bench targeting chest

Double D · 05-15-2007, 08:22 PM

I cant remember the last time I did flyes, pullovers, and I dont think I have did cable crossovers since college, theres just no need for what I train for.

Hialeahchico · 05-15-2007, 08:52 PM

You should concentrate on intense benchin with proper form to build mass on your chest, intensity is the key IMO on chest development. After you build mass you can hit it from all angles with the pullovers, and cable crossovers etc.but you should really concentrate on building overall mass. remember you get what you work for so go hard or go home.

DiGiTaL · 05-15-2007, 09:32 PM

I think its all one muscle but develops differently since its big therefore do other exercises to hit from angles.

Double D · 05-15-2007, 09:33 PM

Lets be serious here, there is very few lifts that the chest doesnt get some sort of stimulation from. So is all the angles needed for proper chest development, maybe, maybe not, but progression is always key, so why not progress from flat bench to an incline bench?

ccr_bballer33 · 05-15-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree with DD,

ultimately, the goal one is reaching for is progress. I don't believe one can simply stick to flat bench as heavy as one can each and every time a chest workout is done. Variation in movement and denying your body to adapt leads to progression at least it has for me.

Im just curious, how can you target, what you feel is three different areas, if it is one muscle?

Double D · 05-15-2007, 10:03 PM

I truthfully dont think you can target a specific area, but you can target the entire muscle.

kinkery · 05-15-2007, 10:55 PM

my summary:

Stick with the Basic's overall. IMO Just stick with the 3 Basics:
Incline- dumbbels/Barbell's
Flat- dumbbels/Barbell's
and IMO V-Dips.

sure if you have a shock week or etc you could supersett fly's with crossovers or pullovers with fly's or etc, etc, etc. many different ways...

Duncans Donuts · 05-15-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

stfu, you obviously know nothing

You need to be quiet. You are not right.

Quote:

The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer" pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it?s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit.

The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all?s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as ?heads? by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be ?slack? in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur.

Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly?s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no ?slack? because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.

That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement.

For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.

Many proponents of the so-called ?isolation? approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the ?target? region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.

The ability to ?isolate? a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.

Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can ?feel? different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as ?evidence? by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.

Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved.

So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don?t expect to be able to correct so-called ?unbalanced? muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about ?shaping? you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique.

The overwhelming evidence against building portions of muscles (inner/outer pec, upper lower bicep) is becoming realized, finally. Your muscle shape is inherited. Sorry.

kinkery · 05-15-2007, 11:05 PM

so i might aswell not even workout cause if i'm inheriting my muscle then i'll be where i would be even if i did workout?

Double D · 05-15-2007, 11:06 PM

Hes not saying that, hes saying trying to focus on your upper chest does not recruit more muscle fibers there. Training your chest is training your chest. Just keep progressing through different exercises.

Duncans Donuts · 05-15-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

so i might aswell not even workout cause if i'm inheriting my muscle then i'll be where i would be even if i did workout?

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Your muscle shape is inherited, as is your "hypertrophy" range (and hyperplasia range, too, assuming that is a real phenomenon). Therefore you have to work out to optimize that range.

And I'm not saying inclines and declines don't have benefit. In fact, I think they have enormous benefit. Just not for what you seem to think they do.

kinkery · 05-15-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Your muscle shape is inherited, as is your "hypertrophy" range (and hyperplasia range, too, assuming that is a real phenomenon). Therefore you have to work out to optimize that range.

And I'm not saying inclines and declines don't have benefit. In fact, I think they have enormous benefit. Just not for what you seem to think they do.

so i can take a look at my dad and see how big his muscles are and then i see my range? so if he has 13" arms then i know my range. sorry but i'm 4 inches past that

Duncans Donuts · 05-15-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

so i can take a look at my dad and see how big his muscles are and then i see my range? so if he has 13" arms then i know my range. sorry but i'm 4 inches past that

You are as fucking stupid as a retarded duck, and putting words in my mouth that are so far off basis that I'm embarrased for you. Stop wasting my time.

kinkery · 05-16-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

You are as fucking stupid as a retarded duck, and putting words in my mouth that are so far off basis that I'm embarrased for you. Stop wasting my time.

Twigz · 05-16-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

You are as fucking stupid as a retarded duck, and putting words in my mouth that are so far off basis that I'm embarrased for you. Stop wasting my time.

