Training chest for shape and overall thickness

Maybe 'growing space' was a loose explanation the site injection oil works by internal swelling of various muscle groups of muscle fibre's and the stretching of the muscle facia(think FST-7training).
The new vascular tissue is produced whilst the tissue is expanding and filling with blood,This blood supply is dramatically increased because of brand new vascular tissue,which provide additional nutrients allowing the muscle to grow even moreThis results in permanent gains of muscle mass and definition.
I ain't a expert on the subject and a simple google search would give you far more information than I can,I was simply throwing it in the mix iaink???

I think facia stretching dose not result in greater muscle mass.
 
I do not currently think site injection would result in the above via the above mecahnism. However not given it much thought or conserned myself with any relevent theory.

I've not used myself,however I know people who do (but they compete)so no place means no money,and when done correctly it do's get results that the original poster of the thread was having prob's with.
Few lads on MT have also given it a go,and when administered properly the results speak for themselves,it may start out semi-permanent but after prolonged use the results are permanent.
Some say it's the future for lagging body parts and average genetic potential,but again I'm no expert just gathering info on the product.

Its interesting how peoples idea's about training has changed over the years , I have this 500 page book called Joe Weiders Ultimate Bodybuilding which I bought about 17 years ago when I was 15. This book is from the 1980s and is full of pics of the pros from the 70s/80s and their so called routines. It has for example Arnold biceps work out and that of all the old famous pros like Larry Scott who had Huge Biceps for his frame size. The book talks extensively about how to sculpt and shape muscles, for example every exercise is described with phrases like an excellent movement for adding peak to the biceps and so on. It has workouts for adding mass to the chest a well as shaping the chest and its same for every major muscle group. The whole entire philosophy is the complete opposite from what the general consensus is in this thread,  that you cant shape a muscle. Now normally I would agree with that but now I'm not so sure I think there may be something to the old school way of training that seems to have been forgotten nowadays. Even your average gym rat seemed to have a better physique back in the 80s than the average gym goer today and they had less knowledge, less fancy supplements and used a heck of a lot less gear. It cant all be down to Ciba dianabol .  If you look at the Biceps of larry Scott they seem unnaturally huge and peaked and according to the book he developed these by laboriously grinding away on Preacher curls (which he invented) and other isolation exercises for years.
 
Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with either view point, The training style in the book could well be a Crock of ****e aimed at selling Weider ideas and equipment but then again based on my own early experiences when this book was all i had to go on there may be something to it so I am going adopt some of its routines and training styles for a while see if I can really add peak to my biceps or add upper chest mass. Who knows maybe even the change of training style might cause some growth  

Second sentence of the second paragrapth is no doubt correct.

Today there is very little valid and reliable research out there and there is a shed load more now than there was back then. Now dont get me wrong I am a fan of those guys and have employed the old school style of litfing for most of my lifting life, however since gaining a more indepth knowledge of what research is showing to be happening on the inside my training has adapted somewhat.
 

I believe there's a element of doubt whether the guys actually trained the way they say that they did,2-3 hour training sessions.
I know arnie/Frankie were strong people with Olympic lifting background's,however when moving to America arnie adopted a different training regime,he had already done the compound stuff(mass building).Is pumping the muscle with lighter weights really shaping the muscle or making people think that is so by pumping more blood to the area???
I doubt if arnie would even place among the modern body builders of today(his arms/shoulders) not exactly great.Tom platz(great legs)what else,they could never exceed their genetic potential,in the modern day people are pushing the boundaries' further and further,whether a better understanding of how the body works,adapts to training or that chemical assistance is much more better understood.
It's my opinion that people are much better informed today regarding training methods,nutrition and the importance of rest/recuperation,I understand there is 45mins-1hr window before the body will start to eat itself for energy reserves when training,did they know this back in the old days.
They simply did not have the knowledge then that even beginers/intermediate weight trainers have today,and yes Joe welder has always pushed his regime to sell supps/products and make is empire bigger and others today are continuing to do so.

Nigalwayne


Are you natural or assisted trainer???
As stated by others there seem to be certain genetic limitations regarding size,shape,thickness of muscles,and a lot of people have replied with sensible advice,experience's and a little bit of bro-science.
Is this not the reason for the product synthol,I have been lead to believe that by using this product it would solve exactly the problem you seem to be having,have I seen proof of this product in action 'yes',has it changed' chest shape and overall thickness' yes.
Apparently by using the oil it create's space in the muscle,moves fiber's apart which in turn gives more growing space.
I ain't a expert just putting into the mix

Im not really interested in using synthol I dont think it even looks natural and not something im into.

