alfresco
Featured Member / Kilo Klub Member
Staff member
Super Moderators
Moderator
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Board Supporter
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 5,778
Saying Moe ElMoussawi is in really good shape is a
huge understatement, but he is. He has that hard, tight,
muscular look that you don't find very often anymore,
and I don't know why. It was far more common years ago.
That being said . . . did anybody else see the video
of him and did anybody else notice his hamstrings?
What I found interesting, and it takes a really muscular
person to see this on, is what a small percentage of your
leg mass is actually comprised of the hamstring muscle.
The video: **broken link removed**
I have noticed this before in a Coleman video when he was
doing standing leg curls. The hamstring muscle was virtually
nonexistent, dwarfed, when compared to the other muscles
of his thighs. It was just buried in there somewhere.
It makes me want to ask . . . why even bother to exercise
the damn things directly (i.e., leg curls)? Let'em go along
for the ride, they will grow as everything else grows. I have
always felt that leg curls were next to worthless for adding
size to your legs, have never seen anybody add any appreciable
size as a result of leg curls.
And again, seeing it's development on a champion physique,
it just confirms my belief. Maybe he is a poor example but
if he is working them directly, then it sure doesn't show. Of
course, we have no idea what that muscles development
would be without direct exercise, but I tend to thing it would
look no different. Or maybe that muscle just does not have
the potential for great development (which is my opinion).
What am I missing here, a good anatomy lesson? Anybody
else notice, or think the same thing? Why do bodybuilders
do leg curls?
huge understatement, but he is. He has that hard, tight,
muscular look that you don't find very often anymore,
and I don't know why. It was far more common years ago.
That being said . . . did anybody else see the video
of him and did anybody else notice his hamstrings?
What I found interesting, and it takes a really muscular
person to see this on, is what a small percentage of your
leg mass is actually comprised of the hamstring muscle.
The video: **broken link removed**
I have noticed this before in a Coleman video when he was
doing standing leg curls. The hamstring muscle was virtually
nonexistent, dwarfed, when compared to the other muscles
of his thighs. It was just buried in there somewhere.
It makes me want to ask . . . why even bother to exercise
the damn things directly (i.e., leg curls)? Let'em go along
for the ride, they will grow as everything else grows. I have
always felt that leg curls were next to worthless for adding
size to your legs, have never seen anybody add any appreciable
size as a result of leg curls.
And again, seeing it's development on a champion physique,
it just confirms my belief. Maybe he is a poor example but
if he is working them directly, then it sure doesn't show. Of
course, we have no idea what that muscles development
would be without direct exercise, but I tend to thing it would
look no different. Or maybe that muscle just does not have
the potential for great development (which is my opinion).
What am I missing here, a good anatomy lesson? Anybody
else notice, or think the same thing? Why do bodybuilders
do leg curls?