This is the bit that cofuses me, maybe its just me..

Ive always been able to bench a heavier weight when im doing flat as apposed to incline. Now acording to this study both flat and incline produce the same results but maybe incline hit the upper pecks just slightly more..

But if i can bench more weight doing flat then doesnt this make things even..

Does this make sense or am i being dumb as normal??

Heres the bit im reading in bold..

Now we all know that the incline bench hits the upper pecs. Right? Since the upper pecs seem to help to raise the arm, this would make sense. The incline position would put the arm in more of a flexed position than either the flat or decline positions. According to EMG studies this advice seems to be pretty much true. The Barnett study tells us that the incline position produces just slightly more electrical energy in the upper pecs that either the flat or decline positions. However, the flat bench was found to be very close. While the difference between the two was considered insignificant, the slight advantage of the incline over the flat bench in upper pec activation may be just what some of us need to further develop the upper pecs. "This is all very true," says Robinson. "There is no doubt the incline bench hits the pecs more than the flat bench."

__________________
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your sole.

Meet the pros at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.