In the current MH Muscle I read an article by Ellington Darden in which he states that the length of a muscle belly determines it’s growth potential. I never really thought it was that important, especially since some very big armed bodybuilders have short tricep-bellies (Ronnie Coleman for instance) Yet when I look at myself I do see a correlation. I have very long biceps bellies and I’m very strong in that muscle group, it’s also very developped. With my triceps it’s almost the opposite. Is muscle belly length really that important? I always thought it was fibertype that was most impoertant.
bump again, i see a correlation too. my biceps have short heads and and i have trouble making strength and size gains there. but i have longer tricep muscle bellies and i can do tricep work all day.
Fiber types determine the ease in which the muscle will grow in response to a given training protocol. The potential area available to grow, however, is directly affected by muscle belly length and insertion points.
High lats and calves are the most obvious examples. Both are legitimate weaknesses in professional bodybuilding.
I couldn’t tell you if strength correlates either way, but I imagine other factors that go hand in hand with a given belly length may skew the results.