ITT; we discuss the best insertions genetics can give you
Abs are the obvious example, with some people having terrible insertions. What are some other muscles that will looks silly no matter how big, with shit genetics?
Chest, calves, traps
>>38402441
I have natural real good obliques (the v shape muscles from your abs to cock) and girls seem to love it. I barely do any work on them and they pop out even when my bodyfat is higher than usual.
>>38402441
IMO, this guy has the best insertions you can get naturally.
High bicep insertions will look shitty even when they get huge. Mine aren't obviously as bad as this pic, but even in short sleeve shirts I look dyel because my biceps insert above where the sleeve is
>>38404299
Comparison of insertions. I know Ronnie was a many time olympia winner, but really his bicep insertions were pretty bad
İ have literal amazing insertions all around, except for my chest, it has mass but its a tad bit droopy like scooby chest, idk if theres surgery for it or İ just have some extra fat there or something
>>38404324
His core, triceps, and legs carried him. Fucking beautiful.
>>38404353
Cem şu i leri buyuk harf yazcagin zaman ı yap. Surekli surekli tutamadim en sonunda kendimi
>>38404393
boşver abi, İ ı farksız ingilizce'de
>>38404383
I think the front half of the upper body is the layman's muscles. popular and easy to see.
the back is the patrician's half
abs traps and chest are all that really matter
chestgap is way overblown though I don't see any problem with it. also almost any chest looks good if it's big enough.
>>38404353
maybe you focus too much on flat and decline bench. even a slight incline is more focused toward mid-chest than upper. ive only done a slight incline the past year or two, and while Im happy with my chest, it still seems to be much more full on the lower end
>>38402441
there is nothing worse than shit chest genetics
>>38405009
what do traps look like with different insertions?
>>38404249
This.