# How Do You Work You Upper Chest?



## Mystery Man (Jul 9, 2008)

Hello Everyone,

I want to work on my upper chest, I want that big chest look.

I don't have gym membership so I do what I can at home.

All I have are 25lb dumbells and some pushup bars, I know thats not alot.

I will get more equipment in the near future.

Can anyone suggest some exercises I can do at home?

If you do suggest something, please give an explaination of the exercise or somewhere I can see a photo of the exercise.

I'm not familiar with the names

Thanks in advance


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 9, 2008)

First off, have Your boyfriend Danny mount you and then hit the push up bars. Since you want to hit the upper chest you need him to pull it out  on the ups and push it in on the downs. If it's not enough weight or when it's time to move up... have BoneCrusher mount Danny and he should  do the opposite of Danny with maximum thrusts on the ups.


----------



## Mista (Jul 9, 2008)

25's DB ain't shit. You would be better off doing push ups at different angles, and widths with the weights in a bag on your back.


----------



## SnowManSnow (Jul 10, 2008)

You're going to need to goto walmart and pickup some more weight   JMO

B


----------



## SnowManSnow (Jul 10, 2008)

....welcome!!


----------



## go4kj (Jul 16, 2008)

Incline exercises are the best for the upper chest.  Inclined DB presses and DB flyes should do the trick.  If you can afford it buy a bench that will incline.  Hope that helps....


----------



## KelJu (Jul 17, 2008)

go4kj said:


> Incline exercises are the best for the upper chest.  Inclined DB presses and DB flyes should do the trick.  If you can afford it buy a bench that will incline.  Hope that helps....


----------



## go4kj (Jul 17, 2008)

Enlighten me Kelju, what's up?  Did I say something wrong?  This guy asked a simple question and I gave what I thought was the right answer.  Inclined presses and flyes are good exercises for the upper chest.


----------



## KelJu (Jul 17, 2008)

go4kj said:


> Enlighten me Kelju, what's up?  Did I say something wrong?  This guy asked a simple question and I gave what I thought was the right answer.  Inclined presses and flyes are good exercises for the upper chest.



You are correct that they are all good exercises. You are incorrect that there are good for upper chest. There is no such thing as isolating upper chest. Upper lower chest isolation is a myth. 

The shape of your pectoral major is genetic. You can not emphasize one part or another. You either hit it or you don't.


----------



## go4kj (Jul 17, 2008)

I beg to differ Kelju.  Incline chest exercises will target your upper chest more than the lower chest.  

Follw the link:

Chest work out routine. Chest muscle building exercises.


----------



## Metallibanger (Jul 17, 2008)

go4kj said:


> I beg to differ Kelju.  Incline chest exercises will target your upper chest more than the lower chest.
> 
> Follw the link:
> 
> Chest work out routine. Chest muscle building exercises.



You will find a lot of "myths" like this here



































^


----------



## go4kj (Jul 17, 2008)

If it's not true, then I apologize for the post.  Are you guys 100% sure that the statement is not right.  Incline chest exercises target the upper chest MORE than the lower chest and decline chest exercises target the lower chest MORE than the upper chest.  

Provide me evidence.  I'm an evidence based man and I provided a link that supported my claim.  Provide me a link that supports that it is a myth.  

Cheers...


----------



## KelJu (Jul 17, 2008)

go4kj said:


> If it's not true, then I apologize for the post.  Are you guys 100% sure that the statement is not right.  Incline chest exercises target the upper chest MORE than the lower chest and decline chest exercises target the lower chest MORE than the upper chest.
> 
> Provide me evidence.  I'm an evidence based man and I provided a link that supported my claim.  Provide me a link that supports that it is a myth.
> 
> Cheers...



