# Incline for upper chest?



## PreMier (Apr 21, 2004)

I thought that the people at avant were smarter than this...

http://forum.avantlabs.com/?act=ST&f=9&t=9722&hl=&


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 21, 2004)

ya little troublemaker.


----------



## Var (Apr 21, 2004)

Christ!  Get out of that debate while you can.  It never goes well.


----------



## Var (Apr 21, 2004)

I remember when PreMier thought this, too!  

http://ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26622&highlight=upper+chest


----------



## PreMier (Apr 21, 2004)

Hey, I learned!  The people at avant want to fancy talk, and not listen to any reason.


----------



## PreMier (Apr 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by nikegurl *_
> ya little troublemaker.



Yes, I am a bad boy!


----------



## Var (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm gonna go get your back and then get out.  I hate those debates.


----------



## Var (Apr 21, 2004)

I feel better now.  I'm sure I'll be taking a flaming anytime now.


----------



## PreMier (Apr 21, 2004)

LOL, thanks man!  Haha, the damn IM Robot or what the fuck ever, moved this to training!  Stupid robot...


----------



## Var (Apr 21, 2004)

LOL.  Didnt know we had a robot here.  

Couldnt let a fellow IM'er get slammed.  Especially since you were right!


----------



## Vieope (Apr 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by PreMier *_
> I thought that the people at avant were smarter than this...



_ I warned you about big words. _


----------



## Arnold (Apr 21, 2004)

my conclusion:

go to Avant forums for supplement advice, but not for training advice!


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

Inclines DO build upper chest...sorry, but they do.


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 22, 2004)

let the games begin.    (or should I say continue?)


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by nikegurl *_
> let the games begin.    (or should I say continue?)



No, there won't be any games. I have been in this long enough and have far too much experience to KNOW that incline bench presses target and affect more clavicular chest fibers than regular benching.

I will not argue it in the same way I do not bother arguing the efficacy of glutamine anymore.


----------



## Var (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> my conclusion:
> 
> go to Avant forums for supplement advice, but not for training advice!


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 22, 2004)

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic toward you gopro.  You know how this debate goes whenever it comes up though.  Someone will say that they "feel" inclines more in their upper chest.  Someone else will say it isn't possible to contract a portion of the muscle...and no one will change their minds.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> No, there won't be any games. I have been in this long enough and have far too much experience to KNOW that incline bench presses target and affect more clavicular chest fibers than regular benching.
> 
> I will not argue it in the same way I do not bother arguing the efficacy of glutamine anymore.



Although it does stimulate the fibers in the upper portion of the chest more, the muscle still grows as a whole from what I understand.  Still, it is important to stimulate all the fibers in a muscle for optimal growth which is why varied movements are important.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by nikegurl *_
> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic toward you gopro.  You know how this debate goes whenever it comes up though.  Someone will say that they "feel" inclines more in their upper chest.  Someone else will say it isn't possible to contract a portion of the muscle...and no one will change their minds.



I know that NG  

I DO realize how this "debate" goes, but in my mind, there is no debate. Reality is simply reality. The fact that the sun rises and sets each day has proven to me that it will happen again tomorrow...for me, its just the same with inclines and upper pecs.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by CowPimp *_
> Although it does stimulate the fibers in the upper portion of the chest more, the muscle still grows as a whole from what I understand.  Still, it is important to stimulate all the fibers in a muscle for optimal growth which is why varied movements are important.



The chest is broken up into pec major and minor, and although you CANNOT isolate one completely from the other, you can affect the fibers of one "area" over another by changing angles. If the chest was affected as a whole simply by pressing at any angle, then the entire chest would get sore from flat benches, and the entire chest would get sore from incline presses...it simply does not happen this way.

Ooops, I'm debating. Stopping now.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

Pec minor is located underneath pec major. There are not distinct sections or parts of the chest.

That said, I think that if we all refer to the "Sliding Filament Theory of Muscle Contraction" science would be suggesting that while you cannot isolate a portion of any one muscle, you most certainly CAN emphasize a portion of one muscle. This doesn't mean incline is working your "upper chest" it simply means that incline is emphasizing the top portion of the chest. This would also go to explain and justify why certain portions of the chest will become sore when pressing from different angles.

And science knows best.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 22, 2004)

so, if you do preacher curls and the lower portion of your bicep feels more sore than the rest of your bicep, the lower portion will grow, hence, it's possible to shape muscles?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> so, if you do preacher curls and the lower portion of your bicep feels more sore than the rest of your bicep, the lower portion will grow, hence, it's possible to shape muscles?



Well see, this isn't what the sliding filament theory tells us. The sliding filament theory simply says that by changing angles we can emphasize parts of a muscle. This doesn't mean the muscle is being "shaped" or "isolated". It simply means the muscle contraction in portions of a muscle can be tighter than in others.

Science currently doesn't say anything about the benefits of said tighter contractions or if there are any benefits. Hence why people vehemently argue to the "impossibility" of "working the upper chest" or the "possibility" of "working the upper chest."

I just used way too many "" thingies.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> Well see, this isn't what the sliding filament theory tells us. The sliding filament theory simply says that by changing angles we can emphasize parts of a muscle. This doesn't mean the muscle is being "shaped" or "isolated". It simply means the muscle contraction in portions of a muscle can be tighter than in others.
> 
> Science currently doesn't say anything about the benefits of said tighter contractions or if there are any benefits. Hence why people vehemently argue to the "impossibility" of "working the upper chest" or the "possibility" of "working the upper chest."
> ...



my response was actually to what GP posted.


