(03-19-2017, 09:19 AM)LoganX Wrote: How would you adapt FT for the need of a figure athlete since they don't have to focus that much on the chest but way more on the glutes and abductor/adductor. Would you skip some chest exercises and put more Glutes instead? Or just put some more work for the Glutes after legs in the first two days??

Thanks

(03-19-2017, 11:59 PM)Scott Stevenson Wrote: Logan,

So, I'm going to do something I don't think I've done before here on the board. I'm going to draw the line on a question and simply refrain from answering it.

The reason is, the board here is set up for discussion foremost and for me to help folks out who have done me the honor of purchasing my e-book.

I'm no here, however, to answer questions about a 3rd person, who may or may not have bought the book, hasn't put forth the effort to post the question herself, or may simply be a client of someone (in which case Im doing that person's coaches job in answering the question).

I will say generically that you can tailor FT pretty easily for any division, and I even made a Daily Trainer (No Show, No Go) that's tailored for Men's Physique competitors where the thighs are not on display. So, I have some pretty clear ways of tailoring FT, that I'm happy to share with a book purchaser who will be using them for him/ herself.

You are on the right idea and while its not immediately obvious from the word to some folks, in training "Thighs" you will be training the glutes, too, so GLutes are trained there.

The bigger questions is really how a person what's to shape his/her physique. There are women now - this seems to be a trend that I think is in part due to social media and maybe even due to pic photoshopping - who desire a physique that is very bottom heavy in terms of development, meaning really muscular legs and glutes and a relatively less developed upper body.

This, to me, is a really fascinating development, b/c, relative to men, women already distribute a larger % of their muscle mass in the legs / lower body, so this puts greater emphasis aesthetically on that feminine muscle mass distribution. On the other hand, women are not as muscular as men (having higher body fat on average), so developing muscle mass, especially the extraordinary development in some women might be considered a masculinization of sorts.

HOWEVER... Bone structure in men and women (d/t to child bearing needs) is very different, meaning that the shape of pelvic girdle and, more bluntly, the shape of a woman's (vs. a man's) ass very different. (I don't think I've ever not been able to tell from looking at a butt whether it was a man or a woman's. I'd wager that your typical heterosexual male, especially if he fancies the dairy aire, almost instantaneously distinguishes a women's from a man's rear end.) So, development of a muscle upon a female hip structure accentuates the female here in a certain way, capitalizing on the relative lack of development in the upper body, creating what I personally perceive as a feminine muscular aesthetic overall.

So, how one would tailor FT for Figure, would depend upon the individual's physique ideal.

-Scott

(03-20-2017, 07:06 AM)LoganX Wrote: thanks for the answer, it was for my wife who's a figure. She's also my client and a little bit the guinea pig of the new training i'm trying. Since i just bought the FT book and want to perfect my coaching, i'm asking the creator of the FT to help me out.

Thanks again for your time and kindness

(03-20-2017, 11:21 PM)Scott Stevenson Wrote: Your'e welcome!

You've not addressed anything I said other than the name the particular Figure client. I.e., you've not asked another question or proposed anything you'd like to try with her. So, Im not sure if you're good go with what I've said or if you are expecting a more detailed answer from me now that I know you mean you wife.

-S

(03-21-2017, 12:58 AM)LoganX Wrote: I figured it out by rereading the book again and going on the other Thread. I'll be going with what is right in priority training and will focus on the whole body to keep it in symetry.

You know some times when you wanna learn new concept and trying to integrate them too fast you sometimes miss the point. Now i'm fine with the answer. More later if you want

Thanks again