 45mins-1hr window before the body will start to eat itself for energy reserves when training,did they know this back in the old days.

 
They didn't know it as its mot true anyway!! Even during the first stageds of starvation muscle tissue is spared. I assume you were suggesting that muscle tissue is broken down for fuel during exercise?
 
I think for all we do know now the strongest and biggest people of prevous training ages, pre-drugs are pretty much the same are now. For all the good info spread about there is larger amount of untruths spread.

Barbarian, I'm not so sure that the average gym rat had a better physique in the 80's, I think it depends on the gym. There are a lot of commercial gyms out there now that are full of people that I wouldn't call gym rats.
Certainly in my gym, which is pretty old school with competitive BBers, power lifters and other sportsmen (current and retired), I'd say the guys are bigger now - and the young gym rats coming through are certainly in great shape with condition and size that us older trainers look at with a certain begrudging respect.
 
These guys are the equivalent gym rats to my mind, all the insurance salesmen that now pack out gyms have changed the demographic of the gym, that's all.

Obviously muscle tissue is spared during the first stage and fat would be burned first,but what happens when you have somebody with a low body fat,eg body builders,endurance athletes.
We now have pre workout supps that the body can chooses to access first before fat/muscle tissue is used,we are told to use these for that very same reason,same as post workout supps and a meal within a hour of that.so that the body do's not eat itself,is that not the reason for fasted cardio/training on a empty stomach?..was not really on about starvation,although my analogy may be a little sparse.Not very body carries as much weight as you iaink.(not being personal)hardgainers etc.
PT Man a lot of people have abused synthol and I reckon this has spread a wrong misconception,but your correct some who have abused it do not look natural.

Nigalwayne


Obviously muscle tissue is spared during the first stage and fat would be burned first,but what happens when you have somebody with a low body fat,eg body builders,endurance athletes.
We now have pre workout supps that the body can chooses to access first before fat/muscle tissue is used,we are told to use these for that very same reason,same as post workout supps and a meal within a hour of that.so that the body do's not eat itself,is that not the reason for fasted cardio/training on a empty stomach?..was not really on about starvation,although my analogy may be a little sparse.Not very body carries as much weight as you iaink.(not being personal)hardgainers etc.

 
Muscle tissue (important structures such as contractile fibres etc) is not used as a fuel for any exercise. What you have posted is rubbish (sorry to be blunt, but there is little other way of putting it). You ingest protein and carbohydrate sources areound training in an effort to increase protein balance post training, and speed up the recovery process. If anyone tells you differently then I would be suspect of anything they say after.
 
Endurance athetes still have more than enough fat reserves to run several marathons. Even a BB on stage would have enough fat stored to do similar. Subcutanous stores are not the only place fat is stored.
 
If during exercise your carb stores are depeleted enough (glucose and muscle glycogen) you body will just reduce work rate to a level were fat metabolism will be able to provide the rates of energy to continue.

The good thing about this site iain is the education that people like me can and do receive from more experienced members like yourself.
What is the difference between being in a catabolic/anobolic state then,would you advise people to do everything they can to put the body in a catolic state for growth???
I was doing a routine (strength/mass) that lasted 75-90mins including warmups/rest between sets,my mate said that this to long and could be inhibiting muscle growth,after Xmas I am now doing a dogg Craap routine which takes me about 45-55 mins(hence my question and maybe misunderstanding regards 'body eating itself') which routine will grow the most muscle,my diet is good and I train mon/we'd/Friday.
I realize that the actual training part will only start the process of iain but in your opinion what would be the more effective of the two methods for mass.

pt man

Nigalwayne


Are you natural or assisted trainer???
As stated by others there seem to be certain genetic limitations regarding size,shape,thickness of muscles,and a lot of people have replied with sensible advice,experience's and a little bit of bro-science.
Is this not the reason for the product synthol,I have been lead to believe that by using this product it would solve exactly the problem you seem to be having,have I seen proof of this product in action 'yes',has it changed' chest shape and overall thickness' yes.
Apparently by using the oil it create's space in the muscle,moves fiber's apart which in turn gives more growing space.
I ain't a expert just putting into the mix

Im not really interested in using synthol I dont think it even looks natural and not something im into.

You are getting confused with synthol use and synthol abuse. The whole point of synthol is that when used properly you can't tell it's been used at all.