----------



## Tha Don (Apr 22, 2004)

The reason BB use so many different exercises is to sculpt and put on muscle in different areas at different rates, and therefore get a well proportioned phyisic

Its like you have exercises that are 'mass builders' and others that are better for 'definition' (isolation exercises)

By hitting the muscle from different angle you can stimulate better growth on the muscle, and help to bring up areas that might be holding back its growth

This is what many articles would lead ppl to believe, are you saying this is all rubbish?

I mean do incline curls build bicep length and concentration curls build bicep peak? or is this total BS?

peace


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> The chest is broken up into pec major and minor, and although you CANNOT isolate one completely from the other, you can affect the fibers of one "area" over another by changing angles. If the chest was affected as a whole simply by pressing at any angle, then the entire chest would get sore from flat benches, and the entire chest would get sore from incline presses...it simply does not happen this way.
> 
> Ooops, I'm debating. Stopping now.



I was in agreement with the fact "that incline bench presses target and affect more clavicular chest fibers than regular benching."  Despite the fact that these fibers are stimulated more does not make only that portion of the pectoralis grow.  The muscle still grows as a whole.  

So, you can target a certain part of a muscle, but it will grow in line with what your genetics dictate and how the rest of that muscle grows.

I'll try to find where I read this again, but I did read that although you aren't going to make your upper chest grow without your lower chest you still need to stimulate all the fibers in the chest for optimal growth.  This means that 9 sets of decline press is not as effective as 3 sets of incline, decline, and flat because the fibers throughout the chest are all stimulated sufficiently.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

> This is what many articles would lead ppl to believe, are you saying this is all rubbish?



That's exactly what I'm saying. Magazines give bad advice so you'll turn to the supplements that are advertised in their magazine. It's how they make money.



> I mean do incline curls build bicep length and concentration curls build bicep peak? or is this total BS?



It's total BS. Science proves this.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by CowPimp *_
> I was in agreement with the fact "that incline bench presses target and affect more clavicular chest fibers than regular benching."  Despite the fact that these fibers are stimulated more does not make only that portion of the pectoralis grow.  The muscle still grows as a whole.
> 
> So, you can target a certain part of a muscle, but it will grow in line with what your genetics dictate and how the rest of that muscle grows.
> ...



That is so wrong. I explained this in 2 posts above.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> That is so wrong. I explained this in 2 posts above.



I didn't go against anything you said.  I said that although the muscle is still going to grow as a whole you can stimulate (Or "emphasize" as you phrased it) certain portions of the muscle more than others.  My point was that you need to "emphasize" all portions of the muscle for optimal growth.  Where did I contradict anything in your posts?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

Because as I said, nowhere has science ever made a connection between tighter contractions (emphasis) at portions of a muscle with growth to that portion of muscle. So while you can make portions of a muscle sore, you cannot make certain portions grow. So doing 9 sets of flat bench IS the same as 3 sets of each.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> So doing 9 sets of flat bench IS the same as 3 sets of each.


_That is why in the beginning I thought that doing only one type of exercise per muscle group was enough.  _


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> Because as I said, nowhere has science ever made a connection between tighter contractions (emphasis) at portions of a muscle with growth to that portion of muscle. So while you can make portions of a muscle sore, you cannot make certain portions grow. So doing 9 sets of flat bench IS the same as 3 sets of each.



That's what I said too.  However, the difference in what I said is that emphasis of different portions of the muscle will make it grow AS A WHOLE more than emphasis of one portion of the muscle.  I never said anywhere that stimulating all portions of the muscle was necessary for even muscle development.  I said it was helpful for optimal development.


----------



## PreMier (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Vieope *_
> _That is why in the beginning I thought that doing only one type of exercise per muscle group was enough.  _



If 1 type of exercise is enough, then why wouldnt the pros be using just one type?



> _*Originally posted by CowPimp *_
> for optimal development.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by PreMier *_
> If 1 type of exercise is enough, then why wouldnt the pros be using just one type?



_Probably because nobody tried before. _


----------



## PreMier (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Vieope *_
> _Probably because nobody tried before. _



In the last 100yrs or so that people have been BB, you dont think anyone has tried?  Maybe they did try, but it didnt work.  Thats why they dont do it.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by PreMier *_
> In the last 100yrs or so that people have been BB, you dont think anyone has tried?  Maybe they did try, but it didnt work.  Thats why they dont do it.



_No, they didn´t try it 

Remember the gladiators? They were all strong, I don´t believe they had a lot of different exercises. _


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

> In the last 100yrs or so that people have been BB, you dont think anyone has tried? Maybe they did try, but it didnt work. Thats why they dont do it.



See Mike Menz. 

You're putting way too much faith in what rag mags tell you, methinks.


----------



## PreMier (Apr 22, 2004)

Who is Mike Menz?  You mean Mentzer?

Rag mag?  Whats this?  If you are insinuating that I read magazines, you are mistaken.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

Yep, I meant Mentzer. See him.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 22, 2004)

_*Premier*, Is there a muscle that you don´t pay much attention? Let´s say forearms or neck and you do only one or two exercise for them. They get bigger, don´t they? Since a muscle only grow in one form..  
I know people who don´t pay attention to triceps or calves and do only one exercise and it gets bigger.
Other example is the people who uses bicycles in a form of cardio, don´t do bodybuilding and they have nice quads. _


----------



## PreMier (Apr 22, 2004)

Nope.  I work every muscle, or atleast try to.  I however dont do neck, bet I also dont have a big neck.  People who dont pay attention to a muscle, yet it still grows haev good genetics.  Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist in the world.  Yet he doesnt have nice quads.  In cycling its all about VO2.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 22, 2004)

_ I think people blame on genetics too easy. _


----------



## M.J.H. (Apr 22, 2004)

> I mean do incline curls build bicep length and concentration curls build bicep peak? or is this total BS?


Yes, this is complete and total bullsh*t, without a doubt.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 22, 2004)

I have seen this debate come and go several times. Most people agree that the pec develops as a whole.  I have never felt comfortable with that thinking although, the argument makes sense.  From my own experience, when I first started benching (13 years ago), I did flats only.  I did them for years and while my strength improved, my chest was still sort of flat.  Then I started to add inclines to the mix.  Within several months my chest started to pop out.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

But let me add something else.  My inner pecs have always lagged.  Recently I concentrated on doing heavy CG benches for triceps.  I increased this lift about 35-40 lbs in a couple of months.  I was amazed at how my inner pecs became much more developed, even my wife noticed the better definition.  Coincidence again?  Maybe so, but given these experiences, I tend to believe certain exercises can in fact develop certain areas better then others.

But hell, I'm no kinesiologist, so I'll let you guys debate it while I keep on doing inclines and close grips.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Vieope *_
> _*Premier*, Is there a muscle that you don´t pay much attention? Let´s say forearms or neck and you do only one or two exercise for them. They get bigger, don´t they? Since a muscle only grow in one form..
> I know people who don´t pay attention to triceps or calves and do only one exercise and it gets bigger.
> Other example is the people who uses bicycles in a form of cardio, don´t do bodybuilding and they have nice quads. _



That is because the forearms and neck get peripheral work from lots of other exercises.  Forearms get work in any lift where you have to grip a bar (Everything), particularly deadlifts, romanian deadlifts, shrugs, or anything else where you're handling very heavy weights.  

The neck gets peripheral work from various shoulder and back lifts.  Also, ab exercises give the neck a little work because you have to support it with musculature (Although very little).

The concept is exactly the same as not directly working your arms because they get hit doing all kinds of exercises, particularly when doing back and chest.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by JerseyDevil *_
> I have seen this debate come and go several times. Most people agree that the pec develops as a whole.  I have never felt comfortable with that thinking although, the argument makes sense.  From my own experience, when I first started benching (13 years ago), I did flats only.  I did them for years and while my strength improved, my chest was still sort of flat.  Then I started to add inclines to the mix.  Within several months my chest started to pop out.  Coincidence?  Maybe.
> 
> But let me add something else.  My inner pecs have always lagged.  Recently I concentrated on doing heavy CG benches for triceps.  I increased this lift about 35-40 lbs in a couple of months.  I was amazed at how my inner pecs became much more developed, even my wife noticed the better definition.  Coincidence again?  Maybe so, but given these experiences, I tend to believe certain exercises can in fact develop certain areas better then others.
> ...



The fact that your chest got bigger when adding a new lift into the mix is no coincidence.  That occured because you were specifically targetting fibers in the upper part of the chest muscle more than normal.  Therefore, your growth was more optimal as I stated previously.  Nonetheless, the upper part of your chest didn't grow without the rest of it.

The inner chest growth probably is coincidence, especially considering that CG benchpress is supposed to target the triceps.  Your chest probably just filled in once it hit a certain mass level.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

One of the questions I am asked the most is, ???Can you change the shape of a muscle???? This is a difficult question, and depending on which ???expert??? you ask, you are bound to get a bunch of different answers. There are some that say you cannot do a damn thing about the shape of your muscles, as this is genetically determined. Others believe that by ???targeting??? certain areas of a muscle, you can change its shape. Well, I personally fall somewhere in between. While I do not believe we can change the actual genetic ???map??? we have for each of our muscles, I DO believe that we can utilize certain exercises, angles, and grips to bring out the FULL POTENTIAL of each muscle. In other words, when someone is lacking upper pectoral development, I do not necessarily feel that its simply because genetics is ???dictating??? that the lower pec dominate the upper, but rather that the upper pectoral is not receiving the proper stimulation in order for it to grow to its potential. While some believe that an incline press does not target the upper chest, but rather the entire chest, this is where I disagree. It is interesting that there are certain common ???flaws??? that seem to appear over and over again amongst so many trainees. I do not feel this is a genetic limitation but a function of unbalanced training. I have altered the appearance of my own physique greatly over the years and have done so as well with countless clients. What follows is a few routines that target some of the more common physique weaknesses. I hope this can help YOU with one or more of your own perceived imbalances, and help you achieve a more proportionate physique overall.

Upper Pecs

-45 degree incline dumbbell press: 3 x 6-8
-30 degree smith incline press: 3 x 8-10
-60 degree incline flye: 2 x 10-12
-dumbbell pullover: 2 x 12-15

Inner Triceps

-Two arm incline overhead extension: 3 x 6-8
-Cable overhead rope extension: 2 x 8-10
-Seated single arm dumbbell overhead extension: 2 x 10-12

Bicep Peak

-90 degree preacher curl: 2 x 6-8
-Lying overhead cable curl: 2 x 8-10
-Hammer curl: 2 x 10-12

Thigh Sweep

-Close stance hack squat: 3 x 8-10
-Close stance leg press: 3 x 10-12
-Leg Extensions (toes pointed in at contraction): 3 x 12-15

This was a short article that I wrote awhile back that explains the basics of my position. When it comes to incline press/upper chest...show me a person that only benches flat, and I'll show you a person that is lacking upper chest development. You can stimulate areas of complex muscles like inner tris, vastus medialis, medial deltoids, etc., and affect growth in those areas by exhausting specific motor unit pools. Some science supports this and some does not, but the real world shows the truth. I have brought up areas of my physique with "targeted" training and have done it with countless others. Quote ANY study you want to the contrary and I will cry BULLSH%T!

If every person only picked one exercise for each bodypart the development of the overall physique would be lacking...end of story.


----------



## BCC (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> If every person only picked one exercise for each bodypart the development of the overall physique would be lacking...end of story.



And you know this because you know someone whom has done it, correct?


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BCC *_
> And you know this because you know someone whom has done it, correct?



Yup...many.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 22, 2004)

A)  If, and I emphasize IF, you could isolate areas of the bicep, it would be inner/outer, since this is the way the fibers are aligned.  You would never be able to work just the bottom.  If you consider the brachialis, you can emphasize and grow certain parts of the bicep since the brachialis has a separate origin and insertion.

B)You cannot lengthen a muscle.  Pilates states that you can, but the only way you could lengthen a muscle is by lengthening the bone it is attached to.

C)Whether or not you can grow a certain part of the chest is unknown, measuring this would be too invasive.  I think what most people see is their "upper chest " growing while in reality it is their front delts growing since an incline bench would shift some of the emphasis there.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> A)  If, and I emphasize IF, you could isolate areas of the bicep, it would be inner/outer, since this is the way the fibers are aligned.  You would never be able to work just the bottom.  If you consider the brachialis, you can emphasize and grow certain parts of the bicep since the brachialis has a separate origin and insertion.
> 
> B)You cannot lengthen a muscle.  Pilates states that you can, but the only way you could lengthen a muscle is by lengthening the bone it is attached to.
> ...



Not sure who this is directed at, but just to give my quick thoughts about what you said...

A) The bicep is to simple a muscle anatomically and in function to work different sections to any great degree. Yes, the brachialis can be isolated somewhat and growth can be affected more specifically in this muscle. In fact, it is by working the brachialis that we can TRULY create more peak.

B) Never said anything about lengthening a muscle, which I agree is impossible.

C) Disagree completely.

Please, for all of you that think that inclines are not necessary, do not ever do an incline movement again for according to your reasoning, it would be a complete waste of your time.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2004)

While we are on upper chest development...for those of you that are lacking in this area I'll give you another amazing exercise for this area that you can do on a flat bench. Regular bench presses but bringing the bar down to the neck (its much better on a smith machine). After a set you will feel almost nothing in your lower chest, but your upper chest will feel like its torn apart.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 22, 2004)

Let's just agree to disagree.  It doesn't matter what we think about this topic; everyone seems 100% firm on their decision about the subject.  I think it is still pretty solid that we should always try to vary the exercises for each muscle.  Whether or not you can alter the growth of your muscle is up to debate.  However, one still should act as though you can if for no other reason than to vary the stimuli for the same muscle.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 22, 2004)

OK, just a few points. 

1) By saying one exercise per bodypart isn't enough, as you have, is wholly flawed. You are no Mike Mentzer. He worked one exercise per bodypart and quite frankly his physique puts your avatar to shame.

2) You keep defying science. I'm sorry but you may as well say gravity is fake. There are far too many PhD's in physiology and kinesiology who say your ideas are BS. Mel Siff, Yuri Verkoshansky both come to my immediate memory. Anad again, their resumes put yours to shame.

3) You always say "feel." Feel is in no way, as science has proven for the past 60 years, an indication of develeopment or regional targetting. Science has never shown, in 60 years, that emphasizing a muscle portion does anymore than make it sore.

Look, I'm not trying to say "gopro is full of shit." But what you say defies science. I'm sure you've had very successful clients. But science, which is pretty exact, would say that what you're preaching is wrong. And science knows best.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

And is that the BCC I think it is?


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> OK, just a few points.
> 
> 1) By saying one exercise per bodypart isn't enough, as you have, is wholly flawed. You are no Mike Mentzer. He worked one exercise per bodypart and quite frankly his physique puts your avatar to shame.
> ...



1) MM did not work one exercise per bodypart. Maybe VERY late in his career, but his earlier HD routines had several exercises and angles. Also, you cannot compare MM to me. He was on boatloads of steroids and I am lifetime drug free.

2) Not ALL science backs up what YOU claim...some backs up what I claim. You and the rest of the WannaBeBigs just refuse Muscle Meets Magnet. Personally I could care less about Siff and Verkoshansky. When I take a person with a shallow upper chest and put him/her on a targeted training program of incline training and their chest begins to fill in and take on a whole new look, that is more proof than what ANY scientist says at any time. And by the way, there exists many other experts in the field besides these two. And also, if you are so high on Mentzer I'm sure you believe in training every bodypart with one set maybe every 2-3 weeks as well, huh.

3) Soreness is a good indicator of damage. Damage is caused by trauma. Trauma relates to growth. Please explain why only the upper pec gets sore from incline presses, why the long head of the tricep gets sore from overhead extensions, and why the vastus medialis gets sore from toes out leg presses. While soreness is not the end all be all of of hypertrophy, it still is an important factor.

