Go Back   Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > >


Upper chest area.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:17 AM
mad matt mad matt is offline
Rank: Bantamweight
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Behind you WWhahahaha
Posts: 594
Default

And where does this fit into it all????????

http://www.bodybuilding.net/training...ine-13118.html

You have to go to the second link to access
__________________
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
  #92  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:23 AM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

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.
__________________

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
  #93  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:01 PM
hitsquaddd's Avatar
hitsquaddd hitsquaddd is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey -_-
Posts: 18
Default

Hope this isn't an asinine suggestion but personally to hit upper pecs I just do heavy neck presses (gironda's "guillotine presses"). It's developed my upper pecs better than incline presses but that could just be how my body reacts to the movement. Give it a try though, you might like them.
__________________
Next Big Thing: Cain Velasquez

5'9 - 190 lbs.
Deadlift: 520
Squat: 415
Bench: 315
40 time: 4.6
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-17-2010, 06:29 AM
iron_worker's Avatar
iron_worker iron_worker is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,272
Send a message via MSN to iron_worker
Default

An average age of 19.54yrs with a mean weight lifting experience of 5.08yrs +/- 1.5yrs.... Who the hell are these guys? Some of them must have started weight lifting when they were 13? lol I guess it could happen?

And 5 years of lifting experience and they can bench press just over 1x their bw?

Their stats seems strange to me but that is really neither here nor there.

My question is... is there any correlation between electrical impulse strength and "how hard a muscle is being hit"? I honestly don't know but maybe someone here does?

NM, if I had kept reading I would have found:

"Integrated EMG activity is linearly related to force output and oxygen consumption."

So basically it's measuring tension in the muscles. Neat.

IW
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-17-2010, 09:52 AM
hitsquaddd's Avatar
hitsquaddd hitsquaddd is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey -_-
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_worker View Post
An average age of 19.54yrs with a mean weight lifting experience of 5.08yrs +/- 1.5yrs.... Who the hell are these guys? Some of them must have started weight lifting when they were 13? lol I guess it could happen?

And 5 years of lifting experience and they can bench press just over 1x their bw?

Their stats seems strange to me but that is really neither here nor there.

IW
I started strength training when I got into highschool and thankfully for genetics I was able to adapt quickly to power movements. My football coach trained me with pyramids here and there and even Gironda's 8x8 approach but primarily focused on Olympic movements which helped me strength progression alot. I don't know if what you exactly mean by saying my stats seem strange to you but whether you're saying it's impressive or not at all, I still worked hard to get to where I am. Sorry, just dropping my 2 cents. No disrespect to you.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-17-2010, 09:54 AM
hitsquaddd's Avatar
hitsquaddd hitsquaddd is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey -_-
Posts: 18
Default

Okay I totally butchered the english language on that post...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-17-2010, 11:54 AM
iron_worker's Avatar
iron_worker iron_worker is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,272
Send a message via MSN to iron_worker
Default

I'm saying after 5 years you would hope they would be able to bench more than 185lb or so for a 1RM?

IW
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-17-2010, 01:14 PM
EricT EricT is offline
Rank: Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Default

Well it said they were at least able to bench that much since the only criteria they were looking for was that they be able to complete the tests. And the other stuff was a mean so you could literally have some people with a whole lot of experience and some with only a year which was the minimum. Probably they were all over the place in terms of bench press which is what you'd expect.

Everything else pans out as you would expect. Bodyweight bench being around average for college age men and these recruits being stronger than average.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-29-2010, 10:34 PM
MajRaj MajRaj is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Default

I'm not particularly big on the idea of using machines for chest, but this one in particular has me curious. There aren't any cables and it would seem that it promotes stricter form than a smith variant. Opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-01-2010, 06:36 AM
iron_worker's Avatar
iron_worker iron_worker is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,272
Send a message via MSN to iron_worker
Default

Why would this promote "stricter form" than other smith variants? The path is still entirely fixed, nothing the user does will change the way it moves.

IW
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > >


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 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.