Chicken legs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2007 7:52 PM GMT
    Seems like a lot of men out there have great upper bodies but then when it comes to their legs, they look like they're on stilts. Is this due to neglect or is it genetically harder to get the legs on the up than the upper body? Also, is there anyone else who's as turned off by chicken legs as I am?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2007 8:10 PM GMT
    There are guys at my gym like that, and according to my trainer, they simply don't do any leg workouts. They're completely fixated on their upper bodies being huge. Personally, I don't find it attractive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2007 11:32 PM GMT
    If you need further proof look at the European and South American soccer players who usually have bigger and more powerful legs compared to their upper bodies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2007 11:36 PM GMT
    Not only leg routines...but get out and run or bike. Unless you have a biomechanical problem that prevents you from doing that....

    Also, sorry guys, speaking as a runner who was competitive for many years, running on a tread mill is not the same as even flat running on roads, and, particularly, trails. I've heard muscle bunnies at the gym say they can run a six minute mile because they do so on a treadmill.

    It's the difference between weight training with free weights and machines. You can always do more weight with machines...because with free weights you have to balance, and maintain form on your own, rather having it enforced.

    Same with running...little ups and downs, up curbs, down curbs, road cants etc. All contribute to making it much more difficult.

    That's why triathletes have such great all round looks...they do all muscle groups.

    John
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2007 11:51 PM GMT
    I think another reason that people neglect their legs is that leg exercises activate bigger muscles and are just harder than arm work. A bicep curl is a whole lot easier to do than a squat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 12:02 AM GMT
    And some of us are just born with chicken legs.

    Maybe it's a little weird, but one of the first things that I "check out" on a guy is the thickness of his ankles and wrists. If they're nice and thick, he's at least got the potential for great legs. I find that kind of sexy. If they're thin and spindly, well... bbrrrcawk! I strongly suspect that indicates a genetic limitation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 12:43 AM GMT
    I think calves may be genetic, to some extent you either have them or not, but quads and hamstrings respond to weight training, and I think many guys don't work them because it hurts too much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 12:45 AM GMT
    Give me a L!

    Give me an A!

    Give me a Z!

    Give me a Y!

    Confucius say man who wear sweats when dewpoint above 60F have small legs, need buffet, and smell bad from being to hot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 2:25 AM GMT
    "I think calves may be genetic, to some extent you either have them or not, but quads and hamstrings respond to weight training,"

    That seems to be the case with me. My calves are certainly much stronger now, but they are still very slender. However, six months into my weight training, it was my quads where I first noticed definition.

    "I think many guys don't work them because it hurts too much."

    Leg day is my least favorite day in the weight room.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 2:30 AM GMT
    Jeez, lighten-up and read what I actually wrote. "Some of us"
    It's more of an attraction (and envy?) thing than a distaste thing. Anyway, if you take that reasoning a couple more steps, you'll be able to "prove" that Bigfoot is actually Elvis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 3:27 AM GMT
    I think that chickenlegs has a bad connotation. I think that lean legs are nice. I think wide buff thighs is kinda gross. When you say chicken legs implies having knobby knees and skeleton-esque thighs. If the topic is thin legs, as opposed to puppet legs or chickenlegs, then I think lean legs are very nice.

    If we're talking about the irony for men focusing on the upperbody leaving a gross contrast between them, I agree -looks a little strange.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 4:34 AM GMT
    i've been talking about this for years. Then again there's nothing hotter then being between 2 thick thighs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 6:19 AM GMT
    Really hadn't noticed that Liltally. Maybe you have watched too many of the marathoners (is that a word?) on TV, but they look like marathoners from everywhere else. This is from some one lived in Africa for 10 yrs: I never noticed a significant difference in the wrists and ankles between the white boys and the black ones. Now there was this Nigerian where I used to work, OMG, what a man. No, make that a thick hunky man's man. Thought of him the other day while reading the label in a hot sauce shop: slap my ass and call me Sally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 6:35 AM GMT
    Yeah, I was ragging on a student of mine because he only does upper body. I feel like doing legs stuff gives faster reward and definition, so it was like encouragement when I first started training. Plus I used to be really fat, so that helped me have a head start with leg strength. Ha!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 9:09 AM GMT
    I cycle to work every day. This seems to help build up the muscles in my legs. I wouldn't dream of using the cycling machines at my gym because I think they're a bit pointless and they're nothing like the real thing. You can't beat having to cycle up hills twice a day; it's an effective cardio workout and calorie burner as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 12:13 PM GMT
    It's the age old tale- I see it time and time again.
    As Chucky said, its laziness and its sad.
    I love working the lower body- takes a lot out of you, but the rewards are worth it.
    Reminds me of this guy in my gym - kid, can't be more than 21. He is a nordic god of types(people flock to him to be seen with him and he knows EVERYONE), tall, blond, etc. He does have a good upperbody but I have never seen this guy do any lower body work except for hamstring curls(and he always wears wind pants). it seems eveyday, I am in there, he is working out arms and chest. Again, sad....
    Ric

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 12:29 PM GMT
    I suspect that genetics does play a significant role.