This is your chest.
Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head)

You can't isolate regions within a muscle. The muscle will contract from origin to insertion. This means throughout the entire muscle, but not localized to one part. People use incline bench presses, for example, because they think it will work the pec major more. This is not the case. You are simply taking less focus off of the chest and more on the delts. Flies will do the exact same thing as flat bench with the exception of training different stabilizer muscles. There is no such thing as outter or inner. There is only pec major and minor.

The debate about whether you can effectively isolate the major or minor using different exercises needs to die. Major and minor provide the exact same movement functions, which means both will be worked at any angle. Different motor patterns will probably be recruited, but this will not necessary means more hypertrophy. The different exercises will put the chest at a stronger point and secondary muscles, like shoulders and triceps, at weaker points.


----------



## kshort (Oct 29, 2011)

*Idiot*



KelJu said:


> You are correct that they are all good exercises. You are incorrect that there are good for upper chest. There is no such thing as isolating upper chest. Upper lower chest isolation is a myth.
> 
> The shape of your pectoral major is genetic. You can not emphasize one part or another. You either hit it or you don't.



Dude there are excellent isolation workouts for your upper chest and if you don't realize this then obviously you were raised in a barn...


----------



## GreatWhiteTruth (Oct 30, 2011)

kshort said:


> Dude there are excellent isolation workouts for your upper chest and if you don't realize this then obviously you were raised in a barn...


 
Just like doing ab workouts will help you get a six pack right? Just like pink magic will make you jacked out of your mind? Just like how muscle turns into fat and vice versa?

The pectoralis major is a single muscle with different "peaks".

Common misconception. But it's ok. You are forgiven.



> The debate about whether you can effectively isolate the major or minor using different exercises needs to die. Major and minor provide the exact same movement functions, which means both will be worked at any angle. Different motor patterns will probably be recruited, but this will not necessary means more hypertrophy. The different exercises will put the chest at a stronger point and secondary muscles, like shoulders and triceps, at weaker points.



It's basic muscle mechanics. I don't think you can describe it any better than this. The keys are range of motion and load balancing. It is a science yes. And it's proven.

A DEAD THREAD REVIVED! Just in time for Halloween.


----------



## banker23 (Oct 31, 2011)

KelJu said:


> You are correct that they are all good exercises. You are incorrect that there are good for upper chest. There is no such thing as isolating upper chest. Upper lower chest isolation is a myth.
> 
> The shape of your pectoral major is genetic. You can not emphasize one part or another. You either hit it or you don't.



Any authoritative sources to substantiate this? This is the second time in two days I have seen this premise put forward but every published source that I own is very clear that you can and should do exercises that focus (not isolation but emphasis) on different parts of the chest.

You say two things in this post: one is true and the other is not. First you said "there is no such thing as isolating upper chest." This was true. Then you followed with "you cannot emphasize one part or another." This is untrue. When someone asks about "isolating" I don't get too semantic I just interpret the question in light of most people's ignorance of the difference between the two terms.

I know any chest exercise hits the whole chest, but the way one does it effects which part of the chest is emphasized...not "isolated" of course but certainly emphasized. Joe Weider and Arnold Schwarzenegger both support this in their respective encyclopedias of bodybuilding and my experience and the experience of anyone I've ever met bears it out.


----------



## Merkaba (Oct 31, 2011)




----------



## banker23 (Oct 31, 2011)

Merkaba said:


>



This horse won't die...it keeps poppin' up in here!

btw great pics and impressive especially for all natty! I especially like the purple shorts homage to the Hulk!


----------



## banker23 (Oct 31, 2011)

KelJu said:


> This is your chest.
> Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head)
> 
> You can't isolate regions within a muscle. The muscle will contract from origin to insertion. This means throughout the entire muscle, but not localized to one part. People use incline bench presses, for example, because they think it will work the pec major more. This is not the case. You are simply taking less focus off of the chest and more on the delts. Flies will do the exact same thing as flat bench with the exception of training different stabilizer muscles. There is no such thing as outter or inner. There is only pec major and minor.
> ...



because you say it and provide a link to a picture of a chest it must be true! All this time Arnold and Joe and every other written, published source, and every chiropractor Ive ever known is wrong


----------



## GreatWhiteTruth (Oct 31, 2011)

banker23 said:


> because you say it and provide a link to a picture of a chest it must be true! All this time Arnold and Joe and every other written, published source, and every chiropractor Ive ever known is wrong



Yes, but just to play to devil's advocate here, how many doctors have you EVER met that have been RIGHT about lets say steroids???