StanUk · 05-16-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

to build an overall good chest you need to hit it from all angles(like any other muscle) for example

Basics for chest:
Incline Press (start your chest workout with these all the time)
Benchpress

Please explain why you think someone should start with incline press on every chest workout they do?

ccr_bballer33 · 05-16-2007, 09:51 AM

Yah, you're not too bright. For one, your genetics aren't derived solely from your Dad. Two, just because he has those sized arms doesn't mean he has reached his full potential. You are taking all of these comments way out of context, and putting your own rationale to them.

Also, IMO, I never start a workout with the same exercise as the week before. I guess that kind of takes a page out of P/RR/S, but none the less. For me, I've had the best gains when variety is mixed into the rotation now and then.

kinkery · 05-16-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanUk

Please explain why you think someone should start with incline press on every chest workout they do?

because the lower/mid chest is easy to develope. so you should start off with inclines.

StanUk · 05-16-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

because the lower/mid chest is easy to develope. so you should start off with inclines.

Easy to develop? So your saying that the lower/mid chest is easier to develop than the rest of the chest? Perhaps you would care to explain and perhaps show me some evidence.

kinkery · 05-16-2007, 02:54 PM

yes it is easier. if you look at most people's chest you can see they have a good lower/mid chest but their upper chest lags. prolly the same as yours does

ReproMan · 05-16-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

because the lower/mid chest is easy to develope. so you should start off with inclines.

You're still at it?

Jesus.

AKIRA · 05-16-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

yes it is easier. if you look at most people's chest you can see they have a good lower/mid chest but their upper chest lags. prolly the same as yours does

The lower chest looks more developed because of gravity. Its one one-fan shaped muscle.

AKIRA · 05-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double D

So where do you stand. Different angles work different spots of the muscle? Meaning do you think incline works the top of the chest? I know where I stand, but wondering about others.

No way. Lets say for instance, I appear to have some sort of smaller section of my chest. I would simply change volume variables or change the exercise.

For example, it looks like I have a small "upper" chest. I ahve been doing flat bar bench for a time. I then change to Dips, DBs, or yes, even incline barbell. I dont choose incline cuz of the allegid "recruiting of the upper chest area," but to do something different from flat bench presses.

Duncans Donuts · 05-16-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

yes it is easier. if you look at most people's chest you can see they have a good lower/mid chest but their upper chest lags. prolly the same as yours does

i am a few credits away from a physiology degree and i can say without question you are fucking stupid as shit.

Leatherface · 05-16-2007, 03:58 PM

OK, I have a legitimate question here that I hope you guys will take seriously.

When I do NOT do incline work for awhile, the chest area around my collar bone becomes more concave and hollow looking. when I begin incorporating incline movements it thickens up. Why?

Again, this is a legit question. I am not being a smart a$$

StanUk · 05-16-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

i am a few credits away from a physiology degree and i can say without question you are fucking stupid as shit.

Thanks for clearing this up, I did have a feeling he was talking rubbish.

Double D · 05-16-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinkery

because the lower/mid chest is easy to develope. so you should start off with inclines.

Sorry brother, but it sounds like you read that straight out of a bb'ing mag.

kinkery · 05-16-2007, 06:14 PM

ohwell, you have your beliefs and i have mine

Big G · 05-17-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcoleman

I am Joe's pectorals. Today Joe bench pressed 5 more pounds than he did last week, for an additional 1 repetition. After his workout, he provided his body with more than adequate nutrition for growth. I think responding to the stimulus he placed on me with hypertrophy would be a good idea when he falls asleep tonight.

But wait.... he neglected to finish off his workout with standing cable crossovers. Oh well. Fuck hypertrophy, I prefer homeostasis anyways.

Sorry. I'm just reading this thread for the first time and I just have to say that KColeman's post (above) is some pretty funny shit.

Big G · 05-17-2007, 01:27 AM

And, Kinkery... I really think you should open your eyes on this one. I've only been at this for about six months and, until I read this post, I was under the imprssion that incline presses would target upper chest (I feel it there, if I do a lot of inclines) but clearly a lot of study has been done on all this and that's not the case.

I'm going to continue to do incline/decline exercises simply becuase I enjoy the variety. But again, clearly, evidence exists to the contrary of both your or my (prior) understanding.

05-15-2007, 09:32 PM	#33
DiGiTaL .::.:: Legend ::.::. Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ca Posts: 1,466 Photos: 2	I think its all one muscle but develops differently since its big therefore do other exercises to hit from angles. Stats: Weight: 183lbs \| BF: 13% My Cutting Journal come motivate me.

