That whole paragraph is patently absurd. It goes from no difference, to may be just what we need, to a quote about it being "true" to there being no doubt. It's completely ridiculous. Talk about one point not following from another....
The idea that more weight over time will even things out is just a good idea as any of this other stuff, to me.
That study you linked gives much the same conclusion except it's only comparing decline to incline and no horizontal. I'm not sure you are getting the results of the actual studies. Forget about the article. The studies are finding no difference in upper pec activation with incline.
There are variations in activation of the lower head at different angles but the upper head activation is not changed ("significantly"). I think there is confusion here surrounding what we disagree with. The question is not whether different joint angles can affect motor unit recruitment. This is true to some extent and I'm not debating that. That, however, does NOT tell you anything at all. The question is whether the upper pecs can be activated more 'intensely' with certain angles and there is NOTHING to show that. Every darn study comes back with the same thing and it's 'belief perseverance' keeping people touting the incline press for upper pec crap.
I do love the idea that I will get someone injured by not buying that incline press will grow the upper pecs more, though! That's priceless. Ima borrow that. Seriously, there, beast, do you actually go to wikipedia and look up fallacious arguments before you post this stuff? Now, it's "consequences of belief". It's really testing my self control not to keep mentioning this stuff. Oops. There I go again.
|
Threaded Mode