Doctors simply use a plethora of knowledge to make good guesses, that's it. How many people said the world was flat until it was disproven? And like I said before. Do you believe you will get a six pack by doing crunches and ab workouts? Because that is what 95% of everyone in the world believes because it's what they are told by trainers or someone else trying to sell something.  Progress is only made when we challenge the satus quo. We become so accustomed to pre-determined schools of thought that we just accept it for what it is, based on evidence or not, without ever expanding our knowledge or pushing the envelope.


----------



## banker23 (Nov 1, 2011)

GreatWhiteTruth said:


> Yes, but just to play to devil's advocate here, how many doctors have you EVER met that have been RIGHT about lets say steroids???
> 
> Doctors simply use a plethora of knowledge to make good guesses, that's it. How many people said the world was flat until it was disproven? And like I said before. Do you believe you will get a six pack by doing crunches and ab workouts? Because that is what 95% of everyone in the world believes because it's what they are told by trainers or someone else trying to sell something. Progress is only made when we challenge the satus quo. We become so accustomed to pre-determined schools of thought that we just accept it for what it is, based on evidence or not, without ever expanding our knowledge or pushing the envelope.


 
I respect you and everyone else who questions accepted premises, and you are dead on calling out doctors who spread false information about steroids. I also agree with your overall training philosophy which I've seen expounded upon in other threads.

I don't have a problem questioning the doctors but I am not going to tell Arnold he's wrong until I've surpassed his level of development at his best...we'll be waiting awhile for that I am sure. I could be wrong about this (impossible to tell without a time machine going back and retraning without incline work) but I guess I am too much of an Arnold fan-boy to let go of this until I see it disproven by someone that I respect at least as much.

p.s. the funny thing is the guy who wrote this post had two 25 lb dumbbells and wanted to build a big chest and this thread morphed into a training debate. The guy's probably like, "shit this is way more involved than I expected, where's my ice cream?"


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

banker23 said:


> Any authoritative sources to substantiate this? This is the second time in two days I have seen this premise put forward but every published source that I own is very clear that you can and should do exercises that focus (not isolation but emphasis) on different parts of the chest.
> 
> You say two things in this post: one is true and the other is not. First you said "there is no such thing as isolating upper chest." This was true. Then you followed with "you cannot emphasize one part or another." This is untrue. When someone asks about "isolating" I don't get too semantic I just interpret the question in light of most people's ignorance of the difference between the two terms.
> 
> I know any chest exercise hits the whole chest, but the way one does it effects which part of the chest is emphasized...not "isolated" of course but certainly emphasized. Joe Weider and Arnold Schwarzenegger both support this in their respective encyclopedias of bodybuilding and my experience and the experience of anyone I've ever met bears it out.



Whenever this topic comes up anywhere people always ask for proof or a source that you can't work the upper chest, that the chest is one muscle and can't be isolated in terms of the minor and major pecs etc.

My problem with this is that there's no reason to prove it. The only reason this sort of training myth was perpetuated is because back when this gym thing was starting, the average Joe had absolutely no knowledge of anatomy besides what other people in the gym told him.

It's like the myth that wide grip pullups build a wider back, presumably because of sharing the word wide. It's a false logical premise. Humans are great at finding patterns and links where there are none. Just because the bar is in line with the upper part of your chest when you bench on an incline doesn't mean it'll build that part.

Thing is, people also make false connections that back up what they think i true. We're fragile creatures mentally and don't like the thought that we're wasting time or looking foolish.