I have no need to argue this point any further. This debate is similar to that of whether glutamine is effective and several others. I have trained enough people using enough techniques in very controlled settings, and have performed enough of my own "in the trenches" research to KNOW what I KNOW. Frankly, I don't care what you think about this topic b/c the majority of people that quote science are the ones only strong enough to lift a book. There once was a day that scientists said steroids are not effective muscle builders and that HMB was extremely effective at building muscle.

I have said my piece and that is that. What and who everyone chooses to believe is up to them. I will just be in the gym, using various angles and grips and exercises and continually molding my physique to the best that my genetics will allow.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

You never debate with citings or names. You state something extremely vague and then announce you're walking away. It's amazing you're able to dupe the people you do.

BTW, what's your name so I can check out some of the competitions you've been in? How about the names of your clients you've prepped?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> While we are on upper chest development...for those of you that are lacking in this area I'll give you another amazing exercise for this area that you can do on a flat bench. Regular bench presses but bringing the bar down to the neck (its much better on a smith machine). After a set you will feel almost nothing in your lower chest, but your upper chest will feel like its torn apart.



Note: Just be careful if anyone does this, it does put a lot of strain on the shoulders.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> You never debate with citings or names. You state something extremely vague and then announce you're walking away. It's amazing you're able to dupe the people you do.
> 
> BTW, what's your name so I can check out some of the competitions you've been in? How about the names of your clients you've prepped?



Oh man, here we go. Why do I need to cite my own work? I am not a "follower." I don't read someone elses work and say, "Hey, I'm going to train people that way!" I do the creating myself. Just like Arthur Jones began to popularize his method of training that he "discovered" himself and that Mentzer later refined, that is what I do. That is what my articles are about in Musclemag and Ironman, and what my future book/articles will be about in regards to P/RR/S training. Go read the thread called Gopro workouts and see what has been said. PM Tank, Sapphire, Firestorm, Rissole and others and see what they have to say about me. Go to all the boards I mod on and ask around about me and what I contribute...you want a list?

I have nothing to prove to you. You are a nobody. A nothing. A small speck. This last post proves exactly what you are to me, just like several others before you around here.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Note: Just be careful if anyone does this, it does put a lot of strain on the shoulders.



-If you have bad shoulders, avoid this movement.
-Warm up completely before doing this exercise.
-Don't do it first in your routine.
-Don't go too heavy...keep reps around 8-12

*By the way. I tore my rotator about 7 years ago and still manage to do this exercise without problem as long as I follow the guidelines above.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

> 2) Not ALL science backs up what YOU claim...some backs up what I claim.



So what science? You made this vague statement, not me, so back it up. It matters not if you are a "creator", you made this claim, back it, it's simple.



> 3) Soreness is a good indicator of damage. Damage is caused by trauma. Trauma relates to growth.



It's funny you say this because muscle trauma actually causes the body to reduce its hormonal production, especially human growth hormone. Of course, with your "no need to prove it" expertise in physiology, you already knew this and surely made a typo.



> Please explain why only the upper pec gets sore from incline presses, why the long head of the tricep gets sore from overhead extensions, and why the vastus medialis gets sore from toes out leg presses.



I already have, twice, but I will again. Take into account the Sliding-Filament Theory of Muscular Contraction. I will not explain the Sliding-Filament Theory of Muscular Contraction in detail because you can read it elsewhere. Suffice to say that when a muscle contracts, it is because actin filaments at each end of the sarcomere slide inward on myosin filaments, pulling Z-lines together and thus shortening the muscle fiber. So you are able to cause tighter contractions in portions of a muscle. This would cause soreness to those portions. There is not, however, any evidence anywhere that this leads to localized stimulation to those portions.



> Why do I need to cite my own work?



See the first quote.



> I have nothing to prove to you. You are a nobody. A nothing. A small speck. This last post proves exactly what you are to me, just like several others before you around here.



Insults are what a man says when he lacks the ability to express what's on his mind.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

1-Read When Muscle Meets Magnet and for once in your life, observe what happens in the REAL WORLD, not on paper or in a lab.

2-The hormonal cascade that occurs after a workout is necessary for facilitating the growth process. GH, IGF-1, Testosterone, prostaglandins, estrogen, cortisol...all of these play a role and will rise and fall as the trauma, recovery, and overcompensation process occurs. Without any muscle breakdown there will be no reason for growth through both hypertrophy and even hyperplasia.

3-Right, and when you cause tighter contractions in portions of a complex muscle you will be effecting growth in that area. However, the muscle must be complex as the chest, back, tris, delts, and back are.

4-Again, I DO NOT need to site my own work. In order for me to do so I would have to show you the progress of every one of my clients. Although there are several trainers that have influenced me with their brilliant thoughts...Poliquin, King, Staley, Chek...my overall theory is my own. When I write my book or articles people can site me.

5-Incredibly poetic quote my friend. However, it was not an insult, but a fact. You ARE nothing to me. You ARE meaningless to me. I DO NOT have to prove ANYTHING to you...only to my clients, myself, and those that seek out my guidence.

