Go Back   Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Upper chest area.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-14-2010, 11:00 PM
cr3beast's Avatar
cr3beast cr3beast is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30
Default

I study anatomy, cellular biology, and genetics. Its not like I read what your average joe writes and take it as gospel. I study this stuff like crazy, reading, listening, and watching everything I can to expand my knowledge. If you want proof that what I said about building different portions of a muscle is true, try to find information from a credible source that disproves my statements. You won't be able to. You will find people who have a hard time building their upper pecs who will hide behind the weak excuse of genetics. Your a big boy, if you want to read what professionals think, Google it or something. Pick up an anatomy or kinesiology book and go to town. Not trying to be a prick but I'm not going to spend time trying to find quotes for ya about stuff I've already researched. I do however agree with Ross86, this has been beaten too death, and has become pointless. So, I too am done with this matter. Good luck!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-15-2010, 08:23 AM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

You are so incredibly full of fallacies it's like a logic class. The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you. It is not their job to disprove what you say. It's your job to prove. Seriously it's fun just to pick out the logic traps since discussing it won't do any good.

And you've proved that you can't prove it or even give a reasonable explanation to back it up. You are implying that the answers to this are in cellular biology, anatomy and genetics books. They are not and you are not fooling anyone implying that you know answers that you refuse to supply.

You make a statement be prepared to back it up and if you can't you may as well concede that you can't.

Since there is very little direct evidence to show that different portions of any muscle can be isolated (I said very little not none) then the simplest explanation, for now, is that they cannot. In this case, my personal take is therefore that the simplest explanation is the one that should be assumed to be true for now. So the burden of proof rests on you and you cannot shift it to the other side.
__________________

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



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


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-15-2010, 09:36 PM
cr3beast's Avatar
cr3beast cr3beast is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30
Default

Ok, I know I said I would no longer speak on this, but now you have insulted my intelligence and that pisses me off.

First off, did you read any of my other comments? Because I gave clear explanations on what happens and how you can add extra focus on particular parts of a muscle. So don't sit there and act like I said "yes you can focus upper pecs, now prove me wrong". I'm not an idiot. However, I'm not your mommy, I don't have to hold your hand and tell you what lines in a medical journal or kinesiology book to read. Its not my burden to find quotes to prove my argument. My proof is on how the muscle works, which I explained very simply...If I broke it down more for you, I'd have to use crayon.
Now about my lack of understanding based on my studies, let me break that down for ya. Muscles are part of the human ANATOMY, so wouldn't it be logical if you wanted to learn about muscles, you would study ANATOMY? Several people in this thread mentioned that you are bound by GENETICS, oh looky there I mentioned studying GENETICS. And when it comes to how the muscles are fueled and grow, that deals with hormones traveling throughout the body and effecting the muscle cells...I wonder where you can learn about that? Oh, thats right, CELLULAR BIOLOGY. Now, before you know the facts, don't insult me.
Now, you mention that I am full of fallacies? Name one. You wrongly stated that the burden of proof is on me, when if you want to learn the truth about something, its best to find it for yourself. I don't trust quotes from anyone because I don't know if its an actual quote, or if the source is reputable. As I stated before, I broke it down in an easy to understand manner, if you need more than the common known facts that I gave you, look for it yourself. This is a forum, I'm not getting paid to teach you this stuff. I answered a guys question because he was given poor advice. Oh, and the people that you stand behind, that gave the false advice, quoted nothing. It was all based solely on their opinion. Why don't they have the burden of proving their arguments? Oh, that's right, because I know how to read and research the things that I want to know more about.

So Eric, do you know how muscles work? Are you aware that changing angles when lifting focuses on different areas of a muscle? Pick up a book. Seriously, if you don't know that basic fact of bodybuilding, you need to stay away from a gym until you learn what you are doing and proper techniques. Otherwise you will be wasting your time, and will get yourself, or someone else hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-16-2010, 01:01 AM
mad matt mad matt is offline
Rank: Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Behind you WWhahahaha
Posts: 594
Default

Im going to ask again, do you have any real life studies that show or prove that doing incline bench will in anyway effect the upper chest.

As you said yourself you dont believe quotes in books, so lets forget what it says in books. Show me some real studies that prove what your saying is correct...

