Bookmark this thread:     |
Login  | |
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 0:35:31
| |
|
BencherRdg
Posts: 4854
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Lancaster, United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
.... long as decline hits all the chest (to a point) am enables me to bench with my shoulders taking less brunt i'll be happy. hopefully will try it tomorrow
_____________________________
Bulking Journal back up and running!!
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 2:31:43
| |
|
Mad Manic
Posts: 71
Joined: Apr. 1 2008
Status: offline
|
The keyboard jockeys always say the angle makes no difference, the big guys and experienced guys with great chest development (including pros) swear by the fact that the angle makes a difference. But isn't that always the way with most things?
MM
< Message edited by Mad Manic -- May 7 2008 2:32:06 >
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 11:41:12
| |
|
MonkFinger
Posts: 3160
Joined: May 11 2004
From: 'ampshire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Manic
The keyboard jockeys always say the angle makes no difference, the big guys and experienced guys with great chest development (including pros) swear by the fact that the angle makes a difference. But isn't that always the way with most things?
MM
scruffy is an experience big guy
_____________________________
Scissor me, Xerxes!
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 13:22:06
| |
|
BencherRdg
Posts: 4854
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Lancaster, United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MonkFinger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Manic
The keyboard jockeys always say the angle makes no difference, the big guys and experienced guys with great chest development (including pros) swear by the fact that the angle makes a difference. But isn't that always the way with most things?
MM
scruffy is an experience big guy
Thats what I thought (well presumed!) when i read that....!
_____________________________
Bulking Journal back up and running!!
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 13:49:58
| |
|
storeze
Posts: 76
Joined: Jan. 31 2008
Status: offline
|
i have alot of problems doing flat bench,damaged my rotator cuff few years ago and its never got better,i can get away with dumbells they seem to put less stress on my delts also decline bench is alot less painful.
_____________________________
[img=http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3453/mostmuscularsf1.th.jpg]
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 16:38:07
| |
|
scruffy
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sep. 3 2001
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Manic
The keyboard jockeys always say the angle makes no difference, the big guys and experienced guys with great chest development (including pros) swear by the fact that the angle makes a difference. But isn't that always the way with most things?
MM
right so your doing decline bench, how do you contract just the lower portion of your pecs ?????? does not matter how big you are, it is science, you can not contract any one area of one muscle only..... try it, lay on a bench and do flys at a decline angle, try contracting the bottom half of the pec,,,,,you cant it is impossible, its debatable whether the angle would recruit more muscle fibres from a selected area, but this has no science to it either...
_____________________________
journal http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_1219780/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 7 2008 17:11:11
| |
|
scruffy
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sep. 3 2001
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mad Manic
The keyboard jockeys always say the angle makes no difference, the big guys and experienced guys with great chest development (including pros) swear by the fact that the angle makes a difference. But isn't that always the way with most things?
MM
the pro`s all swear that they are natural too, so everything they say must be gospel !!!!!
_____________________________
journal http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_1219780/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 11:17:51
| |
|
Lord Monkcheese
Posts: 3822
Joined: Feb. 24 2004
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
The pectoralis major is one muscle but with 2 heads. Each head has separate nerve innervations so you should be able to recruit more motor units in the one head over the other if the exercise position dictates that the pull of the muscle requires more of one head to work than the other.
You clearly can't isolate one head over the other, but you can make one do more or less work by changing the angle of the bench.
All IMO of course because I've read conflicting viewpoints on this.
How I convince myself this is true is by looking at my own bench press and the fact that I am stronger in a decline position than an incline position. There is less shoulder involvement in a decline press so where is the extra strength coming from ? It's not simply the reduced ROM, but the chest being mechanically stronger in that position from the recruitment of more sternal head muscle fibres.
That's what I conclude, whether it's accurate though I don't know.
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 11:40:01
| |
|
Lord Monkcheese
Posts: 3822
Joined: Feb. 24 2004
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
For a more scientific response, have a read through this article. I can't find any reference of where I originally found it but it's been sat in my Yahoo account since 2004 so it may have come from a post in MT.
It seems to be Mel Siff's response to a claim that isolation of specific parts of a muscle can't occur. Siff is of the camp that isolation cab occur as evidenced by EMG studies and biofeedback specialists.
============================================================
by: Maki Riddington
The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower","inner" and "outer" pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in StrengthTraining and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly
exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense.
Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along its anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle.
Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes.They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smarty know-it-all's taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts
it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion.
***[Biofeedback research in some cases shows exceptions to this 'rule.' Surface EMGs often tell a very different story from invasive EMGs recorded with fine needles inserted deep into different regions of muscle. I trust that this biomechanics professor pointed this basic and very important fact out to all the students. If he failed to do so, he was in definite dereliction of his duty as an educator. Mel Siff]
Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as "heads" by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be "slack" in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of flyes), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no "slack" because there is in fact contractile activity (whether
concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to
shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement.
For example, during a decline fly, though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater
percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely, when performing an incline flye there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in thelower.
Many proponents of the so-called "isolation" approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the "target" region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction
which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges.
Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position
than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to "isolate" a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure nonsense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
*** [This collage of different facts to infer the conclusions reached is replete with some typical errors in logic and offers a large amount of information for critical comment. While it is correct to conclude that isolation of a region of muscle may not occur under most circumstances, EMG studies with needle electrodes show that activation of even a few musce fibres is possible, especially if biofeedback methods of training are used. Basmajian (in 'Muscles Alive') reports on one of his studies which shows that thinking about a muscle action can isolate control over small muscles like those in the thumb.
