremes are everybody's favorite. We spend too much time there. Roll a ball bearing in a round bowl and it will eventually spend much more time in the bottom middle of the bowl than it will at the top edges. This is nature at work