People add incline into their routines, it's a different exercise, they get sore, they attribute this to building their upper chest. Because of the change in stimulus, their entire chest grows, but of course they're only LOOKING for growth in their UPPER chest. They see the growth there. They attribute the growth to the exercise.


----------



## banker23 (Nov 1, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> Whenever this topic comes up anywhere people always ask for proof or a source that you can't work the upper chest, that the chest is one muscle and can't be isolated in terms of the minor and major pecs etc.
> 
> My problem with this is that there's no reason to prove it. The only reason this sort of training myth was perpetuated is because back when this gym thing was starting, the average Joe had absolutely no knowledge of anatomy besides what other people in the gym told him.
> 
> ...


 
I'll give you guys a shot in my next on cycle training plan...maybe my shoulders will actually end up thanking you in the end. I will do flat bench only instead of flat bench followed by inclines. Since starting this topic and looking at my "upper chest" a little more critically I come to realize that my squarish upper pecs are actually my front delts running across the top of my chest and that's the same with arnold. I think alot of people who want a big "upper chest" that's really what they are looking for and erroneously calling it upper pectorals.

I figure I can work those muscles better and give them more time to grow by bombing them hard on shoulder day: military press, bent over reverse db flies, front lateral raises, and side db raises. Normally I do chest and back two days later on Sunday but the incline bb press kind of hits the delts harder again, interrupting some of their recovery and growth time. This may actually result in more growth and strength and efficiency in the training plan. I will give this strategy at least 60 days and will consider it a success if my overall chest development at least stays proportional to its current state.

If my chest starts to sag, I will blame you guys


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 1, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> Whenever this topic comes up anywhere people always ask for proof or a source that you can't work the upper chest, that the chest is one muscle and can't be isolated in terms of the minor and major pecs etc.
> 
> My problem with this is that there's no reason to prove it. The only reason this sort of training myth was perpetuated is because back when this gym thing was starting, the average Joe had absolutely no knowledge of anatomy besides what other people in the gym told him.
> 
> ...



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gazhole again."




banker23 said:


> ...I don't have a problem questioning the doctors but I am not going to tell Arnold he's wrong until I've surpassed his level of development at his best...we'll be waiting awhile for that I am sure. I could be wrong about this (impossible to tell without a time machine going back and retraning without incline work) but I guess I am too much of an Arnold fan-boy to let go of this until I see it disproven by someone that I respect at least as much....


 The problem is that Arnold knew alot of shit but didn't know everything.  You're almost raising him to God-hood...figuratively yes we all should...but not literally.  I take nothing for gospel.



banker23 said:


> p.s. the funny thing is the guy who wrote this post had two 25 lb dumbbells and wanted to build a big chest and this thread morphed into a training debate. The guy's probably like, "shit this is way more involved than I expected, where's my ice cream?"


With that being about 3.5 years ago and he only had 7 posts...I'm betting that he found that ice cream.


----------



## SFW (Nov 1, 2011)

Mystery Man said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I want to work on my upper chest, I want that big chest look.
> 
> ...


 
Push ups with someone on your back. 

You can also affix those 25lb DB's to yourself and perform dips using two sturdy chairs, or even a chair and an equally high counter or table. You can hold the db btwn your feet or throw em in a book bag, either way. As far as rep/set ranges, experiment.


----------



## hill450 (Nov 1, 2011)

The key is in the way that the fibers run. I'm not going to claim that incline works only upper chest because it is all one muscle with a wide origin and a very small insertion point. 

However I will say that I believe that incline is better for working upper chest fibers/front delt and decline is better for the lower chest fibers.  I also believe that both of these exercises do a better job than flat bench (not a fan because of shoulder problems). 

I use almost all dumbells and here is another way to solidify this statement. My lower chest isn't sore after days I've done upper chest and vise versa. At the same time I have trouble "filling in" my upper inner chest.  Whatever works for you.


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

Of course all of this is assuming that the body can respond to exercise on a fibre-specific level. This would presuppose an internal ONLY mechanism for muscle growth in local fibres, as opposed to the growth mechanisms affecting the entire muscle.

All fibres in the pec muscle contract when you do ANY bench press variation, therefore all of them are receiving a stimulus for growth. Doing squats and eating a lot will make you grow all over even though you're not training the muscles directly.

Doing rows will make your biceps grow faster than just curls. Doing bench makes your delts and triceps grow as well as your pecs. Probably makes your biceps grow too while we're on the subject.

The more specific the process the less effect it has on the body. Assuming you can target specific areas of the muscle, are the possible returns from this specialization really enough to justify the effort?

Where is the mechanism that allows the "upper" fibres to grow more than the "lower fibres"?

Are the upper fibres contracting more? If that were the case i should think you'd get some nasty cramps or pulls considering all the fibres insert in the same place. If one "half" of that tendon is more taught than the other half, surely thats a bad situation?

Occam's razor suggests the simpler explanation is usually the true one, so i'm gonna assume that the upper chest is just a bunch of anecdotal bullshit stemming from a time before sports science really existed.

After a while it's like trying to justify that the world is round. It IS round, it's clearly round, theres more evidence for it being round, but if enough people believe it's flat no amount of proof will ever be enough.

There are still people out there that believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and there are still people out there who believe you can shape a muscle, make your cock bigger, and get rich filling in surveys over the internet.


----------



## yeksetm (Nov 1, 2011)

Hold on a second there Gaz!!! Your contradicting yourself.

*Doing squats and eating a lot will make you grow all over even though you're not training the muscles directly*

and then you say

*there are still people out there who believe you can shape a muscle, make your cock bigger*

I personally believe your a cock grows best with high rep repetative movements, unfortunately I struggle with the high rep part


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

The cock isn't a muscle, silly boy.

It's a bone.


----------



## yeksetm (Nov 1, 2011)




----------



## ThreeGigs (Nov 1, 2011)

Um...

Pectoralis has two heads, sternal (lower, biggest part) and clavicular (upper part, maybe 1/4 of the chest). At least that's what every anatomy book I have access to says. Now, I hear advice on how to hit a particular head of biceps, delts, and even one of the quads, so why not the chest? Yeah, it's one muscle (like the biceps), but it has two insertions, and therefore it should be possible to preferentially target one over the other. No?

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I am able to isolate that head. Use a cable machine, pulleys at shoulder joint height. You stand in front of the machine, arms outstretched so that your hands are at eye to forehead level and would be directly between the pulleys when you 'clap'. *Not* a cable flye, more like clapping against resistance. I call them monkey claps because when I do them I feel like I must look like one of those wind-up monkeys with the cymbals (although the cymbals would be higher). I've described the exercise elsewhere in these forums.

Here's a pic showing good definition between the two heads:






The trick to targeting that particular head is having the arms above the shoulders, and pulling together and slightly upwards. If the arms are in front of the chest or pulling downwards, the sternal head is used, so keep the arms straight with hands at forehead level, and the pulleys slightly below so the angle of the cables is perhaps 10 degrees.

Gaz, Merk... is there something wrong with my anatomy books? My definition of 'upper chest'? Innervation of that head and the ability to isolate it?  Is my body just 'weird', like I can wiggle my ears and some people can't and everyone who can't is saying there is no 'ear-wiggling' muscle?


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

Both heads of pec major insert into the humerus, the clavicular head (obviously) originates from the clavicle, and the sternocostal head orginates from the sternum and intercostals (again, the clue is in the name). 

They both insert at the same place, because their "job" is to flex and extend the humerus, and with other muscles rotate it. Loading the arms with weight is going to load them both, sure maybe not equally, and yes leverage and joint angle will come into it too i'll give you that.

My point is that the difference is never going to be enough to produce localized growth of one head over the other, by a general growth mechanism or one targeted on the fibres placed under the greater load when all factors are considered.

You can't target your upper chest for growth in a bodybuilding context, because targetting infers that you're ONLY hitting that muscle (or part of a muscle in this case) at the exception of the other. This isn't possible. Both will grow, and at the same rate. What your pec looks like is another matter, and largely determined by genetics. This isn't a product of training the upper pecs specifically, it's a product of training in general.


----------



## gtbmed (Nov 1, 2011)

In a flat press, the elbows are basically in line with the torso at the bottom of the movement. The bar can be loaded more heavily because of this, and the limiting factor in improving the lift is often triceps strength and not chest strength (most natural lifters struggle a few inches off the chest).

In an incline press the elbows are below the torso at the bottom and, under heavy weights, most people struggle to get the bar off of their chest. It's much easier to lockout weights used in an incline press and so the triceps aren't taxed nearly as much as in a flat or decline press.

So I think there's some amount of truth to what people originally thought about incline presses, but not for the reasons to which they prescribed. Incline presses just seem like a much better overall chest builder because chest strength is going to be the limiting factor in loading.  In flat presses triceps strength is more likely to limit the load.


----------



## banker23 (Nov 1, 2011)

gtbmed said:


> The only thing I will say about this topic is that I think that in an incline BP more of the load is moved by the chest and less is moved by the triceps than in a flat BP. I think this may have been where the "incline bench works the upper chest" idea started.


 
Let's all just give up on debating and just bomb our chests hard and heavy for a couple months and revisit this around let's say February or so and we'll compare notes. I'm giving the "no inclines" a go for at least the next 60 days and I see growth in the extended forecast...


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

gtbmed said:


> In a flat press, the elbows are basically in line with the torso at the bottom of the movement. The bar can be loaded more heavily because of this, and the limiting factor in improving the lift is often triceps strength and not chest strength (most natural lifters struggle a few inches off the chest).
> 
> In an incline press the elbows are below the torso at the bottom and, under heavy weights, most people struggle to get the bar off of their chest. It's much easier to lockout weights used in an incline press and so the triceps aren't taxed nearly as much as in a flat or decline press.
> 
> So I think there's some amount of truth to what people originally thought about incline presses, but not for the reasons to which they prescribed. Incline presses just seem like a much better overall chest builder because chest strength is going to be the limiting factor in loading.  In flat presses triceps strength is more likely to limit the load.



An excellent point, and it's easy to see how the reasons behind it could have been misinterpreted and applied to other exercises which don't have the same overall effect.


----------



## gtbmed (Nov 1, 2011)

banker23 said:


> Let's all just give up on debating and just bomb our chests hard and heavy for a couple months and revisit this around let's say February or so and we'll compare notes. I'm giving the "no inclines" a go for at least the next 60 days and I see growth in the extended forecast...



For what it's worth I'm not really disagreeing with you. I actually think incline presses are likely better at building a big upper chest than flat bench presses. But I think incline presses are likely better at building the overall chest too, not just the upper part.


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 1, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> Both heads of pec major insert into the humerus, the clavicular head (obviously) originates from the clavicle, and the sternocostal head orginates from the sternum and intercostals (again, the clue is in the name).
> 
> They both insert at the same place, because their "job" is to flex and extend the humerus, and with other muscles rotate it. Loading the arms with weight is going to load them both, sure maybe not equally, and yes leverage and joint angle will come into it too i'll give you that.
> 
> ...


Uhh yea what he said!

to quote Dave Tate..."Why not learn how to fucking bench properly!"


----------



## banker23 (Nov 1, 2011)

gtbmed said:


> For what it's worth I'm not really disagreeing with you. I actually think incline presses are likely better at building a big upper chest than flat bench presses. But I think incline presses are likely better at building the overall chest too, not just the upper part.


 
That's cool bro, I guess it doesn't matter too much who's right or wrong as long as we lift heavy, eat big, and sleep soundly...if we waste time unwittingly doing unnecessary exercises every now and then, so be it (as long as it isn't wrist curls and preacher curls).


----------



## Gazhole (Nov 1, 2011)

Merkaba said:


> Uhh yea what he said!
> 
> to quote Dave Tate..."Why not learn how to fucking bench properly!"





Please tell me you have downloaded the Vault ebook?


----------



## Merkaba (Nov 1, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> Please tell me you have downloaded the Vault ebook?



Yep haven't really cracked it though!  I think I will now!


----------



## ThreeGigs (Nov 1, 2011)

Gazhole said:


> You can't target your upper chest for growth in a bodybuilding context, because targetting infers that you're ONLY hitting that muscle (or part of a muscle in this case) at the exception of the other. This isn't possible.



But that's exactly where I'm disagreeing with you, Gaz. I absolutely, positively, without doubt can activate the clavicular head, and only the clavicular head, with the exercise I mentioned above. Maybe it's just me and the way I'm built.

Here's a youtube video showing separate activation of each head:
Pectoralis Major (sternal & clavicular) - YouTube

If you look at the bottom picture on this page:
Cable Flyes - Pecs Workout
It shows an incline cable flye, which is close to the exercise I do. My pulleys are a bit higher, and instead of my body being between the pulleys, I'm a step or two back so it's my hands between them.

If you stand near the edge of a wall, extend your arm so your hand is about forehead height and push sideways (cross body) slightly upwards, you'll feel the top half of your pec stiffen up, while the bottom remains loose and unactivated. Keep pressing sideways but now push down a little, and you'll feel the lower part of your pec go taut.  If you feel anterior deltoid involvement, your arm is a bit too high, lower it a bit and try again.

The above works for me, but like I said I can wiggle my ears, too, so it might be a genetics thing. Look at Franco Columbu's upper chest, the man had a friggin' bookshelf under his chin. Do a Google image search for him and look again at his upper chest. He had to have done something to preferentially build the clavicular head.  I haven't read up on any specific bodybuilders' training methods, but if I wanted more upper chest, I'd probably do whatever he did (unless he kept secrets or used misdirection like Arnold apparently did).

Now, I'll grant that an incline barbell press probably wouldn't target just the clavicular head, unless it was at a very specific angle, the lifter held the bar a little too much toward his waist (to get the effect of the angled pressure), and used a somewhat close grip since it's only near lockout that the upper head gets isolated. But I do stand by my assertion that I can (and maybe it's just me) isolate the clavicular head.

[edit] Interesting note. I just read that the sternal head cannot hyperextend the arm, so crossing your arms might target the clavicular head, too.


----------



## GreatWhiteTruth (Nov 1, 2011)

ThreeGigs said:


> But that's exactly where I'm disagreeing with you, Gaz. I absolutely, positively, without doubt can activate the clavicular head, and only the clavicular head, with the exercise I mentioned above. Maybe it's just me and the way I'm built.
> 
> Here's a youtube video showing separate activation of each head:
> Pectoralis Major (sternal & clavicular) - YouTube
> ...



My biggest beef with the first video and one of your examples is the type of resistance that is being applied to demonstrate the fibers in action, in comparison to an incline bench or decline for that matter. They are nowhere similar. One is a form of a lift, and the others are actual presses.

That being said, the video inadvertently disproves the theory that "inclined bench is good for your upper chest". However, after seeing this I would be more inclined (pun) to believe that your beloved cable crossovers would be more desirable to accomplish this. Not once does he press.

Regardless of the type of movement required to stimulate different sides of the bi-lateral, the video you posted seems to support your claims. But from an anatomical standpoint it still doesn't make a bit of sense.

Going off subject a bit, this thread gets better every hour. Idk about you guys but I am thoroughly enjoying this debate.  No flame war as of yet.


----------



## ThreeGigs (Nov 2, 2011)

Just did a little experiment here at home pushing on a wall, trying to imitate a close-grip (thumbs almost touching) incline barbell bench press. A little before lockout I had what I think was complete engagement of the clavicular head, and partial on the sternal head. It's really angle sensitive though, a little too high or too low and it's the front delts or the full pec, instead of mostly the upper pec.  I'll see if I can get someone to keep a hand on my chest tomorrow at the gym to see what's engaged at what point, although I'll probably have to use the Smith machine since the incline bench doesn't have an adjustable angle. I'll probably also have to endure a few quizzical stares from people after I ask "Could you touch me while I'm lifting? Tell me if this part gets hard or stays soft?"  Then again, it just might be the ultimate pickup line if I ask a girl.

I wonder though if the different emphasis could help explain why I'm so much weaker on inclines than flat or decline bench.

And yeah, like I said above I don't think you could use the clavicular heads exclusively in a press, however I do think it is possible to emphasize them over the sternal heads by doing inclines. I've also come to realize that the width of the grip used affects the upper pec involvement, too. Narrower with a good squeeze at lockout seems effective, but I'll experiment with it tomorrow to be sure.


----------



## gtbmed (Nov 2, 2011)

You're weaker on incline bench press because of the muscle involvement, sure. Decline presses put your triceps in a good position to move the weight at the bottom of the movement. Flat presses demand more chest strength at the bottom. Incline presses demand the most chest strength. In general it's easier to straighten the arms than it is to move the upper arms towards the midline of the body.

It's basically a range of motion problem. Incline presses force you to work through a larger one at the bottom, where most people are often weakest.


----------



## r0ck0 (Nov 2, 2011)

Try inclined push-ups if you dont have a lot of weight. Start with your feet on a chair or a swiss ball. Increase the height of your feet as your strength increases until you are doing them at about a 45 degree angle (feet above your head). Go to much steeper than that and you'll use more of your anterior deltoids and over work your shoulders missing your pecs.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Nov 2, 2011)

gtbmed said:


> It's basically a range of motion problem. Incline presses force you to work through a larger one at the bottom, where most people are often weakest.


----------



## ThreeGigs (Nov 3, 2011)

Ok, so today at the gym I learned that the incline bench is at too steep an angle. If I wing out my elbows and guillotine the bar, I can get some upper chest activation, otherwise it's front-delt heavy for me. Couldn't get in the Smith machine, so I just grabbed a short bar with 10 kilos a side and tried various angles on a bench. Seems like a fairly shallow angle (like 15 or 20 degrees, I think) does the trick for me. But even then, it's only slightly upper pec dominant for me, except near lockout when the upper pecs get more involved.

Angle seems to be really important if you want to target upper chest with incline bench. I'll see if I can set things up better in the Smith machine on Saturday, as it's usually a slow day at the gym.

So whoever says that you can't target upper chest with incline benches is probably right more often than wrong, especially if your incline bench is at too steep an angle. It certainly seems possible, but I don't think I've seen anyone go to the trouble of determining and using the 'perfect' incline angle and narrow-ish grip width.


----------



## r0ck0 (Nov 4, 2011)

I've always felt more pec activation with a wider grip. I'll have to try moving my hands in on the narrow grip.


----------



## wasep11 (Nov 7, 2011)

Well i would say incline pushups flies and presses but i dont know, just do different angle pushups, diamond, wide, narrow, do chest press, flies, you can do medicine balls pushups to put some balance in there, cable chest fly. etc..


----------



## BUCKY (Nov 11, 2011)

If you're in high school or college, there are times when gyms are free (college), if you're in high school sign up for it or go after school. I did this plus I had a bench press at home for "weekends" or "holidays" when schools are closed. I like to workout without too much people around as well, so home workouts are great. A good bench press have gotten cheaper (under $200).



Mystery Man said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I want to work on my upper chest, I want that big chest look.
> 
> ...


----------

