Are leg exercises necessary?

Guys, if I can pop in just for a spell :D

IMO - both squats & deadlifts are essential in any seruious exercise program, anyone opposing this has not seen the effectiveness of these exercises in building a strong core and helping the whole body to grow.'

However there are some points I agree with, I really do not want legs like Tom Platz, seriously you can grow big legs but that is just plain ridiculous! Proportion is the name of the game, I would seriously have to consider stopping my leg growth at a maximum of 24" for my height is only 5'6", any thicker legs I would seriously look like a gorilla
laugh.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Fausto @ Aug. 29 2005,4:30)]I would seriously have to consider stopping my leg growth at a maximum of 24" for my height is only 5'6", any thicker legs I would seriously look like a gorilla
Click to expand...
So where are you at Fausto ;-)

(And 24" isn't that big, aim higher :p) (well, 24" would be great, says the guy with 21,3" :))
 
Prob. came off sounding a bit harsh there, not my intention.

I agree that for most ppl squats are liekly to be the best exercise for adding X leg mass per given time.

But they are far from the only.

Yes I still train my legs, but given my proportions I don't like to do squats a lot nowadays, I prefer deadlifts and/or partial deads, coupled with leg press and isolations. On top of that, my legs are easily big enough as they are - used to outshadow my upper body aka Platz style, now it's all proportioned :)
 
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think what most people really want is good proportions. Sometimes we overemhasize just adding mass. For me, adding a lot of pounds to my bw has never been a goal in itself - it's more about finding that whole body balance when it comes to proportionate muscles than just adding weight. I then would want to increase the size of the muscles while keeping these proportions.

I'm like Jester - I can add both size and weight to my lower body quite easy, but prefer to keep the present size. I do squat, but not every session, and keep the weight relatively light and the reps relatively high.

Regards,
/ R
 
Daxie

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So where are you at Fausto?
Click to expand...

I am on 22.75" and my jeans are seruiously getting too tight.

I think I'll look good with 24" legs, it is a matter of preference and...as Rain says.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Sometimes we overemphasize just adding mass. For me, adding a lot of pounds to my bw has never been a goal in itself - it's more about finding that whole body balance when it comes to proportionate muscles than just adding weight.
Click to expand...

Yah, I have picked up from 65 to 72 in 2 1/2 cycles, unfortunately I also picked up body fat from 13% to 16.25% so I had to make some very quick corrections to the diet, all I did was add protein powder (31g protein/30g carbs).

Oh, yah and I had stopped smoking (6 months now)
happy.gif
almost forgot about that, now I am only adding the protein after w/o's and take less lunch to work (bread that is :D )

So yah, I am looking for proportion not just size, my squat weight has progfressed very well anyway, this cycle I am taking it to 130 Kgs. (new personal record)
 
The biggest annoyance in all is that it is almost impossible to find good fitting pants. If they fit from the thighs the waist is way too big. If you pick pants with good waist you feel like a meat stuffed in a sausage
sneaky2.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tcup @ Aug. 30 2005,6:10)]The biggest annoyance in all is that it is almost impossible to find good fitting pants. If they fit from the thighs the waist is way too big. If you pick pants with good waist you feel like a meat stuffed in a sausage  
sneaky2.gif
Click to expand...

Hey. that's easy! Just eat some more bad fat  :) - that will make your midsection wider.

Regards,
/ R
 
Tcup

I could not agree more! dang! And one is quite happy with the way one's legs look!

But who the hell can afford a taylor for each pair of pants?

Rain, you guys are the pits LOL
laugh.gif
 
Hey clothes not fitting is a good thing.

But back to the "are leg exercises necessary?" question. Short answers "no"

But compound "leg" exercises really really help your upper body. Squats, straight leg deads, and maybe most of all dead lifts hit the back and upperbody. Many say deads are the best way to add mass. Part of the reason is -- you are lifting so much dam weight. So squats and deads are much more than a leg exercises. Leg extensions and Leg presses, curls etc. are isolated leg exercizes.

The question is "why would you not want to do something for your legs?"

1) Legs are big enough
2) back troubles
3) see below

Once, on the advice of one of the experts on this board, I layed off legs for 6 months untill my arms grew a inch. The theory was that my legs grow so easily that they were sucking up the neutriens. I could have eaten more ---but that was hard. So I layed off legs to let the "food" go to my upper body. It worked. And I did not worry about my legs - cause they grow the most on me. 25 thighs, 18 calves.

I just think one should squat and dead lift because of the benifits or the load to the upper body, and the metobolic effect. In many ways squats and deads are not pure "leg" exercises.

Bob
 
I agree with Bob's post.

Seems like a common thing around here to have legs that grow easily. I'm the in the same boat myself.
 
Deads def. hit the upper back and shoulder girdle, pretty much an essential exercise for upper body if your rows and chins aren't heavy....my point was merely that squats are not necessary for thigh growth.
 
Rain & Jester,

Rain -- I did not do deads durring that period. Though If I had it to do over again I would have. That was 2.5 years ago and I did not quite have the "religion" yet regarding deads. Also my lower back can act up so some times I have to lay off the deads --even when I want to do them. In that case I do leg presses and static holds -- a la victious. The "static holds" do alot of the upper body stuff of deads without involving the back.

I agree Jester -- see above.

Robert-o
 
I've had the same idea in the past, to cease working legs in order to put emphasis on upper body mass. I never went through with it, but the idea occurred to me that if eating enough calories was already hard enough, squatting thrice a week would just make it that much worse.

Anyway, squats are not an upper body exercise in any way. The large loads involved don't add to upper body mass in any way. Deadlifts, maybe, because your upper body is utilized in them more than a squat, and they place the biceps under a stretch coupled with load. That's why they're viable for the upper body more so.

If your legs are big enough, your upper body has no trouble growing with legs, and you have no back problems, then your best bet is to train legs for strength. No reason you shouldn't get stronger, unless you're really pushing your boundaries, are old, or are afraid of getting injured.

According to Vicious, deadlifts will be the prime dictator of growth in your back and biceps, the chins and rows would be secondary.
 
Well, I definitely have big legs (it's more or less inherited) However, on this past cycle I did leg press while alternating hyperextensions with stiff legged dead lifts. However, now that I am at school and at a different gym, I find myself carrying 90 lbs dumbells halfway across the gym to the hyperextension stand. I look like a doucbebag when I do this. I really enjoyed doing hypers over SLDL's though.

Question is, should I switch for good, or what other kind of dead lift should I do? I like to use the Smith Machine to keep form since I don't have a spotter.

-Colby
 
Yep, lats included. I personally wouldn't use them exclusively, but the load placed upon the back is supposedly significant enough to superecede rows and chins for back development in every area.
 
Deads/squats is good for you whole body but as soon as my cycling season has been started I cant coop these exercise with cycling.
My legs are pretty good muscled btw
tounge.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top