And, how does one explain the ability of that belly dancer on TV who used separate regions of her abs to shift coins and fold notes? I also have carried out EMGs studies and studied biomechanical models which clearly appear to militate against isolation of specific regions of muscle, but, when I witnessed this display, read work by biofeedback specialists and saw how some disabled folk could voluntarily activate certain muscle regions, I was compelled to be less dogmatic. I know that there os at least one biofeedback expert on this group - maybe he would care to add his comments.
One other issue is never raised - what of the possibility that nerve fibres are not simply simple conductors of sequential pulses of discrete action potentials, but also play a 'multiplexing' role in which one fibre or group of fibres carry many different messages at the same time, as is the case with technological telephone and optic fibre systems? How would the arriving messages influence local and adjacent regions of muscle? So far, this is sheer speculation on my part, but I would be interested to see if anyone has come across references which allude to this possibility. Mel Siff ]
============================================================
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 12:30:21
| |
|
A_J
Posts: 215
Joined: Feb. 19 2006
Status: offline
|
Guys so when we train our chest.. this just means whats the point in doing incline ?? we might aswel concentrate our efforts on flat bench..
and also when people do flys they claim it builds up the inner part of the chest.. i never do flys coz like some of u said, theres only one muscle and its made up of two smaller muscles, however they contract simultaneously.
This thread has just confused me about to train chest...
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 13:23:32
| |
|
Lord Monkcheese
Posts: 3822
Joined: Feb. 24 2004
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
I can see how some confusion can arise from Upper/Lwoer chest but I'm still surprised when people ask about Inner/Outer chest.
And Upper/Lower biceps 
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 13:47:53
| |
|
A_J
Posts: 215
Joined: Feb. 19 2006
Status: offline
|
upper and lower biceps... iv never heard that one before.. yeah i can imagine how u feel if someone asked you something stupid like that. lol.
I study phyisology and anatomy at university.. and in theory.. you cant isolate one portion of the chest.. as in upper or lower.. the muscle contracts as a whole.
However.. changing the angles at which your pressing the bar/dumbells can emphasize a part slightly more. im assuming this is why people do incline decline etc.
moderator, i really need some sort of reassurance here mate
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 13:59:16
| |
|
Lord Monkcheese
Posts: 3822
Joined: Feb. 24 2004
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
That's basically the crux of the whole Upper/Lower argument.
Physiologically we've come to understand that a muscle contracts on an all or nothing basis - you can't select a segment of it and contract that only. The hypothesis is although you can't isolate a part of the muscle, you can put more emphasis on it, so changing the angle of the exercise can lead to more or less recruitment of sternal/clavicular fibres.
The article I pasted above looks at both sides of the argument and although doesn't provide a conclusive answer one way or the other, it does state a case for being able to emphasise one part of a muscle over another (rather than working it exclusively)
I will continue to do decline, flat and incline pressing, not because I want to work a particular part of my chest, but for variety.
Although if, as some argue, the whole pectoral muscle contracts on a bench press irrespective of angle, that would suggest decline would be the best option for most development purely because the most amount of weight can be lifted.
The thing is, even if 10 peer reviewed studies showed no direct correlation between incline/decline pressing affecting upper/lower pecs, BBers would still continue to do them because "that's the way it's always been done" 
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 16:53:25
| |
|
scruffy
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sep. 3 2001
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lord Monkcheese
The pectoralis major is one muscle but with 2 heads. Each head has separate nerve innervations so you should be able to recruit more motor units in the one head over the other if the exercise position dictates that the pull of the muscle requires more of one head to work than the other.
You clearly can't isolate one head over the other, but you can make one do more or less work by changing the angle of the bench.
All IMO of course because I've read conflicting viewpoints on this.
How I convince myself this is true is by looking at my own bench press and the fact that I am stronger in a decline position than an incline position. There is less shoulder involvement in a decline press so where is the extra strength coming from ? It's not simply the reduced ROM, but the chest being mechanically stronger in that position from the recruitment of more sternal head muscle fibres.
That's what I conclude, whether it's accurate though I don't know.
the triceps are heavily involved in decline work, the delts are in a strong position too, for most where strength for benching is concerned a decline angle will produce the most strength, not from the chest but from delts and tri`s, also with the reduced rom this puts powerlifters in an ideal position...
_____________________________
journal http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_1219780/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 16:55:32
| |
|
scruffy
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sep. 3 2001
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
Although if, as some argue, the whole pectoral muscle contracts on a bench press irrespective of angle, that would suggest decline would be the best option for most development purely because the most amount of weight can be lifted.
this is due to the triceps and delts being in a stronger position...i would not agree more pectoral muscle is being used...
_____________________________
journal http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_1219780/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 16:59:18
| |
|
Lord Monkcheese
Posts: 3822
Joined: Feb. 24 2004
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
  My Theory
But what I still don't fully understand then is if the muscle contracts on an all-or-nothing basis, surely flat bench would use the triceps and delts as much as decline or incline? So apart from the ROM, why are you mechanically stronger?
| |
|
|
RE: Decline Bench query - May 8 2008 17:36:54
| |
|
scruffy
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sep. 3 2001
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lord Monkcheese
My Theory
But what I still don't fully understand then is if the muscle contracts on an all-or-nothing basis, surely flat bench would use the triceps and delts as much as decline or incline? So apart from the ROM, why are you mechanically stronger?
i believe lol IMO
the triceps and delts are used more effectively, over a greater range of movement for longer in the lift, the chest is not used a great deal in decline benching (not as much as you think) i have benched over 210kg in my time, my tri`s and delts grew rather large but yet in comparison my chest was still underdeveloped...... i never used to use flat bench as my main stay. but rather declines where i am sure all my strength came from, i have not got the answers to eveything but can only talk from my experiance, it has had the same effect from my training partner too...
_____________________________
journal http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_1219780/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm
| |
|
|
Printable Version
RE: Decline Bench query - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread