"I don't want to train legs"

Hanley

Lets play a game...

People come on here a lot and talk about how they don't want to train legs, but want bigger arms, chest, shoulders, back etc etc. No one every really forms a solid argument as to why you MUST train legs, other than it's the accepted thing.

So, if a dude wants to look better in a t-shirt only, why should they train legs??

Frogdog

Because squatz = gunz development

Where's that thread again???

jive

They shouldn't. People advocate squats to grow absolutely muscle so you 'need' to do them. You don't. If you just want a big upper body then train your upper body. If you want to have an impressive physique then train everything.

shadowcomplex

Because when you perform heavy deadlifts and squats you arent actually only training legs , these are wholebody movements.

Also these types of exercises are Anabolic, they make the body release Growth Hormone

discus

I don't bother train legs anymore. Completely interferred with my running.

I'd recommend it as a way to keep everything in proportion, even if it's only so one looks good in a t shirt.

Hanley

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Because when you perform heavy deadlifts and squats you arent actually only training legs , these are wholebody movements.

Go on... flesh that out a bit.

Also these types of exercises are Anabolic, they make the body release Growth Hormone

Do they?

How much?

Is it significant/will the additional effect result in more muscle growth?

Can this response be elicited some other way?

Basically I believe that's a half truth and have yet to see conclusive evidence to the contrary. People SAY it happens, and it probably does to an extent, but how much extra muscle growth does it result in for the average person!?

cc87

I think if someone wants to train their back then squats and deadlifts are important. Think about the effort your muscles make to stabilise your body and prevent it collapsing, when doing heavy squats or deadlifts.

But most people look at the mirror muscles only, arms, chest, abz, no point in getting them to train something they have no interest in working on really.
Better off training half the body well than the whole body half assed

Hanley

cc87 wrote: »

Think about the effort your muscles make to stabilise your body and prevent it collapsing, when doing heavy squats or deadlifts.

Is it tho? I've been reading a lot of Gray Cook/Stuart McGill/Pavel stuff recently and the quadratus lumborum seems to be one of the most important of your core stabilisers and it's not really activated that much at all when it comes to squatting and deadliftng. Asymmetric dynamic loading (one hand farmer walks, waiter walks, bottom up KB carries) seem to have a MUCH greater effect.

It just seems that for everything people SAY deadlifting and squatting achieves as a reason to do it other than for big legs/whatever doesn't REALLY wash as being fact.

dave80

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Because when you perform heavy deadlifts and squats you arent actually only training legs , these are wholebody movements.

Also these types of exercises are Anabolic, they make the body release Growth Hormone

I don't buy into this at all, if I wanted a bigger upper body I'd stop training legs I'd recover better and I'd have more time in train the upper body too

squod

Hanley wrote: »

, why should they train legs??

You can't turn back time. It may well be someone's future wish that they had previously done 'some legs' before they got bigger/took more of an interest in body-building. Suggesting it to them is no harm in that regard.

Chicks like bottoms (so I hear). The possibility of getting a more attractive figure increases with doing 'some legs'.

Nothing builds camaraderie between gym goers like moaning about leg day. A real ice breaker, just like talking about the weather or it being too hot/cold or rainy.

gymsoldier

Does no one else here not like training legs?

I LOVE training legs, its probably my favorite day. Why do I train legs? Because I want to, and I love the development I get from it.

Functionally, my deadlift has definitely increased due to greater hamstring development. And in some cases I think its a must to train legs for postural problems.

dave80

gymsoldier wrote: »

Does no one else here not like training legs?

I LOVE training legs, its probably my favorite day. Why do I train legs? Because I want to, and I love the development I get from it.

Functionally, my deadlift has definitely increased due to greater hamstring development. And in some cases I think its a must to train legs for postural problems.

Hate training legs but tats why I like training them too

gymsoldier

dave80 wrote: »

Hate training legs but tats why I like training them too

Tiredness has lead to bad grammar on my behalf. Lets rephrase the question to ask, am I the only one who looks forward to training legs?

cc87

Hanley wrote: »

Is it tho? I've been reading a lot of Gray Cook/Stuart McGill/Pavel stuff recently and the quadratus lumborum seems to be one of the most important of your core stabilisers and it's not really activated that much at all when it comes to squatting and deadliftng. Asymmetric dynamic loading (one hand farmer walks, waiter walks, bottom up KB carries) seem to have a MUCH greater effect.