05-16-2007, 03:58 PM	#55
Leatherface Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 109	OK, I have a legitimate question here that I hope you guys will take seriously. When I do NOT do incline work for awhile, the chest area around my collar bone becomes more concave and hollow looking. when I begin incorporating incline movements it thickens up. Why? Again, this is a legit question. I am not being a smart a$$ "Look what your brother did to the door!"

05-17-2007, 01:27 AM	#60
Big G Gettin' Diesel. Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Cols,OH. It sucks. Posts: 1,218 Photos: 1	And, Kinkery... I really think you should open your eyes on this one. I've only been at this for about six months and, until I read this post, I was under the imprssion that incline presses would target upper chest (I feel it there, if I do a lot of inclines) but clearly a lot of study has been done on all this and that's not the case. I'm going to continue to do incline/decline exercises simply becuase I enjoy the variety. But again, clearly, evidence exists to the contrary of both your or my (prior) understanding. Goal...... DL:500lb, Sqt:400lb, Bnch:300lb Current.. DL:375lb, Sqt:335lb, Bnch:260lb Weight: 197lb (up 36lb), bf=15%ish Age:35 Training since 11/06 journal

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-15-2007, 08:22 PM	#31
Double D Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 10,460 Photos: 1	I cant remember the last time I did flyes, pullovers, and I dont think I have did cable crossovers since college, theres just no need for what I train for.

05-15-2007, 08:52 PM	#32
Hialeahchico Ur1nOnly Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: miami, FL Posts: 170 Photos: 4	You should concentrate on intense benchin with proper form to build mass on your chest, intensity is the key IMO on chest development. After you build mass you can hit it from all angles with the pullovers, and cable crossovers etc.but you should really concentrate on building overall mass. remember you get what you work for so go hard or go home.

05-15-2007, 09:33 PM	#34
Double D Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 10,460 Photos: 1	Lets be serious here, there is very few lifts that the chest doesnt get some sort of stimulation from. So is all the angles needed for proper chest development, maybe, maybe not, but progression is always key, so why not progress from flat bench to an incline bench?

05-15-2007, 09:51 PM	#35
ccr_bballer33 Bball player Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 152	I agree with DD, ultimately, the goal one is reaching for is progress. I don't believe one can simply stick to flat bench as heavy as one can each and every time a chest workout is done. Variation in movement and denying your body to adapt leads to progression at least it has for me. Im just curious, how can you target, what you feel is three different areas, if it is one muscle?

05-15-2007, 10:03 PM	#36
Double D Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 10,460 Photos: 1	I truthfully dont think you can target a specific area, but you can target the entire muscle.

05-15-2007, 10:55 PM	#37
kinkery Make them want to be you! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 998	my summary: Stick with the Basic's overall. IMO Just stick with the 3 Basics: Incline- dumbbels/Barbell's Flat- dumbbels/Barbell's and IMO V-Dips. sure if you have a shock week or etc you could supersett fly's with crossovers or pullovers with fly's or etc, etc, etc. many different ways...

05-15-2007, 11:05 PM	#39
kinkery Make them want to be you! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 998	so i might aswell not even workout cause if i'm inheriting my muscle then i'll be where i would be even if i did workout?

05-15-2007, 11:06 PM	#40
Double D Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 10,460 Photos: 1	Hes not saying that, hes saying trying to focus on your upper chest does not recruit more muscle fibers there. Training your chest is training your chest. Just keep progressing through different exercises.

05-16-2007, 09:51 AM	#47
ccr_bballer33 Bball player Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 152	Yah, you're not too bright. For one, your genetics aren't derived solely from your Dad. Two, just because he has those sized arms doesn't mean he has reached his full potential. You are taking all of these comments way out of context, and putting your own rationale to them. Also, IMO, I never start a workout with the same exercise as the week before. I guess that kind of takes a page out of P/RR/S, but none the less. For me, I've had the best gains when variety is mixed into the rotation now and then.

05-16-2007, 02:54 PM	#50
kinkery Make them want to be you! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 998	yes it is easier. if you look at most people's chest you can see they have a good lower/mid chest but their upper chest lags. prolly the same as yours does

05-16-2007, 06:14 PM	#58
kinkery Make them want to be you! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 998	ohwell, you have your beliefs and i have mine