Do you ever wonder why your chest gets sore a whole lot easier than your calves when your calves are actually smaller? I've got a good explanation for that.
So your calves are the hardest muscles in your body. That's obvious unless you're not to familiar with human anatomy, then surprise surprise.
Look at your chest for example, you only have to spend maybe thirty minutes out of your day working on it, and then the next day you're sore. Now take your calves for example, you spend your day standing on your feet, your calves are the first muscle to work in your legs when you walk, they take in the shock of each and every step, and when you work them out, you have to use three times the weight you use on your chest, plus your body weight, and twice the amount of movement to get the same results as you would see in your chest.
If the muscles in your chest and your arms were as dense as the muscles in your calves, the average human being would begin chest and arm workouts with about three or four times the weight and about twenty times the endurance.
Now I'm not positive if that's entirely correct, but from what I gather, the strength differences would be incredible.
Therefor, you require far harder, far more demanding, and far more endurance requiring exercises to break the harder and stronger muscles than to break down the softer ones.
If you think about it, during a workout, your muscles are flexing, stretching, and being brought to their utmost potential. So when they stretch like that, there are multiple little strands of muscular tissue that snap and break with each and every press, push, pull, lift, and raise.
Your muscles that are harder than others, like your calves for instance since those seem to be the densest of the group, it's a very requiring process to get those muscles to break down and get those tiny strands to break and pop so they come back together with more and make themselves larger and stronger.
Now your softer muscles, like your lats, lower back, and biceps, require a less stressful workout. Because those strands aren't as thick and hard as the ones in your legs. If you did the same workout that you do with your legs with your upper back, the size differences would be immaculate because the softer muscles that require less strain to become larger would react in a more dramatic way, resulting in massiveness and your leg muscles would be equally strong, but in proportion, nowhere near as large.
Imagine when you started running, the first two miles your legs were pretty sore, but imagine if you did that exact run on your hands. Which workout would make the most sore?
So there's a reason for heavier leg workouts, your legs are designed for constant twenty four seven every second of the day use, your upper body isn't quite like that, it's meant for holding smaller things, that aren't all of you, and picking up stuff, helping out with balance.
It's just something to think about.
The Fitness Cookie
Now I'm not positive if that's entirely correct, but from what I gather, the strength differences would be incredible.
Therefor, you require far harder, far more demanding, and far more endurance requiring exercises to break the harder and stronger muscles than to break down the softer ones.
If you think about it, during a workout, your muscles are flexing, stretching, and being brought to their utmost potential. So when they stretch like that, there are multiple little strands of muscular tissue that snap and break with each and every press, push, pull, lift, and raise.
Your muscles that are harder than others, like your calves for instance since those seem to be the densest of the group, it's a very requiring process to get those muscles to break down and get those tiny strands to break and pop so they come back together with more and make themselves larger and stronger.
Now your softer muscles, like your lats, lower back, and biceps, require a less stressful workout. Because those strands aren't as thick and hard as the ones in your legs. If you did the same workout that you do with your legs with your upper back, the size differences would be immaculate because the softer muscles that require less strain to become larger would react in a more dramatic way, resulting in massiveness and your leg muscles would be equally strong, but in proportion, nowhere near as large.
Imagine when you started running, the first two miles your legs were pretty sore, but imagine if you did that exact run on your hands. Which workout would make the most sore?
So there's a reason for heavier leg workouts, your legs are designed for constant twenty four seven every second of the day use, your upper body isn't quite like that, it's meant for holding smaller things, that aren't all of you, and picking up stuff, helping out with balance.
It's just something to think about.
The Fitness Cookie
No comments:
Post a Comment