It just seems that for everything people SAY deadlifting and squatting achieves as a reason to do it other than for big legs/whatever doesn't REALLY wash as being fact.

Fair enough, cant say i know enough myself about that to comment on it.

Do you have an argument for this lined up yourself? Or would you be of the opinion that if people dont want to train legs, they dont have to train legs.


Is there any evidence that not training legs is detrimental to people?

From my own point of view, I think of the number of reputable and knowledgeable trainers/coaches/PTs etc who recommend training legs, makes it something that if didnt already train them, I would look into it.

Pace2008

This is just speculation. but I think muscle around the hips could play a part in protecting the lower back, and being very top heavy could increase the risk of complications in thay area down the line.

When I was 16, I wrecked my knee with a dislocation playing GAA. I'd been lifting weights for a few months prior to the injury, almost entirely upper-body stuff like benching, curls, lat pulldowns and such. I did do some leg extensions and hamstring curls on machines, but it was pissabout stuff and I never really developed my lower body to any great extent. It's a hypothesis, but I think being top heavy may have increased the likelihood of injury. Certainly, packing a bit of muscle around my quads would have gone some way towards preventing it. This doesn't really matter much to people who don't play sports, though.

Personally, I think people with disproportionately large upper bodies look frankly ridiculous. You can say it doesn't matter if they're wearing jeans, but unless you're rocking parachute pants the size of your legs is fairly apparent, particularly when offest against a bulky torso. I'm sure there are plenty of others who'd view this physique in a similar light as well. However, if someone really is only interested in having a well-developed upper body, then it's their prerogative to acquire this particular aesthetic. I have no problem with them going for it if it's what they want and unless I see someone provide a decent reason against that isn't simply based on personal preference, then I have no grounds to tell people they absolutely should train their entire body.

Hanley

cc87 wrote: »

Do you have an argument for this lined up yourself? Or would you be of the opinion that if people dont want to train legs, they dont have to train legs.

I think there's LOTS of reasons to train legs, absolutely having to or you won't make progress on your upper body isn't one of them tho, in my opinion.

Is there any evidence that not training legs is detrimental to people?

Not that I know of... I've an open mind on this tho. If people can supply studies I'll gladly read them. I'll be reading them very critically and trying to pick holes in them tho.

From my own point of view, I think of the number of reputable and knowledgeable trainers/coaches/PTs etc who recommend training legs, makes it something that if didnt already train them, I would look into it.

If you want total body development and balance, I'd agree you need to train them to some extent. But again, for people who REALLY don't want to cos all they want is bigger arms, I dunno how important it is.

Like I was saying tho, I think there's lot of reasons that people SHOULD train them, but I'm just seeing if anyone can form a conclusive argument outside of dogmatic accepted norms as to why you MUST, ya know?

Hanley

Pace2008 wrote: »

This is just speculation. but I think muscle around the hips could play a part in protecting the lower back, and being very top heavy could increase the risk of complications in thay area down the line.

They absolutely do, you're right in that regard. But squatting and deadlifting don't necessarily train them in the correct way to fit that purpose. It's another one of those reasons that are KIND OF true, but don't really follow true to be technically correct on further examination.

When I was 16, I wrecked my knee with a dislocation playing GAA. I'd been lifting weights for a few months prior to the injury, almost entirely upper-body stuff like benching, curls, lat pulldowns and such. I did do some leg extensions and hamstring curls on machines, but it was pissabout stuff and I never really developed my lower body to any great extent. It's a hypothesis, but I think being top heavy may have increased the likelihood of injury. Certainly, packing a bit of muscle around my quads would have gone some way towards preventing it. This doesn't really matter much to people who don't play sports, though.

The act of training your legs in an incorrect manner may have cause the injury as much as anything else tho. So actually training your legs may have fed into it.... Again, no conclusive proof, but it's a theory that could have merit.