Then i'll show you a real life study that proves decline bench works upper chest far more than incline...
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-16-2010, 08:32 AM
cr3beast's Avatar
cr3beast cr3beast is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 30
Default

Fine, if you insist on me finding the information here is part of a study...I will include a link for you so you may read the whole thing. This report was written by Tom McCullough MEd. Here is what it says--
The Clavicular Head

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."

Cutler agrees and says, "I personally feel upper pec development is very important for a bodybuilder. So I concentrate more on the incline bench that I do the flat bench." While the incline position may provide slightly greater upper pec stimulation Hatfield contends, "The same thing can be accomplished by using the flat bench. I would suggest lowering the bar to the upper pecs instead of the lower pecs (as normal), using a wide grip with the elbows out."

Nevertheless, if you are going to use the incline position to target the upper pecs, a narrower grip has been shown to best activate them. Professional bodybuilder Mike Francois agrees and says "A grip that is just a little bit wider than shoulder’s width really hits my upper pecs best." But Sal Arria, D.C., founder of the International Sport Science Association and former powerlifting champion warns: "Using a wide grip can involve too much front deltoid and can cause the deltoids to slam against the acronium process, causing trauma to the muscle."

You can read more here-- http://www.texaspowerscene.com/artic...enchpress.html

At the bottom of the page there are the references used in this report. Would you like me to read and post links for all of those too?? Or do you think you can manage that? (in case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. As I stated before, y'all are big boys, do it yourself.)
Now I know it says that it is a slight increase, and I get the feeling someone will pounce on that, but let me ask you this...If i tell you that if you change your lift you will have a slight advantage to build muscle, would you do it? And as for your decline doing more for upper pecs, EMGs don't lie, and it feels that you are confused in your thinking.
So, either drop it, or agree to disagree because I am done. I have given advice, I have backed it up with personal experience, medical knowledge, and now EMG reports.
Oh, and to add, I didn't say I didn't trust quotes in books...I said I didn't trust quotes, as in from the general population.
So, as always, Good luck!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-16-2010, 08:45 AM
Ross86's Avatar
Ross86 Ross86 is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,268
Send a message via AIM to Ross86
Default

Quote:
If i tell you that if you change your lift you will have a slight advantage to build muscle, would you do it?
If you backed it up with a study saying that there was a very slight increase in activation that wasn't statistically significant, then I wouldn't change anything.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-16-2010, 09:50 AM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

So you want us to look up the studies that they used in that "report".

Ok, so the Barnett one is the one dealing with the effects of different angles of bench press on five shoulder muscles. Now this is ONE study so let's not take too much from it and also it is EMG activity and not a longitudinal study...but here is the abstract:

Barnett, C., Kippers, V., and Turner, P. (1995). Effects of variations of the bench press exercise on the EMG activity of five shoulder muscles. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

This experiment investigated the effects of varying bench inclination and hand spacing on the EMG activity of five muscles acting at the shoulder joint. Six male weight trainers performed presses under four conditions of trunk inclination and two of hand spacing at 80% of their predetermined max. Preamplified surface EMG electrodes were placed over the five muscles in question. The EMG signals during the 2-sec lift indicated some significant effects of trunk inclination and hand spacing. The sternocostal head of the pectoralis major was more active during the press from a horizontal bench than from a decline bench. Also, the clavicular head of the pectoralis major was no more active during the incline bench press than during the horizontal one, but it was less active during the decline bench press. The clavicular head of the pectoralis major was more active with a narrow hand spacing. Anterior deltoid activity tended to increase as trunk inclination increased. The long head of the triceps brachii was more active during the decline and flat bench presses than the other two conditions, and was also more active with a narrow hand spacing. Latissimus dorsi exhibited low activity in all conditions.

I bolded the pertinent part. You would have been served to actually read it, yes. Always check the sources.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-16-2010, 10:44 AM
Pitysister's Avatar
Pitysister Pitysister is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,221
Default

While the difference between the two was considered insignificant.....yayyyyyy. i will definitely change from now on, so i can make some insignificant things happen.
__________________

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

And when you seek forgiveness
You will see there is no god
And for all eternity
You will cry my name
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-16-2010, 10:50 AM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Yeah, insignificant means insignificant. It means the same as "NOT SIGNIFICANT" lol. The conclusions of the actual study authors tells it all and I have seen many many references to that study but I have never seen anyone but that McCullough guy conclude from it what he did. It's wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:12 AM
mad matt mad matt is offline
Rank: Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Behind you WWhahahaha
Posts: 594
Default

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."
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



 



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.