# Incline Bench Press



## The Rose (Jun 10, 2001)

What is the most effective angle for the incline bench press?  Currently I do it at a 30º angle.  I think 45º gets the shoulders involved too much.


----------



## ballast (Jun 10, 2001)

I think that the lesser angle you use, the better it emphasizes the upper pec area.When I do inclines, I use a 30* angle.Anything more than 30 and I feel it all in my shoulders.

------------------
matt toupalik


----------



## Large And In Charge (Jun 10, 2001)

25 to 30 degree incline will hit the upper pecs the most effectively.

------------------
If you build it they will come


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

I agree

------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

OK, In a functional sense, there is no upper chest. The upper/lower chest cannot be targeted seperately. Inclines are also a bad chest exercise because the shoulders are put in their strongest position, and the chest put in its weakest. This will cause the shoulders to fail before the chest, and it will not be maximally stimulated.

Belial wrote an extensive and informative article on why the upper/lower chest cannot be seperately targeted, if you would like me to post just hollar.









------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

> *Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:*
> OK, In a functional sense, there is no upper chest. The upper/lower chest cannot be targeted seperately.
> <FONT COLOR="Blue">No one here said there was an upper/lower chest</FONT c>
> Inclines are also a bad chest exercise because the shoulders are put in their strongest position, and the chest put in its weakest.
> ...





------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

"No one here said there was an upper/lower chest"

*Large did: "25 to 30 degree incline will hit the upper pecs the most effectively."

"Thats your "opinion" I personaly feel its a great exercise as long as the angle isn't over 30"

To each their own, i guess. But, incline does cause the chest to be weaker, and the shoulders to be stronger. That is not my opinion. So, using this info one could make the assumption that the shoulders would fail before the chest.

"Just because the shoulders fail before doesn't mean its a waist of time."

Not completely. But, as far as the chest in specific goes - why isn't it?

"Again, no one here asked if they could be seperated"

But Large said they could be.

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._

<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 02:38 PM]</font>


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

Ok Cack, will you agree that the Pectoralis Major (one Muscle) has two heads? 
The Clavicular Head or the Upper head and 
the Sternal Head or the Lowwer head. 

When I or others are reffering to the Upper chest, we're talking about the Clavicular head of the Pectorlis which I beleive anyway is worked more using incline work. 

------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

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.



------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

So you DON'T agree that the Pectoralis Major has TWO heads?

------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## ballast (Jun 11, 2001)

Supreme-I think what everyone is trying to say is that although it is impossible to "isolate" a particular section of muscle, it is possible to "emphasize" it.Here is a direct quote from Kinesiology of Exercise by Dr. Michael Yessis."If you use a narrower grip and keep your elbows in while executing the incline press, the stress falls fairly equally on the upper pectorals, the anterior deltoid, and the triceps.If you use a wider grip and keep your elbows out during execution, you will stress the upper pectoralis major and anterior deltoid even more."I don't know about anyone else here, but I am more inclined(pardon the pun)to believe a well known sports specialist with a Ph.D than an unknown "know it all".No offense.

------------------
matt toupalik


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

Yes, there are two heads to the pectoralis major. The question is - can you target one over the other? I think not.

Let me ask you this - have you ever seen a before/after pic in which the shape of the individuals muscles have changed?

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._

<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 03:11 PM]</font>


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

> *Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:*
> Yes, there are two heads to the pectoralis major. The question is - can you target one over the other? I think not.
> <FONT COLOR="Blue">I agree with you</FONT c>
> Let me ask you this - have you ever seen a before/after pic in which the shape of the individuals muscles have changed?
> <FONT COLOR="Blue">Not sure what you mean? Like the shape of your chest before and after you do chest exercise?</FONT c>





------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

Like one of those Body-4-Life before/after pics.

Have you EVER seen them change the shape of their muscles?

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 11, 2001)

Not realy, more of a size change, than a shape change. Some muscles become more defined because of lower BF so they might appear to change. 