Personally, I think people with disproportionately large upper bodies look frankly ridiculous. You can say it doesn't matter if they're wearing jeans, but unless you're rocking parachute pants the size of your legs is fairly apparent, particularly when offest against a bulky torso. I'm sure there are plenty of others who'd view this physique in a similar light as well. However, if someone really is only interested in having a well-developed upper body, then it's their prerogative to acquire this particular aesthetic. I have no problem with them going for it if it's what they want and unless I see someone provide a decent reason against that isn't simply based on personal preference, then I have no grounds to tell people they absolutely should train their entire body.

Good points

ferike1

I think that people underestimate how much girls admire a shapely backside , they are just as bad as guys in this regard. I think if you only focus on upper body and neglect your legs as soon as you put a pair of shorts on or hit the beach it will become apparent and it just isn't kosher!

Pace2008

Hanley wrote: »

They absolutely do, you're right in that regard. But squatting and deadlifting don't necessarily train them in the correct way to fit that purpose. It's another one of those reasons that are KIND OF true, but don't really follow true to be technically correct on further examination.

Ah, but surely working the hips still constitutes lower-body training, just not in the conventional low-rep squat/deadlift strength training fashion?

If so, we may have something approaching a reason, albeit one most people probably don't have in mind when throwing out the "must train legs" mantra.

cc87

[QUOTE=Hanley;72241435
If you want total body development and balance, I'd agree you need to train them to some extent. But again, for people who REALLY don't want to cos all they want is bigger arms, I dunno how important it is.

Like I was saying tho, I think there's lot of reasons that people SHOULD train them, but I'm just seeing if anyone can form a conclusive argument outside of dogmatic accepted norms as to why you MUST, ya know?[/QUOTE]


But I think,if you have someone saying all they want is bigger arms,well you have to try and find the reason they want bigger arms.

Generally, its not just for gunzz, its to impress women/their arms are kinda flabby/to look all hard and stuff...or whatever other reason they have.

So if you wanted to convince these people to train legs, it would be more about making it relevant to their goals rather than some kind of anatomical or physiological based reasoning.

I dont think there is any one argument that will convince the majority.


Thought id throw in 2 papers about hormonal response to exercise.

blah88

People encourage leg training because they believe that harder= better and squats and DL's are pretty much the hardest exercises out there. I have to say personally, dieting to get beach ready is farrr easier when I'm not constantly wrecked from heavy squats and DL's. Also, I tend to move around a lot more when my legs aren't totally dead, which helps increase my daily deficit.

Squats and DL's also thicken the midriff, in my experience, which is not what most casual trainers want. Even though I'm close to single digit bodyfat, I have a very thick core region, which makes the love handles a bit more prominent. If someone is training purely to look good, there is absolutely no necessity to train legs.

cc87

blah88 wrote: »

Squats and DL's also thicken the midriff, in my experience, which is not what most casual trainers want. Even though I'm close to single digit bodyfat, I have a very thick core region, which makes the love handles a bit more prominent. If someone is training purely to look good, there is absolutely no necessity to train legs.

Is there a chance you have this? (dont know how to imbed images)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_K7c8Qwba_TI/TB-qB1YYmcI/AAAAAAAAAPc/bmYue4dMMrE/s400/lordosis.gif

What some people mistake for a bit of belly isnt always that

dartstothesea

blah88 wrote: »

If someone is training purely to look good, there is absolutely no necessity to train legs.

Depends on whether or not you've a terrible eye for what looks "good" or care about the opinion of someone who has same.
Having no legs is crap looking and that's just the way it is.
Of course, the narrow-minded, average person has been conditioned most of their life to think physical appeal begins and ends withs guns, chesticles and absicles. So you could probably go plenty of your life without having a care in the world for anything other than those, sure. Fair play, in that case, I guess.
For me, there'd be no fooling myself though.

Pace2008

cc87 wrote: »

So if you wanted to convince these people to train legs, it would be more about making it relevant to their goals rather than some kind anatomical or physiological based reasoning.

I dont think there is any one argument that will convince the majority.

I don't think the point of the thread was a brainstorming session with the goal being to find a way to convince people they have to train their legs. More to find if there was any rationale when people tell those only interested in developing their upper bodies that they have to work their lower half as well.