Nigalwayne


What is the difference between being in a catabolic/anobolic state then,would you advise people to do everything they can to put the body in a catolic state for growth???
I was doing a routine (strength/mass) that lasted 75-90mins including warmups/rest between sets,my mate said that this to long and could be inhibiting muscle growth,after Xmas I am now doing a dogg Craap routine which takes me about 45-55 mins(hence my question and maybe misunderstanding regards 'body eating itself') which routine will grow the most muscle,my diet is good and I train mon/we'd/Friday.
I realize that the actual training part will only start the process of iain but in your opinion what would be the more effective of the two methods for mass.

 
I would actually start by forgeting the terms catabolic and anabolic. To my mind they should only be applied to specific systems and mechanisms not to some vague whole body generalisation. However that could just be me! :)
 
Given the info you have given it is impossible to tell which would be better for you to gain muscle. Time that you take to train is a very arbitary figure to base anything on. The DC routines always looked pretty solid to me. High requency training with sensible volumes and an owness on increasing strength.
 
Many site the fact that testerone levels will drop after a certain amount of hard training. However I think this point is irrelevant for nearly everyone. So what is there is a transient drop in this hormone. It dose not nesscarly mean anything. The eastern euopean weightlifting teams apparently based some of their training on this fact (no doubt just one factor they considered). They split up their daily training into several 30-45mins sessions a day, with at least 30mins rest a day. This helped them to do the very large amounts of volume that an elite proffessional weightlifterequires. Everyone else is not training in that manner in the same environment.
 
Your total time in the gym will depend on what relationship between; volume, load and rest periods, produce the best conditions for growth, given your own circumstances. It dose not work in reverse. Time in the gym is not a variable that needs adjustment... unless your an elite weightlifter training full body lifts 3-4 times a day :)

V.interesting iain and thanks for taking your time to explain your view,before Xmas I was training (after warmups)3 sets/6-8reps then upping weight 2.5kg each session(or when got to 8reps),which after 6months I was shifting decent weights with no spotter,but having 3/4 mins rest in between sets.
Now starting DC training I have dropped the weight to 80% of what I was previously doing for each exercise (so I don't stall to early),obviously most exercises are rest/paused barring legs/deads/b'fwd'rows,basically after warming up the body part before each exercise it's a heavy set,rack weight,15 deep breaths then go again continued till reaching desired rep range,basically giant sets(is this shifting more blood to the area or simply fatiguing the muscle further) to promote growth.
Dante is a little vague on the mechanics of the workout and how it can effect the growth of muscle and also make people stronger.

Yes he's uses a rest-pauses sets to allow heavier loads to be lifted for higher volume than would normally be done in a conventional set. As I mentioned earlier the DC stuff seems sound enough, and worth having a go at.

I'm going to do 3/4 blasts iain so I will be able see the results/gains,benefits for myself,my friend raves on about the system and I have been reading up about it for a couple of months now,preparing my body/mind for the regime rather than jumping in head first,nearly got my head round the extreme (weighted) stretching which I will add in towards end of first blast.
I know a lot of the top pro's use or have used DC training,but as I says Dante do's not really explain the science/mechanics behind the system or muscle/strength gains.
Thanks for your input iain and you have explained my questions/apprehensions in clear and concise manner.
Cheers fella

pt man

Dav


Continue to be consistent and train hard increasing/progressing whenever you can, good diet and I'm sure you'll see results in time. If something isn't working too well change things around a bit. 

I'm certainly a big believer in pre-exhausting as a training technique for a little bit of a change so maybe try some cable crossovers for 3 sets followed by 3 sets of incline dumbell press, this would be a nice little workout possibly followed by 1 all out set of dips. Give it a go for 3-4 weeks and see if it helps, concentrating on the fully contracted position for both the presses and cross overs.

After all debated still unsure how I should be going about training my chest to get the results im after however I did do this routine today, the cable crossover's, incline dumbells and then 2 sets of dips to failure.  I was without a spotter so just focused mostly on ROM and did not use dipping belt on the dips either but I ussually do as im quite strong on dips.

Chest did feel pre-exhausted after the crossovers and did feel the burn but unsure this was a enough of a workout all together... peope were advising to work chest twice a week on a different thread so I may do this and keep this workout as my second chest workout of the week ??

I did this for my secondweek  running, still feeling the burn with the pre-exhaust, still not feeling as intensive as what im used to but deciced I am going to continue with this for another 2/3 weeks and then review and change it about.

3rd week running now on same chest routine...
I am finding that I am getting much more doms on the chest I think mostly from pre- exhausting on the cable flys, however I have noticed that I have slightly lost some bulk.
 
Havent been able to really improve/ increase on db weight with the inclines due to not having a reliable spotter.