You can continue this debate on your own. I don't have any more to say. I know inclines work the upper chest just as I know the moon will shine at night. Mentzer was damn sure of his methods although science showed many times that multiple sets cause more growth than single sets. He lived and died by his beliefs and so will I. I suggest that you spend less time posting in this thread and more time working on your bench press...it is terribly disproportionate to your deadlift and squat. If you need assistance with this, let me know.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

> 1-Read When Muscle Meets Magnet and for once in your life, observe what happens in the REAL WORLD, not on paper or in a lab.



Read Supertraining. Observe what happens in the real world. Observe what happens when REAL knowledge is applied.



> 2-The hormonal cascade that occurs after a workout is necessary for facilitating the growth process. GH, IGF-1, Testosterone, prostaglandins, estrogen, cortisol...all of these play a role and will rise and fall as the trauma, recovery, and overcompensation process occurs. Without any muscle breakdown there will be no reason for growth through both hypertrophy and even hyperplasia.



Again you're being very vague. There is not an "overcompensation period" as you call it. And hyperplasia doesn't exist in humans. Again, real science has proven this. 



> 3-Right, and when you cause tighter contractions in portions of a complex muscle you will be effecting growth in that area.



For the 4th time, no.



> However, the muscle must be complex as the chest, back, tris, delts, and back are.



Why?



> 4-Again, I DO NOT need to site my own work. In order for me to do so I would have to show you the progress of every one of my clients. Although there are several trainers that have influenced me with their brilliant thoughts...Poliquin, King, Staley, Chek...my overall theory is my own. When I write my book or articles people can site me.



It's cite. And Mel Siff proved Poliquin wrong many times in many public forums with regards to what Poliquin stated or passed on as fact. I'll allow you to google for these debates yourself.



> Mentzer was damn sure of his methods although science showed many times that multiple sets cause more growth than single sets.



No, no it didn't.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> Read Supertraining. Observe what happens in the real world. Observe what happens when REAL knowledge is applied.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Supertraining is THE Bible  

Hyperplasia is believed to occur in humans by many experts, but of course not any that you would listen to...

So how do human studies come up with evidence for hyperplasia? Well, it's arrived at in an indirect fashion. For instance, one study showed that elite bodybuilders and powerlifters had arm circumferences 27% greater than normal sedentary controls yet the size (i.e., cross-sectional area) of athlete's muscle fibers (in the triceps brachii muscle) were not different than the control group (47). Nygaard and Neilsen (35) did a cross-sectional study in which they found that swimmers had smaller Type I and IIa fibers in the deltoid muscle when compared to controls despite the fact that the overall size of the deltoid muscle was greater. Larsson and Tesch (29) found that bodybuilders possessed thigh circumference measurements 19% greater than controls yet the average size of their muscle fibers were not different from the controls. Furthermore, Alway et al. (3) compared the biceps brachii muscle in elite male and female bodybuilders. These investigators showed that the cross-sectional area of the biceps muscle was correlated to both fiber area and number.....

No, there is no "overcompensation" period. Muscle just magically appears on the body through no complex reactions at all. What a dumb statement Feverish. First there is breakdown, then recovery, then overcompensation (use another term if you like, but this is howit goes).

Sorry, believe what you like, but portions of a muscle can be worked and you truly are being ignorant if you think that ONE exercise per bodypart can bring about the full potential of a muscle. Do not even try to tell me or anyone that dips, kickbacks, and overhead tricep exercises do not affect the triceps muscle in different ways and work one head more significantly than another.

The more complex the muscle, the more potential to work different sections of it through various angles, grips and lines of pull. You cannot get complete back development from doing bent rows only. If you think you can, you are fooling only yourself.

Yes, I know how all of you at WBB worship Siff, but sorry, the man doesn't hold a candle to Poliquin. Siff only proved Poliquin wrong in the minds of Siff fans.

Finally, there have been multiple studies that have shown multiple sets to be more effective than single sets.

See, like I've said before there are tons of studies out there and every one that proves one thing is disproved by another. It all depends on who you choose to believe and how you choose to interpret the data.

But what is TRULY important is applying what you read to what you do in the gym in order to see what REALLY works and what doesn't. I have found out what works for me and those I train. I hope you have found out what works for you Mr Fever.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Not sure who this is directed at, but just to give my quick thoughts about what you said...
> 
> A) The bicep is to simple a muscle anatomically and in function to work different sections to any great degree. Yes, the brachialis can be isolated somewhat and growth can be affected more specifically in this muscle. In fact, it is by working the brachialis that we can TRULY create more peak.
> ...




GP, this was not directed at you, but at the entire thread.  I believe it was Prince who stated that you cannot work the lower bi and used that as a metaphor for working the upper/lower pecs.  This is obviously not a good comparison since the "lower bi" runs perpendicular to the direction of the muscle fibers while the upper chest runs parallel.  

Also, someone brought up lengthening a muscle, I don't remember whom, but I know it was not you.

Finally, I have no idea as to whether or not you can grow an isolated part of the chest.  Certainly there is no definite answer in either direction.  By saying there is no way it can happen, a person is basing a judgement on something that has barely been researched.  Saying it definitely can happen without any support is at best a guess.  I would say alot of people mistaken better development of their shoulders for upper chest development.  not saying you are part of this group, but many do.  Like I said, I have no idea, but I still use multiple angles just to get at the muscle completely.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Yes, Supertraining is THE Bible
> 
> Hyperplasia is believed to occur in humans by many experts, but of course not any that you would listen to...
> ...




It's just too funny. What is your name? You don't have to prove anything to me, let me prove it for myself. Give me your name and let me prove you are legit for myself. You can even PM me if you want to keep it quiet. And I will come before the masses and say I was wrong if that is the case.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

You say I am blind and only listen to Siff, yet you only listen to those you listed who were shown to be wrong in public forums. Incredible case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> I believe it was Prince who stated that you cannot work the lower bi and used that as a metaphor for working the upper/lower pecs.  This is obviously not a good comparison since the "lower bi" runs perpendicular to the direction of the muscle fibers while the upper chest runs parallel.













just kidding.


----------



## Tank316 (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Tank316 *_
> the earth was flat at one point in time,right?and then someone did incline's for the chest and the upper chest grew. any ways i hope some of the younger lifters get my meaning behind this, cus IMHO inclines work, as GP stated with these movements....
> 45 degree inclines d-b press
> 30 degree smith incline press
> ...



if you believe in science, then dont try them, but if you believe in hard work, then your upper chest will respond in some way!!!


----------



## craig777 (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Tank316 *_
> if you believe in science, then dont try them, but if you believe in hard work, then your upper chest will respond in some way!!!




They can quote all the science they want, inclines work  
I know that for a fact and all I have to do is look in the mirror, I don't need to read a book.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> You say I am blind and only listen to Siff, yet you only listen to those you listed who were shown to be wrong in public forums. Incredible case of the pot calling the kettle black.



Again, only "proven" wrong by those that choose to believe Siff. Siff is not the end all be all of trainers. There are so many excellent, talented, innovative and brilliant trainers/coaches out there and they all have different opinions based on THEIR OWN research and experience. If you listen to the ideas of only 1 or 2 men and discard what all others say without actually utilizing the different ideas/methods yourself, you truly ARE blind. This is why I have systematically tried just about every training method known to man (within reason) and have seen with my own two eyes through bodyfat tests, strength tests, on field tests (with athletes), etc, what is working and what is not. I AM MY OWN SCIENTIST, and so is any successful trainer/coach.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> I will not argue it in the same way I do not bother arguing the efficacy of glutamine anymore.



you sure?


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 23, 2004)

in the end, what really matters is....it's all PreMier's fault.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2004)

PreMier = instigator 

(I think he started this on purpose)


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> you sure?



Guess I blew that one huh? LOL


----------



## Twin Peak (Apr 23, 2004)

From what I have read, I agree with Eric.

But what do I know about training, I am from Avant.

BTW, I'd love to see the science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot emphasize a portion of a muscle over another portion.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 23, 2004)

I don't think anyone is arguing "emphasis." We all agree on that.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> PreMier = instigator
> 
> (I think he started this on purpose)



Just another thread about the topic that has ended in name calling and no definitive answer.  Everyone is still stubbornly holding to their beliefs.  I tend to think a certain portion of a muscle can't be stimulated to grow without the rest, but there is a lot of compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.  I'm going to take a neutral stance on the subject from here on out.  

I will continue to use a variety of lifts because it works best for me.  This may simply be a result of adaptation to a certain movement, but it may also be due to the fact that different fibers are stimulated.  Either way, I know what works best for me; that is all that matters.


----------



## PreMier (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> PreMier = instigator
> 
> (I think he started this on purpose)



Yes, I did start this on purpose 

I like to see two good sides of a debate, just liek anyone does.  Sorry for any hurt feelings this may have caused 

TwinPeak- Obviously you know something about training or else everyone here at IM would look better than you.   Again sorry.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2004)

yeah, but it's similar to arguing if god exists. 

no one can really prove he does, or does not.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> yeah, but it's similar to arguing if god exists.
> 
> no one can really prove he does, or does not.



_ Say what ? _


----------



## M.J.H. (Apr 23, 2004)

After thoroughly reading this thread, and without trying to get in the middle of it, I have to say that I completely agree with SF's side of the argument. Just my personal opinion. Maybe because I have read a lot of Supertraining myself, and its based on years and years of proven science. 

Also SF's gains in the past year speak for themselves, IMO. Those of you who have followed him from WBB to DF and finally here (hopefully to stay), know exactly what I am talking about.



> And is that the BCC I think it is?


Yes, and I hope he starts to post regularly. 



> BTW, what's your name so I can check out some of the competitions you've been in? How about the names of your clients you've prepped?


I hate to say this, but I have to completely agree. This is surely not too much to ask if all of the claims gopro has made are legit. 



> Yes, Supertraining is THE Bible


Many feel this way, and coincidentally, those that do feel this way always manage to make amazing progress. 



> Yes, I know how all of you at WBB worship Siff, but sorry, the man doesn't hold a candle to Poliquin. Siff only proved Poliquin wrong in the minds of Siff fans.


I really really wish that this would please stop. I am not sure why you continue to again and again bring up WBB here in these debates. WBB has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Maybe in your past you have gotten into debates over at WBB, but I don't see how that's relevant.



> But what do I know about training, I am from Avant.


This stereotype about Avant is ridiculous as well, IMO. I don't know how exactly it started but I think it's absurd.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MonStar *_
> After thoroughly reading this thread, and without trying to get in the middle of it, I have to say that I completely agree with SF's side of the argument. Just my personal opinion. Maybe because I have read a lot of Supertraining myself, and its based on years and years of proven science.
> 
> Also SF's gains in the past year speak for themselves, IMO. Those of you who have followed him from WBB to DF and finally here (hopefully to stay), know exactly what I am talking about.
> ...