It's healthy for the mind to be able to solidly back up one's opinions and assertions

blah88

cc87 wrote: »

Is there a chance you have this? (dont know how to imbed images)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_K7c8Qwba_TI/TB-qB1YYmcI/AAAAAAAAAPc/bmYue4dMMrE/s400/lordosis.gif

What some people mistake for a bit of belly isnt always that

Yup, pretty sure I have a case of that. I'm not arsed fixing it though. Doesn't cause me any problems and makes me work harder on my diet! Plus GSP has it too, altho some suspect this is an HGH gut.

Mellor

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Because when you perform heavy deadlifts and squats you arent actually only training legs , these are wholebody movements.

Also these types of exercises are Anabolic, they make the body release Growth Hormone

Assuming that this is true for a minute.
How do you know that the GH benefit of squats makes up for the time spent on them. How do you know that spending this time directly on arms won't improve them more?
Every session spent on legs is taking away from time on he gunz

blah88 wrote: »

Yup, pretty sure I have a case of that. I'm not arsed fixing it though. Doesn't cause me any problems and makes me work harder on my diet! Plus GSP has it too, altho some suspect this is an HGH gut.

GTFO, who suspects GSP of a GH gut?
That's a photo taken after a 5 round fight, do you not think that may, jsut maybe, he is breathing a bit heavily.

BJ has accused him in the past, it's not like he'd be bitter or anything :rolleyes:
His reasons where based on the fact that GSP looks good all year round while the rest of them (read: BJ himself) gets fats and has to cut.
yeah that's growth hormone, nothing to do with the fact that GSP is one of the most dedicated sportspeopel on the planet and BJ is notoriously lazy between training for fights

ferike1

What about the arguement that DL for example makes your grip stronger, DL & Squatting correctly both make your back stronger. By having a stronger back and grip a person is more adept at doing chins/pull ups and therefore can build bigger arms. Just a thought.

The Guvnor

I've seen plenty of big guys who don't do much on legs at all.

Back in the day we referred to one extreme example as 'The Sheep' - all upper body and no legs.

Bottom line here is this - far easier to train chest than it is to do legs.

Besides most of will get all the leg development we need from our cardio plus you don't want the legs to get too big!:D

Hypertrophy

My reasons are:

1. I don't want an inbalance from upper to lower
2. Alot of muscles come into play when squatting
3. It's one of the lifts I love to see progress in
4. I constantly read how it releases testosterone/growth hormone which will help make the whole body more anabolic

The Davestator

Good thread.
I reckon that squats contribute to impressive physique by increasing fat loss due to being so tough.

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

Lets play a game...

People come on here a lot and talk about how they don't want to train legs, but want bigger arms, chest, shoulders, back etc etc. No one every really forms a solid argument as to why you MUST train legs, other than it's the accepted thing.

So, if a dude wants to look better in a t-shirt only, why should they train legs??

If a dude wants to look better in a t-shirt he doesn't need to train legs. It's the basic assumption that you can get a decent physique without training legs that I take issue with. Large upper body and scrawny legs is not a good look.

The other scenario that comes up is a bit different, " I don't need to train legs because they're muscular enough from running, playing football/hurling/GAA etc. " . If athletic performance is the goal, then training legs is a must.

Hanley

Pace2008 wrote: »

Ah, but surely working the hips still constitutes lower-body training, just not in the conventional low-rep squat/deadlift strength training fashion?

If so, we may have something approaching a reason, albeit one most people probably don't have in mind when throwing out the "must train legs" mantra.

Well no, now you’re just being pedantic. When someone comes on here and talks about not wanting to train their lower body in general, they’re talking about from a muscle building/size gain aspect. They’re not talking about injury prevention, and it’s in the former that this argument is rooted.

If you’ve ever done any of that injury prevention/mobility/stability stuff you’d probably see that the load is light and their physical effort involved is minimal, which isn’t the case for ‘conventional’ leg training as is being discussed here.

It’s a side argument, but a valid one as to why you should train your lower body. But it’s not the one I was getting at in the thread so can we leave it at us both agreeing that from an injury prevention/longevity standpoint it’s probably wise to train the lower body in a specific fashion not designed to necessarily generate muscle growth?

cc87 wrote: »

But I think,if you have someone saying all they want is bigger arms,well you have to try and find the reason they want bigger arms.

