My [Least] favorite training myths.

[Debaser]

This is still the real world. It seems pretty common for this type of situation to occur:

1. Bob flat benches 180. He complains that he has no upper chest.

2. Steve claims that his full upper chest is the result of incline presses. He said he never does flat presses anymore, and inclines 350 lbs.

3. Bob takes his advice. Bob drops flat presses and over the next couple years takes his incline to 350 lbs. "Wow, he was right," he says, "my upper chest is awesome now!"

4. Then Jim comes along, complains he has no upper chest and Bob tells him incline presses do the trick.

It's obvious to see how easily misinformation can be spread. When I was saying correlation doesn't imply causation, this is exactly what that means. He equated having an upper chest to the fact that he did inclines, where he should have equated it to the fact that he increased his poundage greatly, and any pressing movement would have done the same thing given this increase.

And no exodus, because that claim was never substantiated. There was no original backing of these claims. They essentially made shit up, or misinterpreted the facts to a laughable degree. I actually just read a magazine which finally admits that they fucked up (of course not in their words), in a sense, by saying that lab tests show that inclines really are inferior as a chest movement compared to flat benches and declines.

 

[Exodus]

well...... how can you say that bob, jim and whoever is wrong.

if it made the first guy's chest big, then the 2nd, then the 3rd...... thats kinda what i call reality. kinda like if i stab myself i will bleed becuase the 2 guys infront of me did it. if inclines keep producing results for people........ and im going to be annoying, but you didnt provide any scientific proof that they are wrong...... isnt that just your opinion then???

X

 

[slobberknocker]

Well Debaser, how about this. Just do flat bench for a while, and then post a pic and show us how massive your upper chest is. Then I will believe you.

 

[JOKER47]

Because you initiated the thread, and made the challenges.

The challenger bears the burden of proof.

Exodus and I think alike.....

 

[Debaser]

well...... how can you say that bob, jim and whoever is wrong.

if it made the first guy's chest big, then the 2nd, then the 3rd...... thats kinda what i call reality. kinda like if i stab myself i will bleed becuase the 2 guys infront of me did it. if inclines keep producing results for people........ and im going to be annoying, but you didnt provide any scientific proof that they are wrong...... isnt that just your opinion then???

X

Out of curiousity, how much do you think scott mendelson focuses on incline pressing? His upper chest isn't too bad.

Even better, how about any of the bodybuilding old-timers, I've seen many of them with thick chests and incline pressing was unheard of in that era.

Slobber I pretty much do only dips for chest. So when I post my pics we'll see what a devotion to a single, non-incline push movement will net in terms of gains. Keep in mind that since this will be at about the 2-year progress mark, my chest won't be "massive," but you'll see that there isn't a weakness in the upper part.

 

[Exodus]

Out of curiousity, how much do you think scott mendelson focuses on incline pressing? His upper chest isn't too bad.

Even better, how about any of the bodybuilding old-timers, I've seen many of them with thick chests and incline pressing was unheard of in that era.

i dont think he does incline at all......... and his upper chest is good. but not compared to his lower pecs.......... much much thicker. for example. when my best friend graduated high school and started working out with me........ looked at my calf's first day were in the gym........"dang they sure do look good. thier big!!!"

then a few days later we did legs, i wore shorter shorts and he saw my legs......."ok, i take back the calfs statement, the look good, but not compared to the size of your legs. like right now....... i have 19 inch calfs........ thats great, but i have 33 inch thighs......... so they dont look big at all.

besides..... the stronger you get, the thicker you get...... scott can flat bench press over 700lbs with no bench shirt........... how about bob, tim, john all those common guys we see in the gym...... do any of them have a raw 700lb bench??..no. after you get to that size, everything looks big. besides these guys want to get the upper chest equal to the lower chest, not bigger or smaller.

and for the old schoolers......... Arnold said after he won his 2nd or third olympia, he switched to Inclines first in his chest routine and got rid of weighted dips ( which is basically a decline bench) becuase he said he was getting "boobs"

X

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

besides..... the stronger you get, the thicker you get...... scott can flat bench press over 700lbs with no bench shirt........... how about bob, tim, john all those common guys we see in the gym...... do any of them have a raw 700lb bench??..no. after you get to that size, everything looks big. besides these guys want to get the upper chest equal to the lower chest, not bigger or smaller.



X

that is EXACTLY debaser's point.Well done bro..you just learned something

 

[SlavikHavik]

Well ill tell you.
the person who was teaching the PT cert course i just completed. This guy used to be a COMPETITIVE powerlifter, squatting in the mid 800's benching in the high 500's and this was in the 70-80's
He is also one of the directors and main coaches on the canadian SPI (sports preformance institute) which works with canadian olympic athletes who are high end COMPETITIVE athletes.
He also carries out many studies about athleticism at SPI and keeps himself updated on whats being learned in the world of bodymovement.

So heres a guy who is a competitive athlete, works with competitive athletes, and has a huge ammount of scientific data backing up what hes saying....

and what does he say about flat bench:
Flat bench will hit your upper pecs to a greater degree than incline.

 

[muscledog95]

you always talk about "in 2 yrs"? So what are your stats now?

 

[Cuthbert]

This is still the real world. It seems pretty common for this type of situation to occur:

1. Bob flat benches 180. He complains that he has no upper chest.

2. Steve claims that his full upper chest is the result of incline presses. He said he never does flat presses anymore, and inclines 350 lbs.

3. Bob takes his advice. Bob drops flat presses and over the next couple years takes his incline to 350 lbs. "Wow, he was right," he says, "my upper chest is awesome now!"

4. Then Jim comes along, complains he has no upper chest and Bob tells him incline presses do the trick.

It's obvious to see how easily misinformation can be spread. When I was saying correlation doesn't imply causation, this is exactly what that means. He equated having an upper chest to the fact that he did inclines, where he should have equated it to the fact that he increased his poundage greatly, and any pressing movement would have done the same thing given this increase.

I see your point, Debaser.

BUT

How do we know that their upper chest would be the same size had they focused on flat instead of incline?