Mon, I am not suprised at all that you agree with SNF/Siff...you are a WBB regular and of ANY board I have ever seen that is THE most closed minded of them all. I have said it before and I'll say it again...If GOD himself came down to earth and told (certain people at) WBB that they all are wrong about their beliefs in training, and that muscle shaping is possible (as an example), they all would reply..."Well, umm, do you have a study to back that up GOD? Huh, do ya?"

As far as Supertraining goes...I have read most of it myself, and while I feel it is yet another excellent book, it is CERTAINLY NOT the last word on training.

As far as SF's gains...I'm glad he's made great gains, but so have alot of people. Have you read the Gopro's workout thread. IF you only had the balls to have gone against the "powers that be" at WBB and actually stuck to the program for more than a day, YOU TOO would have made outstanding progress if you did it right. I have gained over 130 lbs of muscle naturally and went from benching the bar to maxing 495 at my strongest point. So, does that say anything? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the point is, who knows if SNF could have done even BETTER on my or someone elses program.

Now for the most ridiculous part of your and several of SNF's posts..."what is your real name gopro???" First of all, it is so ridiculously easy to find out who I am that a six year old could figure it out if he has two eyes. But more importantly, what in the hell will it prove? Do you want me to list every contest I was in and where I placed? And if I do, what will it prove? And what else do you hope to find out? Every client I have trained in my life and how well they did? Or do you want to read all of my published articles. Or do you want to see the gym I owned? Do you want to know my certifications? I'll list them. Hell, if you REALLY are dying to see me and know me I'll take few pics of myself. This is just so freaking silly.

And about Supertraining and the progress everyone makes on the program...cool, but people also make outstanding progress on MY program. Many did well on Mentzer's. Tons of elite athletes swear by Poliquin. Then we have Dante's Dogcrapp training, Ian King's methods, Charles Staley's methods, Charles Glass's, and Westside. The one common thing about all of these is that people consistently do well and make progress proving that there is more than one way to do this, and that several people have discovered outstanding methods.

Finally, I only bring up WBB b/c I KNEW where SNF came from just by the way he argued his points and by who he quotes. Not WBB as a whole, but several members/mods over there are sooo arrogant in what they "think" they know, without allowing any other possibilities that its absolutely amazing to me. I just saw a common theme with SNF, and wanted to confirm my thoughts.

In closing...at one point in time people were sure the world was flat, just as the upper chest would be without inclines.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Every client I have trained in my life and how well they did? Do you want me to list every contest I was in and where I placed? And if I do, *what will it prove?*



_competence? _


----------



## M.J.H. (Apr 24, 2004)

> you are a WBB regular and of ANY board I have ever seen that is THE most closed minded of them all.


I am assuming that you're serious in posting this? I have not posted on WBB in over a year, so I am really not sure what you're talking about with this statement. 



> IF you only had the balls to have gone against the "powers that be" at WBB and actually stuck to the program for more than a day, YOU TOO would have made outstanding progress if you did it right.


If I had the balls to go against the powers that be at WBB? I am not advocate of WBB, nor do I agree with everything that's posted at the site. I am not sure why you continue bringing up WBB. It honestly has absolutely no relevancy here at all. Maybe WBB is the last time anyone debated in favor of Supertraining? 



> I have gained over 130 lbs of muscle naturally and went from benching the bar to maxing 495 at my strongest point.


This seems a little far fetched. Over 130 lbs. of muscle naturally? Do you have before and after pics or any kind of proof at all other than just your word?



> First of all, it is so ridiculously easy to find out who I am that a six year old could figure it out if he has two eyes.


I don't think that asking for your first and last name is too much to ask at all. Just simply say what your first and last name is. Or PM myself or gopro with it. The bottom line is that if you are absolutely confident in your training methods, competitions, etc. You should have nothing to hide. And I personally do not want to go searching around for your last name, when its such a simple question, I believe "a six year old" could answer what his last name was.  



> The one common thing about all of these is that people consistently do well and make progress proving that there is more than one way to do this, and that several people have discovered outstanding methods.


I agree with that. That there are different ways to train, etc. But also consider that when years and years of science can back up a certain way to train, it is the most logical method to employ. I think most people are more likely to use training methods that science has proven effective, rather than just someone's word, etc.


----------



## M.J.H. (Apr 24, 2004)

Also, gopro, since your name is pretty big here at this site, why don't you keep a journal here at IM? I mean it would certainly help to back a lot of what you say. If you look at guys who have had the same journal for a year or more, and the gains that they have made, etc. It really helps to look at what worked well for them, etc.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 24, 2004)

Several people use Gopro's methods and I believe are keeping logs.  Rissole, Tank, Firestorm, Sapphire, to name a few.

It's pretty simple to click on Eric's sig to find out his name....  Plus he has written several articles for IM.

Eric Broser???Head Trainer
16 Years Experience in the Fitness and Nutrition Field
Certified by the International Sports Sciences Association
Certified in ACE Freestyle Training (Specializing in women???s training needs)
Certified in Strength and Sports Coaching Theory 
Certified by the National Academy of Health and Fitness (NAHF) as a Specialist in Advanced Nutrition 
Certified Therapeutic Swiss Ball Trainer 
Graduate of the ICS School of Fitness and Nutrition 
Former ???Mr. Natural Eastern USA???


----------



## Arnold (Apr 24, 2004)

closing this thread cause it's going no where and is now completely off topic.


----------