Generally, its not just for gunzz, its to impress women/their arms are kinda flabby/to look all hard and stuff...or whatever other reason they have.

So if you wanted to convince these people to train legs, it would be more about making it relevant to their goals rather than some kind of anatomical or physiological based reasoning.

Who said I was trying to convince people tho? I’m arguing that it may not be necessary and looking to see if people can give valid reasons as to why you should, outside of the generic ‘GH release’ and ‘squatzz for gunzz’ argument people come out with because they’re heard it elsewhere, when in reality, it may not make any difference.

Thought id throw in 2 papers about hormonal response to exercise.

Thanks, I’ll have a look later 

blah88 wrote: »

People encourage leg training because they believe that harder= better and squats and DL's are pretty much the hardest exercises out there. I have to say personally, dieting to get beach ready is farrr easier when I'm not constantly wrecked from heavy squats and DL's. Also, I tend to move around a lot more when my legs aren't totally dead, which helps increase my daily deficit.

Agreee, definitely.

ferike1 wrote: »

What about the arguement that DL for example makes your grip stronger, DL & Squatting correctly both make your back stronger. By having a stronger back and grip a person is more adept at doing chins/pull ups and therefore can build bigger arms. Just a thought.

I can only speak for myself, but there’s no correlation between my deadlift and pull ups/chins. I’d say once you reach a certain level, a lot of people will be the same. From training around other people and watching where their numbers go, I’d hold that to be roughly true also. They’re vastly different movements where your back’s required to work in different ways, so why would there be a carryover in that regard?

Hypertrophy wrote: »

My reasons are:

1. I don't want an inbalance from upper to lower
2. Alot of muscles come into play when squatting
3. It's one of the lifts I love to see progress in

All valid for you – but none are a reason why upper body muscularity would be effected.

4. I constantly read how it releases testosterone/growth hormone which will help make the whole body more anabolic

Often heard, rarely proved. This is one of the key points in this thread – is the data there to support that belief?

The Davestator wrote: »

Good thread.
I reckon that squats contribute to impressive physique by increasing fat loss due to being so tough.

Yah I’ll give you the effects of EPOC and added leg muscularity increasing overall metabolic rate, but again it doesn’t necessarily effect the upper body…

Hanley

briankeating wrote: »

If a dude wants to look better in a t-shirt he doesn't need to train legs. It's the basic assumption that you can get a decent physique without training legs that I take issue with. Large upper body and scrawny legs is not a good look.

Possibly agree.

The other scenario that comes up is a bit different, " I don't need to train legs because they're muscular enough from running, playing football/hurling/GAA etc. " . If athletic performance is the goal, then training legs is a must.

Agree-ish. I’ll accept that training legs is important, but then the question becomes - are squats and deadlifts?

Will people agree that most guys who go to the gym for the first time have a lot of limitations when it comes to strength, movement and asymmetric mobility/flexibility?

If people agree to that, will they also agree that squatting and deadlifting can make the problem worse and lead to injury?

If they agree to that, will they agree that just recommending squatting and deadlifting may not be good advice?

Hypertrophy

Hanley wrote: »

Often heard, rarely proved. This is one of the key points in this thread – is the data there to support that belief?

I can't link to any journals and I guess I've taken a follow the crowd stance on this as it's been said to me many times by people who I considered knowledgable and in good shape.

Hanley

Hypertrophy wrote: »

I can't link to any journals and I guess I've taken a follow the crowd stance on this as it's been said to me many times by people who I considered knowledgable and in good shape.

A lot of people would consider me knowledgeable and in good shape and I'm disagreeing with how true it is.... I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it may not be correct.

People just blindly accepting what others say without thinking about it is one of the biggest issues in the fitness industry. THere's a ton of other examples of conventional wisdom that don't actually follow through to be actually correct when you look at it on anything than a superficial level.

You also have to look at it from the perspective that the people trying to get others to squat realise the holistic benefits of it, and are drawing lose correlations from studies as a method of 'scaring'/convinicing people as to why they HAVE to squat/train legs. Would you not agree?