Whats your point? (I know you have one)

------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

I'm just saying that if it were possitble to change the shape of a muscle, don't you think that the people who have made the most dramatic physique changes would have done it? Out of the millions of entrys, and thousands of winners?

Just something else to think about.






------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

Large was correct in his statement that 30 degrees above the horizontal plane of the shoulder joint allows for optimal recruitment of the upper pectorals.


------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

Hahahaha...






------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

This is the post Supreme was talking about.
It was written by Belial and another fellow.

"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." 



------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## Mule (Jun 11, 2001)

In my opinion the the leg extension hits the pectorial muscle the best!


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

There ya go.

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

> *Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:*
> Yes, there are two heads to the pectoralis major. The question is - can you target one over the other? I think not.



*** Do you mean place more emphasise on one over the other or isolate one over the other?



------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

*Yawn* 

I'm saying that any difference in fiber recruitment between an incline and flat press in relation to the clavicular and sternal heads of the pectoralis major would not be significant enough to produce varying degrees of muscle hypertrophy of the two heads.

Got that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._

<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-11-2001 at 09:24 PM]</font>


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

> *Originally posted by TheSupremeBeing:*
> *Yawn*
> 
> I'm saying that any difference in fiber recruitment between an incline and flat press in relation to the clavicular and sternal heads of the pectoralis major would not be significant enough to produce varying degrees of muscle hypertrophy of the two heads.
> ...



*** Supreme, I understand now what you mean. You may find that clearly articulating yourself will save you the trouble of having to further explain yourself.
As far as agreeing with your assumtion.....I don't. I understand that a muscles shape is predetermined. As far as the emphasis placed on the different heads, since this is possible there may be a varying degree in hypertrophy. I would need to see the EMG study to see what the difference is so that I can make my desicion. 
Exercise, my drug of choice

<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by Maki Riddington on 06-11-2001 at 10:06 PM]</font>


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

Ahhhh...so nice to come to a friendly resolution 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Btw, I do remember viewing EMG results of the pec major (remember, the clavicular and sternal heads are both part of the pec major - the pec minor is a completely different muscle, although it shares many of the same functions) and the results were that a decline DB press is the exercise that recuited the most fibers.

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

*** I posted this on another board and here is one of hopefully many disections of this post. What this shows is that one cannot be to sure of himself/herself on any topic because there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the human body and how it functions.

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 its 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 smarty 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. 

*** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle. 
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students.  If he failed to do so, he was in 
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator.   Mel Siff]

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 flyes), 
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 flye 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 nonsense 
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. 

*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is 
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of 
information for critical comment.  While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few 
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used.  Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb.

And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used  
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes?  I also have
carried out EMGs studies and studied biomechanical models which clearly
appear to militate against isolation of specific regions of muscle, but, when 
I witnessed this display, read work by biofeedback specialists and saw how some
disabled folk could voluntarily activate certain muscle regions, I was
compelled to be less dogmatic.   I know that there os at least one biofeedback
expert on this group - maybe he would care to add his comments.  

One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems?  How 
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent  regions of muscle?  So
far, this is sheer speculation on my part, but I would be interested to see if anyone
has come across references which allude to this possibility.  Mel Siff ]



------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

LOL...I KNEW you were going to come in and copy/paste what Mel Siff had to say.

Rather than speak for Belial, I'll let him defend his own article...

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 11, 2001)

Of course I was.
If you really believe in what you are preaching then you should be able to easily defend yourself. You have been using this so I see no reason to let Belial step in now. I figured I would get someone who is light years ahead of me in knowledge to take a look at the post since it was generating alot of replies.

------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 11, 2001)

I'm going to let Belial respond to the statements made directly to his article, as I wouldn't like it if some were to speak for me.