    I seem to have rather muscular legs (I get compliments from both sexes)--and it's been that way all my life, more or less independent of my level of activity (which has varied significantly). I cannot recall ever doing any leg-oriented exercises other than an incidental consequence of other activities (e.g. I currently surf--with swim fins--whenever the surf is worth it and run 5K on alternate days).

    But I don't know about a wrist/ankle/leg correlation. My wrists are on the small side (don't know the standard for ankles, so can't make that comparison). But when I get a new wetsuit (O'Neill), I have to have it modified in the legs to increase the maximum circumference in the calf area by 3 inches--and even then the suit is still quite snug fitting in the legs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 4:01 PM GMT
    It really depends. For some guys its genetic and they do try their hardest. For others it is because they don't work thier legs. If you see a guy with a well built upper body and not much on the lower it is more than likely a genetic issue. Most guys don't want thier legs to be described as. "chicken legs"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 5:59 PM GMT
    My legs suck. I am just over 6' but have a 36" inseam. So, even when my quads measure 27 inches, they look thin.

    I ruptured the tendons in both my knees a year ago and the surgery, for which I was hospitalized for 3 weeks, was fucked up, and I will likely have to have it again. They have no idea why my tendons ruptured in a fairly simple fall, but speculate it was from years of leg pressing close to a thousand lbs.

    So be careful.

    Oh, another thing. You've probably noticed guys in the gym who do steroids and their upper body pumps up in a month while their legs, regardless of leg work they do, lag. That's because the lower body has fewer receptors than the upper body. At least that's what a sports doctor told me.
  • calipally

    Posts: 246

    Jun 13, 2007 11:14 PM GMT
    My thinking is, is that the upper body is more "prolific" than the lower. Arms, pecs, abs can be seen through a shirt or tank top. The legs are usually hidden behind a pair of jeans until summer, then the shorts come out. Funny, during the fall/winter/spring months, I have virutally unlimited access to the leg area of my gym, but when the warmer months start, it's suddenly full.

    Thick legs are hot, but not-so-thick legs are hot too; It all depends on the guy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2007 11:56 PM GMT
    Hmm. Personally, give me a guy with a pair of redwoods below his waist anyday (I do have a leg fetish, but that's er, for another day, lol) to a guy with some twigs. As some have said, I think it has more to do with men wanting the showy muscles (arms, chest, lats) than those you necessarily can't see. But here's one question for someone: Why do some really obese men have these huge quads and calves when they're (at least superficially) out of shape???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2007 12:10 AM GMT
    "Why do some really obese men have these huge quads and calves when they're (at least superficially) out of shape???"

    Well, think of the workout those muscles are getting by simply walking around a little bit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2007 5:07 AM GMT
    YEah, that was totally my deal. Just walking around was a lot of exercise for me. And then when I finally started running and stuff, I had a lot more to move, even from the start. I imagine if I walked on my hands all through high school, I would have automatically had a huge upper body :)
  • atxclimber

    Posts: 480

    Jun 14, 2007 5:22 AM GMT
    I've always had lots of muscular bulk on my legs, even when I was overweight and had little upper body muscle.

    My theory is that I grew up biking, and have always been a "sprinter" style cyclist, because I used the bike to commute to school, work, etc. It was all about sprinting to try to catch the stoplights while green, or sprinting and then cruising, because that's what seemed natural to me. Disciplined, steady high-cadence riding didn't just magically occur to me when I was 13.

    I think that sprinting just taught my body, over the years, to keep the fast-twitch muscle on my legs, because maybe I'd need it again. Even at times when I wasn't biking at all, my calves and thighs are very large.

    When I seriously train for cycling, it doesn't seem to increase leg mass at all, it just firms things up and bring out definition.

    I can't say as I mind.

    I guess the moral of the story is to get kids started biking early. And, as sicko says, maybe get them walking on their hands when they're off their bikes. They'll be set for life.
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Jun 14, 2007 5:31 AM GMT
    My gym is loaded with em. I like a well proportioned guy----got one ...great legs!! Also I don't recall the post person stating anything racist??? WTF liltally??