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

Possibly agree.

Possibly? I'm hurt .

Hanley wrote: »

Agree-ish. I’ll accept that training legs is important, but then the question becomes - are squats and deadlifts?

Ideally, yes. I say ideally because I agree with what you say below. At the end of the day though, saying someone should train legs =/= they have to squat and deadlift.

Hanley wrote: »

Will people agree that most guys who go to the gym for the first time have a lot of limitations when it comes to strength, movement and asymmetric mobility/flexibility?

Agreed.

Hanley wrote: »

If people agree to that, will they also agree that squatting and deadlifting can make the problem worse and lead to injury?

Agreed.

Hanley wrote: »

If they agree to that, will they agree that just recommending squatting and deadlifting may not be good advice?

I agree that telling someone to go straight to the gym and start squatting and deadlifting might not be good advice. But in the medium to long term that should be the goal. The short term goal is fixin their flexibility/mobility issues.

I had the unusual experience of trying to teach someone to squat and completely failing recently. Having been successful every time I tried in the past, I've finally had my eyes opened to what you've been saying for a long time.

Hypertrophy

Hanley wrote: »

A lot of people would consider me knowledgeable and in good shape and I'm disagreeing with how true it is.... I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it may not be correct.

People just blindly accepting what others say without thinking about it is one of the biggest issues in the fitness industry. THere's a ton of other examples of conventional wisdom that don't actually follow through to be actually correct when you look at it on anything than a superficial level.

You also have to look at it from the perspective that the people trying to get others to squat realise the holistic benefits of it, and are drawing lose correlations from studies as a method of 'scaring'/convinicing people as to why they HAVE to squat/train legs. Would you not agree?

I agree that we should look into things but when you start off with books such as starting strenght and alot of people saying if you want to be in good shape you gotta squat, bench and deadlift along with other compound movements why should anyone think negatively about them?

We've gotta put our faith into some things and perhaps alot of the journals aren't very accessible due to jargon speak I and others may not understand.

I also agree that you don't have to train legs if you dont want to develop that part of your body but it certainly is a good idea to do so.
I remember seeing an arm wrestler with a really really well developed right forearm that didn't match the rest of his body and it was this guy that proved to me that you can totally isolate a bodypart to make it grow alone.

Bottle_of_Smoke

If you want your upper body to look good chances are you'll have to do some cutting at some point and burn calories. Big muscles in your legs burn calories and therefore reduce your fat all over.

Also one would have to wonder why a guy would only want to look good in a t-shirt. Does this moron think the only way people look at him is the way he looks at himself in the mirror?

Give an analogy, if a girl was hugely overweight she'd still be overweight if she had a really pretty face.

People find legs/ass attractive so if you want to look good you should work your legs

Hanley

briankeating wrote: »

Possibly? I'm hurt .

Yeah… I’m undecided as to whether it is necessary – hence the point of this thread I’d probably agree more than disagree tbh.

Ideally, yes. I say ideally because I agree with what you say below. At the end of the day though, saying someone should train legs =/= they have to squat and deadlift.

True, in real life. But on boards it seems to be a different sceal entirely

I agree that telling someone to go straight to the gym and start squatting and deadlifting might not be good advice. But in the medium to long term that should be the goal. The short term goal is fixin their flexibility/mobility issues.

Yup, provided it doesn’t negatively impact their on the field performance, I think you’re right on the former and totally right on the latter.

I had the unusual experience of trying to teach someone to squat and completely failing recently. Having been successful every time I tried in the past, I've finally had my eyes opened to what you've been saying for a long time.

Mad innit? Some people just do not ‘get’ it when it comes to squatting. I’m kind of looking forward to the next person who doesn’t so I can try other things for teach it like goblet and wall squats.

Laisurg

You don't ''need'' to but it's a good idea as squats and deadlifts are good exercises for your back and a strong back is good for bench press and other chest workouts, and of course the more you lift the better the results.

Mellor

Laisurg wrote: »

You don't ''need'' to but it's a good idea as squats and deadlifts are good exercises for your back and a strong back is good for bench press and other chest workouts, and of course the more you lift the better the results.