------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 12, 2001)

Ahh, screw it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




"** [Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this "rule."
Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs
recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle. 
I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very
important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in 
definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]"

Well, as i don't know Belial's professor, i cannot make a comment about his educative skills. I have a hard time believing that a motor neuron does not contract on an all-or-none basis, as this goes against EVERY other thing i have read, and i read a lot. Under certain cirumstances, such as fatigue some MU's may not be able to twitch at their maximum frequency and force - but this would have nothing to do with isolating certain portions of a muscle. I also have doubts of the accuracy of EMG tests as far as reading muscle fiber stimulation. 

"*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is 
replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of 
information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that
isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances,
EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few 
musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training
are used. Basmajian (in "Muscles Alive") reports on one of his studies
which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over
small muscles like those in the thumb."

This also has nothing to do with the pectoralis muscle. The brain combines two control mechanisms to regulate the force a single muscle produces. The first is RECRUITMENT. The motor units that make up a muscle are not recruited in a random fashion. Motor units are recruited according to the Size Principle. Smaller motor units (fewer muscle fibers) have a small motor neuron and a low threshold for activation. These units are recruited first. As more force is demanded by an activity, progressively larger motor units are recruited. This has great functional significance. When requirements for force are low, but control demands are high (writing, playing the piano) the ability to recruit only a few muscle fibers gives the possibility of fine control. As more force is needed the impact of each new motor unit on total force production becomes greater. 

"And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used 
separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes?"

I have never seen this. But, what he is talking about would very well be an act of trickery. Like i said - i've never seen this, or even heard of this for that matter, so i can't really comment.

"One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are
not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play
a "multiplexing" role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different
messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How 
would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle?"

What the hell is he going on about? Is he trying to say that the brain may send different signals through MU's? Other than just to signal the muscles to contract? If so - is there ANY basis for what he is *guessing*? Frankly, that just doesn't make sense.


------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 12, 2001)

How confident do you feel, enough so that you will copy and paste this rebuttle on the "Supertraining" Forum?

------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## Scotty the Body (Jun 12, 2001)

> *Originally posted by The Rose:*
> What is the most effective angle for the incline bench press?  Currently I do it at a 30º angle.  I think 45º gets the shoulders involved too much.




<FONT COLOR="Blue">I agree, 30* is best for Incline press/flies</FONT c>

------------------
Just another day in the gutter


----------



## ballast (Jun 12, 2001)

I concur.

------------------
matt toupalik


----------



## Belial (Jun 12, 2001)

> *Originally posted by Maki Riddington:*
> I figured I would get someone who is light years ahead of me in knowledge to take a look at the post since it was generating alot of replies.



And what kind of arrogant ass would I be were I to disregard his comments?  As much as I see some problems with the things he said, I'll choose to keep my mouth shut until I do more research.  God forbid I say something ill-advised and back myself into a corner.

*feels challenged.*


-out


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 12, 2001)

Are you offended that I posted it elsewhere?

I see no reason why you can't formulate a rebuttle or speak your mind if you feel you are correct.

------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 12, 2001)

Ok, this is getting stupid.

*stares down Maki*

LOL.

The bottom line is that the EMG tests have not proven anything, they measure electric activity in muscle, not muscle fiber stimulation, fatigue, or tension. There has never been a single case in which someone has changed the shape of their muscles through training, the people who believe in this approach seem to never step back and take a look at the results. Is the incline press really working your upper chest, or does it just feel like it? 

When theory and practice both show the same thing you usually have a fact on your hands.

------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._

<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by TheSupremeBeing on 06-12-2001 at 09:17 PM]</font>


----------



## Belial (Jun 13, 2001)

> *Originally posted by Maki Riddington:*
> Are you offended that I posted it elsewhere?
> 
> I see no reason why you can't formulate a rebuttle or speak your mind if you feel you are correct.




Not in the slightest!

I'm serious about that post. (Still a bit miffed that you brought a .50 caliber sniper rifle to a paintball match, but whatever)  I pride myself on being humble and open to the facts.  Therefore, if I'm wrong, i'm wrong, and if you're right, you're right.

