[WheelmanSS]

Originally Posted by kalimus

I would agree with you on forearms. I'm a little hesitant to agree on calves. I don't disagree completely... but I don't really agree either. Unlike forearms, the calves are always under load throughout the day (walking, standing, etc). I'm sure you, just like everyone else knows how hard legs are to encourage growth because of that. Forearms get pleny of exercise as you grip weights and etc. I've never seen a body builder say "meh, you don't really need to work out your calves". Most commonly, I see them talk about the type of exercise, and how people do it wrong. Calves are compared to abs in the theory that they get a bigger benefit from full range of motion. I.E. abs do well from extension as well as contraction. Calves do well from the range of motion that goes from heel below the toe, to heel above the toe. I commonly see people only going flat foot to heel up, but never get the negative..

I hear what you are saying to an extent. It's all about the approach. True, you won't hear a body builder say ""meh, you don't really need to work out your calves". But let's be honest, body building has nothing to do with performance. I personally equate fitness with performance. A body builder may look "fit", but in general their performance is laughable.

Training as a fighter, I find it hilarious when I see body builders in public. Everyone oooh's and aaaah's over them and usually nudges me and says, "I wouldn't wanna mess with that guy!". I usually shrug with a cringe and say, "well, I wouldn't mind". Most of them have the flexibilty of a steel rod and the cardio of a hippo. Again, it's all relative.

I mean for that matter, you could include abs into that mix, since they are used all day long, and support almost every exercise you do. Why do ab workouts?

You're kinda losing me here. In noooo way can abs be compared to calves. When executing just about any athletic movement or lift, the core is the starting line. The core is the base for establishing balance, stability, and power. Calves carry a load, they aren't used to generate power. You don't jump plyo boxes by driving with your calves. You don't deadlift weight pushing off with your calves.

I do agree with the benefit of olympic lifts. They are a lynchpin for a healthy and strong body. I also agree that the exercises you describe are great for getting a toned and lean body. However, the "shreded" look only has to do with lack of bodyfat, and nothing to do with muscle size. I hope nobody takes that to think that I'm saying bigger muscles don't make you look better. I'm just saying that "shreded" is low bodyfat. Even if you have small muscles everywhere, you can be "shreded". You'll just look.. well... silly

I'm glad you're with me on the Oly lifts. Maybe our definitions of shredded are different. Granted, body fat and tone do go somewhat hand and hand. However, I have some pretty shredded calves, but my mid-section is nothing of the sort!

So I guess it really just depends on goals. Muscles get more massive, faster, under a load of some kind. Jumping rope... I would consider, is "under load". But after a certain physical size, they are going to need more load than what your bodyweight provides if you want them to be any bigger.?

Totally agree. But again, to me anyways, bigger does not equal performance.

And that's the coolest part about this conversation. So many ways and thoughts on how to accomplish anything. With lifts, the only REAL "wrong way" to do it is by having crappy form and not challenging yourself.

Amen to that!