I have been working out properly for about 4 years but never trained my legs (this wasnt an excuse because my legs were pretty massive by nature..so I was gonna start working them later and just started...I did procrastinate it too long though) and only trained my back during the first 1 1/2 years or so. About a month ago I finally made the step of working out my legs/back (I wanted to do this waaay sooner but kept on procrastinating for some silly reason). When I looked at myself in the mirror I saw that..you couldnt really say my legs were too skinny for my upperbody (a little more muscular will look better though) I did think though that my back was way too skinny for my upperboody as I never worked it out. Today I took a couple pf pics of myself from the front and from the back and I was surprised as **** when I saw that my back (especially the lats) look pretty damn broad in the pic...This is not an excuse, dont get me wrong I AM gonna keep on working out my legs/back but honestly I mean my back doesnt look exactly as massive as I want it to be but it definetly does look broader/stronger than the bakc of a guy who doesnt work out would..I thought Id have like 2-3 years of catching up to do with my back (though I do know how to work out/eat and wont make the mistakes I made during my first 2 years or so of weight training), but Im pretty confident that Ill only have to work out my back/legs for like 1 year longer than the rest of my body to get where I wanna get.
Now my question is: Is it possible that my back is more muscular than my chest/arms by nature or do you think that I did gain muscle mass on my back because of working out other body parts and eating lots of protein? (my legs didnt really get bigger though)
Now my question is: Is it possible that my back is more muscular than my chest/arms by nature or do you think that I did gain muscle mass on my back because of working out other body parts and eating lots of protein? (my legs didnt really get bigger though)