However, given what supremebeing said, I do say that I'm reserving judgement.  Unless the following can be proven, namely that:

A)  EMG analysis accurately measures muscle stress and work over a full range of contraction.
B)  This stimulation is under a condition of maximal effort of the muscle fibers (i.e., not simply a function of low-effort, fine control actions, consistent with the Size Principle SupremeBeing mentioned)
C)  This "selective stimulation" that has been observed produces selective adaptive response/hypertrophy.  (i.e., non-stimulated regions of the muscle do not show any signs of hypertrophy)  This would also require B to be true.

---and---

D)  Nerve fibres in the muscle can discreetly activate certain muscle fibers voluntarily.  (i.e., true biofeedback.


Remember, I'm not a scientist.  I'm a political science major who is seeking to educate himself and dispense his limited, (but hopefully exapanding) knowledge in the best way possible.  That post was originally meant to explain to newbies not to worry about doing crossovers to "widen" their chest or work their "inner pecs". 

It is not meant to be a scientific treatise, nor is it meant to hold up under severe scientific scrutiny, since many of the assumptions in it (along with many other aspect of physiology) are theory.  I'm, of course, perfectly willing to debate the issues, but i feel that my knowledge on the recent EMG craze (i.e., that stupid article on CNN about ab workouts) isn't up to scratch enough for me to debate intelligently.

.....

And that's all I gotta say about that....


btw, you spelled "rebuttal" wrong.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





<FONT COLOR="#000002" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[Edited 1 time by Belial on 06-13-2001 at 08:18 AM]</font>


----------



## ZONE (Jun 13, 2001)

MY upper chest needs alot of work so I'll experiment and only do incline bench press for the next 3 months and let everyone know the results.  

------------------
Thoughts are more powerful then Matter


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 13, 2001)

Thanks Belial.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## rmau803 (Jun 13, 2001)

"Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower."
this from the article cak posted does elude to their being more of a recruitment of the upper fibers of the pec during incline flyes.  No one ever said they were trying to completely isolate one part of the muscle over another.  I have never seen anyone with a large upper chest that did not so incline bench.  Take that as you may.  I have also found for myself that if benching incline properly, with my shoulder blades retracted, that my front delts DO NOT fatigue faster than my pecs.  Cak's supremebeing ego is getting in the way, starting pissing contests and dismissing anything disagreeing with his opinion as crap, trying to convey himself as a genius quoting anatomy texts and using buzzwords.


----------



## Belial (Jun 13, 2001)

I accused Maki of bringing in a .50 caliber to our paintball fight.  

*You*, sir, can take your spitball shooter and go elsewhere.


----------



## rmau803 (Jun 13, 2001)

I want to appologize to cak.  I just get pissed off when people are so closed minded about different things and try to come off as more intelligent than they may be.  Cak has posted some really good comments, I am sure I have learned something from him.  Sorry
(note to self: keep temper in check)


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 13, 2001)

Belial,
I am not here to argue and try to gain the upper hand in arguements. 
I was merely pointing out certain things.
I am undecided on this topic so I can't say were I stand in regards to this controversial subject. 
Thank you for replying in a mature fashoin.



------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## TheSupremeBeing (Jun 13, 2001)

"I am not here to argue and try to gain the upper hand in arguements."

Yeah, that's my job.

BTW Maki, i still need help with that periodization stuff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




------------------
_Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers._


----------



## Maki Riddington (Jun 13, 2001)

OK tonight after work I'll log in, I'm gonna take a nap now.

------------------
Exercise, my drug of choice


----------



## Belial (Jun 13, 2001)

> *Originally posted by Maki Riddington:*
> Belial,
> I am not here to argue and try to gain the upper hand in arguements.
> I was merely pointing out certain things.
> ...




lol.  I completely understand.  It was definitely a joke on my part; i just thought it was a good analogy.  If bringing in the big guns takes a debate to a new level, then i don't see how it can do anything other than benefit everyone.  

I don't think any of us here are so obstinate that we'd resist learning and bettering ourselves just to save face.


----------

