Best movements for upper-inner pecs

[Kayz]

Hey Phreez. Everything you said makes sense, but I have one question.

Can you drink winny?

Just trying to lighten the mood up in here a bit.

[van-man]

No you cannot drink winny. You have to hash it out into several straight lines on a mirrored coffee table and snort it using us currency rolled up as a straw. But, you cannot use any denomination lower than a twenty as it will break down the long esters in the winny

Ok, just so everyone knows and phreezer will back off, there is not now, nor has there ever been any confusion on my part as to the construction of the pectorial muscle.

Now, what about gains slowing after sticking with the same exercise over a period of time? I used to do only flat bench when I worked chest. I would do between 4 and 7 sets depending on how heavy I was trying to go. I made progress doing that for about a year or so, but then I just kinda quit making improvements. Mostly in strength, but also in size. Then I started mixing it up, and I started making improvements again real quick. For chest, I started doing 4 sets of incline, then 4 sets of flat, then 3 or 4 sets of some various fly movements. I don't ever max out, but on heavy days I'll do 4 really heavy sets of 6 reps. When I got stuck I was weighing about 185, and my heavy sets were about 225lbs. on flat bench. After another year of training like this I was up to 275lbs. Currently, I'm doing this with 355lbs (after implementing AAS). I can do more for a couple sets but I have to drop for the last one or two. And I'm still able to keep my lean body weight a touch over 200lbs! (I'm not wanting to add anymore mass, only strength, and symmetry if it is possible)
Anyway, this was the training philosophy that Arnold, Franko, Lou, and Zane all subscribed to and that Arnold testifies to in his Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding. And it worked for me, so it can't be all bunk.

To me it seems that claiming full muscle development can be had with only one movement (decline bench in this case), is the same sort of claim that would say a smith machine bench press is just as good as a barbell bench press. I've always thought it understood that machines that lock you into one motion did not allow for full muscle fiber stimulation. And that is where I'm hanging up on the idea that I should just rely on one essential movement to take care of all my pectorial development needs.

I understand the postition, I just would like a little more explanation on how only one movement is necessary for total pectorial development...

[combat_action]

Anyway, this was the training philosophy that Arnold, Franko, Lou, and Zane all subscribed to and that Arnold testifies to in his Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding. And it worked for me, so it can't be all bunk.

Well anything can work, but that doesn't mean it's anywhere close to optimal IMO. If I remember correctly, Arnold S's advanced workout in that infernal book featured working out 6 days per week with only a single day off and a megaton of volume. It also features using a pyramid scheme for just about everything which is also garbage IMO. That's like saying, "I'm going to grab the latest FLEX magazine and do "Ronnie Coleman's Back Routine" and get terrific results! I can't wait to try it!"

The death of modern bodybuilding

One of the biggest problems that I have with split routines is that it results in an ‘isolation mentality’. Every effort is made, more often than not, to try to isolate each individual muscle. This practice, by definition, results in a loss of some of the very best drills one could do. The clean-and-press, for instance; should it be trained on back day or shoulder day. But wait, what if you do squat-snatches; is that a leg drill or a back drill; and doesn’t it also involve the shoulders to an extent? The bent press; where do you start with that? Deadlifts; back or legs? High pulls? One-arm dumbbell swings? Dumbbell cleans? Sots presses?

To me it seems that claiming full muscle development can be had with only one movement (decline bench in this case), is the same sort of claim that would say a smith machine bench press is just as good as a barbell bench press.

That's a bad analogy. No way you can compare a machine with a fixed path of motion to a free weight compound exercise. Then again, that really doesn't have anything to do with my point either. My point was that you cannot isolate portions of your muscles.

And that is where I'm hanging up on the idea that I should just rely on one essential movement to take care of all my pectorial development needs.

I understand the postition, I just would like a little more explanation on how only one movement is necessary for total pectorial development...

I was just giving an example that the flat bench stimulates the entire pectoral muscle. I'm not saying to adopt the flat bench as your ONLY exercise, drop the rest, and go balls to the wall for the next hundred years.

What I AM saying is that you don't need do do a full assault with an arsenal of 8 different exercises from every concievable angle to work the SAME muscle. You can't take a marker, divide your chest up into 6 different pieces and strategically work each little piece! Instead, you can pick up something like 5x5 flat bench, then 2-3 x 10 incline DB, and move on to another bodypart...Essentially working your pectoral muscle as a whole.

There's a lot of things to take into account such as frequency, set/rep schemes, ect. Something like Bill Starr's 5x5 features flat bench twice a week, once ramping up to a top set of 5, once 5 sets of 5 with the same weight. You could do inclines instead of flat one day as per AM's version. If you got an adequate amount of volume and frequency with 1-2 compound lifts, in this case flat and incline or decline bench, you certainly won't need cable crossovers or incline DB flyes to work your "inner-upper" pecs, especially since there really is no such thing.

[Phreezer]

Top Quality post bro...

Originally Posted by combat_action

Well anything can work, but that doesn't mean it's anywhere close to optimal IMO. If I remember correctly, Arnold S's advanced workout in that infernal book featured working out 6 days per week with only a single day off and a megaton of volume. It also features using a pyramid scheme for just about everything which is also garbage IMO. That's like saying, "I'm going to grab the latest FLEX magazine and do "Ronnie Coleman's Back Routine" and get terrific results! I can't wait to try it!"

The death of modern bodybuilding





That's a bad analogy. No way you can compare a machine with a fixed path of motion to a free weight compound exercise. Then again, that really doesn't have anything to do with my point either. My point was that you cannot isolate portions of your muscles.



I was just giving an example that the flat bench stimulates the entire pectoral muscle. I'm not saying to adopt the flat bench as your ONLY exercise, drop the rest, and go balls to the wall for the next hundred years.

What I AM saying is that you don't need do do a full assault with an arsenal of 8 different exercises from every concievable angle to work the SAME muscle. You can't take a marker, divide your chest up into 6 different pieces and strategically work each little piece! Instead, you can pick up something like 5x5 flat bench, then 2-3 x 10 incline DB, and move on to another bodypart...Essentially working your pectoral muscle as a whole.

There's a lot of things to take into account such as frequency, set/rep schemes, ect. Something like Bill Starr's 5x5 features flat bench twice a week, once ramping up to a top set of 5, once 5 sets of 5 with the same weight. You could do inclines instead of flat one day as per AM's version. If you got an adequate amount of volume and frequency with 1-2 compound lifts, in this case flat and incline or decline bench, you certainly won't need cable crossovers or incline DB flyes to work your "inner-upper" pecs, especially since there really is no such thing.

[van-man]

I totally agree on the volume thing in Arnold's book. I took one look at that shit and knew there was no way in hell I was going to do that to my body. I just do three movements right now at about three or four sets a piece and I can tell that the benefit I get from the last few sets is not as good as quality as the first few were.

I'm beginning to see where you guys are coming from though. First problem is the mass mentality. I simply can't have anymore than what I already have right now.
Second is coming from both ends. You're right the smith machine is a bad analogy. But I'm NOT trying to work my pecs in isolation! I just want inefficient stimulation. Meaning that I neglect the greater area of the pectorial muscle. I realize that the desire to do that doesn't make sense to big un's like phreez and grizz, but you have to remember that weight lifting is not my sport, it is a hobby that has improved my sport. And the demands of my sport, sadly, take precedent over the most effective way of gaining mass. However, honestly, my question has been more of one of vanity than anything else.

So, thanks for all the input. You guys have confirmed what I was already noticing, that our muscles grow in a predetermined shape, and there is now way to influence their grow in the way of implementing controls.
And, in a few years, when I get ready to move on to something else, and I have the freedom to get as big as I want to be, then you guys will have already helped me shed some old dogma's... even you phreezer Asshole!

[jasthace]

Originally Posted by Phreezer

WTF? that doesn't show any muscle named Upper Pectoral, or inner upper pectoral? Is your IQ below 70? lol.... I don't know how to get into your wittle head that it's just one big ol muscle. If it's small on one part it small on another. The anatomy chart you posted if you'll take the time to actually look at it shows what I've been telling you all along.

NOW, AGAIN... It's called the pectoralis Major.. There is no Upper Pectoral or lower pectoral or an inner pectoral. THAT is my point. Your post doesn't do anything but show how you are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You pull stuff out of your ass all the time. Stuff that is wrong. I grow tired of seeing all the misinformation you are posting..but I digress..

(to note there is a pectoralis minor but it is a very small triangular shaped muscle near the thorax.)

Now, I also want to address your other little comment .....EMG studies..wait, I obviously have to explain what that is. It stands for electro myofibril graph. This is a machine that's used to gauge how much work a muscle is performing. This machine has shown in multiple studies that the exercise that gets the most activity from the pectoal is Low grade decline Dumbbell presses. 2nd is traditional bench press. My point.. There is clinical data to support what I'm saying. You can choose to believe it or not. It doesn't change it from being the truth.

I'd like to know why on the anatonmy chart the peck has seven little individual muscle looking things,why is that Pheezer?

[jasthace]

Originally Posted by van-man

Ok guys.... I have a bit of a challenge. I have very prominent delts by genetics. My front delts are much bigger than average for people of my size. I'm 6'1" and 210lbs/96kg fit and trim, but I have delts you would see on a guy around 225lbs. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em, but it causes difficulties when I train my upper chest. The delts dominate the movements, and as a result, the very upper/inner part of my pecs are lagging in fullness and development from what I would like to see.
this last cycle I switched up incline barbell for dumbell, focusing on the upper 2/3rds of the movement, and have tried every variation of fly that I can come up with. The dumbells provided some benefit, but the fly movements were all defeated by the delts.

I would like some suggestions on how to focus on this particular area more effectively, and maybe some tips on how to remove as much delt influence as I can.

thanks in advance guys!

I'd like to see a picture in the members gallery Van-Man.your such a prominent member,go on bro.me and grizz are there you'll be in good company,put your balls where your mouth is
ps I think Manwhore put his shrivelled up nuts together to put his leg in there too.

[jasthace]

I got curious and had a look for myself ,here is an interesting link about the anatomy of the chest,
http://www.fitstep.com/Advanced/Anatomy/Chest.htm

[combat_action]

Originally Posted by jasthace

I'd like to know why on the anatonmy chart the peck has seven little individual muscle looking things,why is that Pheezer?

It's there to show you that you can hit each one with every setting of the incline bench!

[Ramstein II]

I agree that you cannot isolate "inner" and "outer" pecs. The fibers contract horizontally so to speak. But, the pec major has one insertion and two attachments: sternum and clavical. These attachment sites allow the pec to pull the arm across the chest accross and accross and down in the case of of the lower chest and accross and up in the case of the upper chest. Just look at how the fibers run and you can see. I agree that you cannot fully isolate these two heads of the chest, but they can be stressed.

Also, different angles and exercises employ different fiber recruitment patterns and are thus important for full development and to avoid accomodation.

[Preacher]

OK, first off this has been a great read and would love for this "argument to continue, as long as we are adult about it, I think both parties are giving really good points. But the problem is i'm stuck wondering. As I don't see a real answer here. I have read the articule by Chris Mason on the top five bodybuilding myths. A good read but as I finished I found myself wondering who the author is? Is he reputable? How does he know or is this just "one mans opinion"

I also did alot of looking up of muscles and the one chart I seen had me wondering could one hit the Claviclular head developing it then doing excersises for the Sternal head, developing it? if so would that not constitute for the "upper and lower pec" so to speak. I know its not the "upper and lower or inner pec" but maybe thats whats confusing.

Again I thank you all for this intresting read and would like to learn more. So lets play nice and keep this thread alive.

[combat_action]

I'm not too sure about who Chris Mason is. I think he works for atlargenutrition. I think he makes a lot of sense in his articles. The other one was authored by Joe DeFranco, and obviously he knows his shit, lending a lot of credibility to his article about "isolationalism". His article wasn't on chest, but it's the same exact train of thought.

Here's his bio:

Some of Joe's recent accomplishments are as follows…
Over 50 of Joe's athletes have been drafted to the NFL
Joe’s training techniques have been featured on HBO’s Inside the NFL, MSG, CNNSI, Fit-TV and various local news channels
Joe has personally trained NFL football players from 27 different teams
Joe’s NFL Combine video has become a worldwide success in 6 different countries
Joe has been a speed, strength & flexibility consultant to the New York Giants
Joe has co-authored 2 best-selling training manuals, “The 40-Yard Dash – Advanced speed & strength methods” & “The Vertical Jump – Advanced speed & strength methods”
Joe is a contributing writer for the famous online publications
T-Nation.com & Elitefts.com
Joe has lectured nationally on the topic of “Strength and flexibility training for enhanced sprinting speed”
Joe has trained over 500 high school and college athletes from various sports. This includes All-State and All-American performers in football, baseball, wrestling, basketball, track & field, lacrosse and hockey

I just wanted to offer something other than looking at a medical chart and speculating that you "feel" high incline presses working your "upper pecs". Of course, as someone else said, you could technically stress your upper chest more, but doing those inclines places more stimulus on your anteroir delts vs. your chest.

Fuck it, here's another by Robert DiMaggio.

I know you're wondering if he's 'reputable', so here's the bio first..

His credentials and experience consists of being a Medical Specialist in the US Army, an instructor and personal trainer at Bally Fitness. He is also an ISSA Certified Fitness Trainer, and an ISSA certified Specialist in Performance Nutrition.

He was a bodybuilding competitor in the late 80's and has trained others for competitions as well, including his wife Gena who is a nationally qualified Figure competitor, and he competed again in April of 2004 at the NPC Northern Bodybuilding competition! His wide range of education includes having a Bachelor's degree from Colorado State University which included course work in Anatomy & Physiology, Biology, Diet & Nutrition, Kinesiology and Drugs. The last 20 years of his life can be summarized as having a passion for bodybuilding & fitness and always furthering his mind through education.

Isolating the upper, middle and lower pecs (chest)

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.