Nobdoy is saying its not a good idea, Hanley is challanging the notion that you must.
People often show up often not wishing to trian legs, the the basic tone of the next few posts is that there's no point training at all if they don't do legs

Zamboni

I'm the opposite.

I look like a head on a pair of legs
I might ditch the legs for a bit and go disco for a bit.

TheZ

I think most people train legs to an extent so they don't look like a parsnip


seems to becoming received wisdom that unless you squat or deadlift then you are wasting your time.



Craig Colduck who was S&C for for the Australian National Sprint Cycling Team said that the Single Leg Press was their "bread and butter"

Having said that they also do single leg squats where best guys can do 3 @ 165kg on each leg

gymsoldier

TheZ wrote: »

Craig Colduck who was S&C for for the Australian National Sprint Cycling Team said that the Single Leg Press was their "bread and butter"

Functionally though thats what suited their sport, it imitated the movements in cycling.

Barry.Oglesby

gymsoldier wrote: »

Functionally though thats what suited their sport, it imitated the movements in cycling.

It's actually possibly a case of the reverse- that the lift benefits from the cycling rather than the other way round. Mike Boyle wrote somewhere about seeing cyclists capable of squatting huge weight first time out due to impressive hamstrings, but that it wasn't always the right thing to do due to an imbalance in the quads (the opposite of the imbalance most people would have).

ADO

i absolutely love training my legs! the only thing is they just dont respond to ANYTHING i do

cc87

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nppzGV1U8y8

Cos squats cure cancer

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

Yeah… I’m undecided as to whether it is necessary – hence the point of this thread I’d probably agree more than disagree tbh..

I think we're agreed so, I don't think it's necessary either. I just think that you'll look better if you train legs.

Hanley wrote: »

Mad innit? Some people just do not ‘get’ it when it comes to squatting. I’m kind of looking forward to the next person who doesn’t so I can try other things for teach it like goblet and wall squats.

Mad is exactly how I'd describe it. I started him with an empty bar and had to catch him from falling over, moved on to bodyweight squats and it was the same. He couldn't even squat holding a db out in front of him. I should have gone to wall squats, I now realise, instead I gave up. I've sent him a few videos and am going to try again some time in the future.

The strangest part was that in the same session he deadlifted 100Kg x 2 having never deadlifted before.

kevpants

I'd say the argument for rests in the below, in my head anyway.

- Training your lower body will make you stronger "generally". Realistically you're far more likely to build a muscular physique in whatever area if you are certifiably strong from top to toe.

- Discipline. Training your legs is hard, you feel like puking and the gains are hard to notice and slow to come. If you can't embrace that idea and live with it you're unlikely to succeed in building the body you want whether it involves legs or not.

- Leg training can't be "phoned in". Similar to the discipline point but deserving of its own. 90% of the people who train their upper body only are "phoning in" the workouts and really aren't getting anywhere. These people make up the majority of gymgoers and ultimately they fail at attaining their goals. The vast majority of people who are making real gains in their upper body training are also doing so with their lower body.

- The people who train their lower body don't give up. Of the people who are in your gym who have been training a long time and look like they have and have made constant progress overt he years... how many of them don't train their legs. Very few I'd imagine.

There's always exceptions to the above but if someone is looking for advice that advice should be based on the evidence of the majority not those exceptions. So basically everyone should train their legs.

unreggd

I think its also the fear of the crippling DOMS, as for me anyways, they're always the worst in my legs, which I need to walk on all day

My reason for not training my legs at the moment is because I want to build my upper body to balance my proportions. Ive never done any proper consistent bodybuilding, but Iv cycled uphill for as long as I can remember, so thats why my legs are built in comparison

Also, I'll be doing a few Spin classes per week for the rest of the summer

But Long term, I'll be trainin my legs. V-shape is great, but not if you get it by havin chicken legs! eek

boogeyman

I personally love training my legs. I find it breaks up my weekly split nicely and gives my upper body a chance to recover and grow (and helps to avoid overtraining)

I like everything to be proportionate. I think it looks kinda funny when you see a really well built person being supported by two twigg like legs. I keep expecting them to fall over:pac: