Seth feroce says he built most of his leg mass with

[Mac11wildcat]

I know everyone thinks short guys fill out faster…but go look at the timeline to reach pro level for most guys. You’ll find it’s about 10 years of training. There are a few anomalies, but almost everyone needs 10yrs to accumulate that mass and maturity. May not make sense intuitively, but you don’t see 5’2 212 get there in 5 and 6’+ open guys needing 15.

 

[TheGuyHere]

I know everyone thinks short guys fill out faster…but go look at the timeline to reach pro level for most guys. You’ll find it’s about 10 years of training. There are a few anomalies, but almost EVERYONE needs 10yrs to accumulate that mass. May not make sense intuitively, but you don’t see 5’2 212 and classic guys get there in 5 and 6’+ open abs classic guys need 15.

I think what people mean is that short dudes just LOOK like they fill out faster since they're short. Like a 5'5 100kg guy will look way bigger than a dude with the same muscle mass but 7 inches taller. I'm a shorter dude myself and of course we don't put on muscle mass or "fill out" faster than anyone else, it's just an illusion I guess.

 

[Xenophon178]

I think what people mean is that short dudes just LOOK like they fill out faster since they're short. Like a 5'5 100kg guy will look way bigger than a dude with the same muscle mass but 7 inches taller. I'm a shorter dude myself and of course we don't put on muscle mass or "fill out" faster than anyone else, it's just an illusion I guess.

Well the look is the important part. That’s what’s judged. I don’t think they put in less work. I don’t think anybody does. But, since more mass has to be gained for super tall guys to have good symmetry, it can take longer and, thereby, more effort by time. I don’t think anyone believes short BBs have to train less or less intensely.

It’s not a level playing field. The finish line may be the same spot but the beginning points aren’t.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

Well the look is the important part. That’s what’s judged. I don’t think they put in less work. I don’t think anybody does. But, since more mass has to be gained for super tall guys to have good symmetry, it can take longer and, thereby, more effort by time. I don’t think anyone believes short BBs have to train less or less intensely.

It’s not a level playing field. The finish line may be the same spot but the beginning points aren’t.

I don’t agree with you. Look at classic and open. The shortest most muscular guys rarely ever win. Terrence is by all eyes lb/lb more complete and dense than cbum.

10 years. Go check all the transformation Tuesday’s and see what the time was from start to pro.

 

[hijoshiki]

Not making excuses at all.

Giraffe has an awesome kicking force, basically it can decapitate a lion with a well placed kick. Yet the legs are spindly and look delicate until you realize there's a lot of muscle on those drumsticks.

If I took the muscle off a 6'5" guy and placed it on a 5'5" man the little guy is gonna look really thick.

Many of the top NBA players carry a good amount of lean muscle, but how many of them at 6'9" could look like an Champion body builder if they gave it everything they had? Lebron James is a big boy, he could probably go far as a body builder, but I doubt he'd ever grow massive legs that look aesthetically like that of the shorter guys.

 

[Xenophon178]

I don’t agree with you. Look at classic and open. The shortest most muscular guys rarely ever win. Terrence is by all eyes lb/lb more complete and dense than cbum.

10 years. Go check all the transformation Tuesday’s and see what the time was from start to pro.

Looks like I’ve got some more to learn. Thank you.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

Not making excuses at all.

Giraffe has an awesome kicking force, basically it can decapitate a lion with a well placed kick. Yet the legs are spindly and look delicate until you realize there's a lot of muscle on those drumsticks.

If I took the muscle off a 6'5" guy and placed it on a 5'5" man the little guy is gonna look really thick.

Many of the top NBA players carry a good amount of lean muscle, but how many of them at 6'9" could look like an Champion body builder if they gave it everything they had? Lebron James is a big boy, he could probably go far as a body builder, but I doubt he'd ever grow massive legs that look aesthetically like that of the shorter guys.

I’m simply observing my fellow pros. 10 years is shockingly consistent.

 

[malfeasance]

I’m simply observing my fellow pros. 10 years is shockingly consistent.

It's hard for the rest of us to relate, but it is fun to read along in a voyeuristic sort of way.

I am observing from the gym rats and amateur competitors in my small circle. I don't have any pros in that circle. The shorter guys definitely fill out faster, especially legs.

I am not sure that we can't both be right, though, because what you are saying and what I am saying do not really conflict.

I hope you don't conclude from this that I am claiming you had an easy road because of your height. I read your entire log (lots of hours reading!) and know what you went through. You earned where you are with hard work and discipline.

I have also written that I made improvements putting into place things I learned from you. And that is in spite of my height, LOL!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I was doing squats and my kegs wouldn't grow.
But from the moment I reduced the ROM my legs fucking exploded. Now I grow them very easily with this trick not full ROM and heavy weight

 

[Rubicon500]

For “size relative” to height , I’ve always just took the weight divide it by height. There you go simple way to compare weight per inch of height , 250 lbs @ 5’9 is 3.623 lbs per inch. Someone 6’ tall would be 260.857 for same lbs per inch of height. Not as much difference as one thinks when ya run the numbers.

 

[Dead]

I was doing squats and my kegs wouldn't grow.
But from the moment I reduced the ROM my legs fucking exploded. Now I grow them very easily with this trick not full ROM and heavy weight

FUCK YOUR the first person to mention this I shit u not just a week ago I was talking to someone at the gym about this and how all this you need full range of motion shit is bullsh it some movements just take tension off the muscle by doing full range of motion

I have noticed this exact thing

This is the shit u learn when u start becoming experienced

 

[malfeasance]

I reduced the ROM my legs fucking exploded. Now I grow them very easily with this trick not full ROM and heavy weight

What does reducing the range of motion mean? Half squats? Or not standing all the way up? Both?

 

[AlwaysHungry]

What does reducing the range of motion mean? Half squats? Or not standing all the way up? Both?

Half squats you can call them with standing all the way up and hard contraction

 

[eery]

Half squats you can call them with standing all the way up and hard contraction

the only difference is the ROM? is there a difference in your rep cadence for example? Its an interesting anecdote, its the opposite of what studies and experts point to. Ive never experimented with it myself but sounds like there might be something to doing some limited ROM movements for certain goals.

Could it be that you are creating an occlusion effect like blood flow restriction training does by never going the full ROM?

 

[AlwaysHungry]

the only difference is the ROM? is there a difference in your rep cadence for example? Its an interesting anecdote, its the opposite of what studies and experts point to. Ive never experimented with it myself but sounds like there might be something to doing some limited ROM movements for certain goals.

Could it be that you are creating an occlusion effect like blood flow restriction training does by never going the full ROM?

Yeah all the blood stays in my quads. Maybe science tells the opposite but for me personally that worked and it's my new way of doing squats. I stared doing less ROM because of knee injury and it turned out it worked for me.

 

[malfeasance]

Half squats you can call them with standing all the way up and hard contraction

Hmmm . . .

Any thoughts as to why you believe this might be the case?

It seems to go against logic.

I recall many podcasts of Fuoud Abiad where he was, along with other IFBB pros, roasting others' squat training videos for not going full depth. They all seemed to believe that was the reason for the video subjects' skinny chicken legs.

I am having a hard time with believing that a "hard contraction" when standing matters at all with respect to squats and growing quads.

Did you by any chance keep any before and after photos or videos of your quads demonstrating this growth you describe as "fucking exploded" resulting from half depth squats?

 

[malfeasance]

Yeah all the blood stays in my quads. Maybe science tells the opposite but for me personally that worked and it's my new way of doing squats. I stared doing less ROM because of knee injury and it turned out it worked for me.

Knee injuries suck. What happened? Have you gotten it fixed?

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I don't know how you call it in English. In translate it translate as a " crucified injury" Its a lot better atm.

I think it's working because I haven't change anything in my training or the way I train my legs , except the squat with reduced ROM. Maybe it's in my head ?! Maybe but my legs weren't growing the past years. Then I was injured and I reduced the ROM and boom!!
I was really amazed by the rhythm my quads was growing for real.

 

[malfeasance]

LOL! I am thinking Google translate is getting that one wrong.

Crucified in English means to nail to a cross, like ancient Roman execution method for non-citizens.

Maybe ACL or PCL, these are cruciate ligaments?

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I think is anterior circulate ligament