Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Need some advice to bring up my upper inner pecs, please help..........
- Thread starter gsxr1000
- Start date
endpoint
New member
http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/PectoralisClavicular.html
not quite sure if thats the area you are talking about.
Under movement is a list of its functions......click on them to get a better idea
not quite sure if thats the area you are talking about.
Under movement is a list of its functions......click on them to get a better idea
Start with low incline (25-35 degrees) dumbellpresses! 3 sets INTENS...
7 reps + 2 assisted forced reps = 9 reps
5 reps + 2 assisted forced reps = 7 reps
5 reps + triple drop set
...do your regular benchpressing thang...
Finish your workout with supersets of upward cable scoops with wide stance pushups
7 reps + 2 assisted forced reps = 9 reps
5 reps + 2 assisted forced reps = 7 reps
5 reps + triple drop set
...do your regular benchpressing thang...
Finish your workout with supersets of upward cable scoops with wide stance pushups
D
Debaser
Guest
How much do you bench and/or dip gsxr?
D
Debaser
Guest
My point:
Most guys who make a post like this bench 100-200 lbs. They don't have a big chest overall. Usually if you get to over a 300 lb bench it will fill out a lot more.
Most guys who make a post like this bench 100-200 lbs. They don't have a big chest overall. Usually if you get to over a 300 lb bench it will fill out a lot more.
BlkWS6
New member
Originally posted by Debaser
My point:
Most guys who make a post like this bench 100-200 lbs. They don't have a big chest overall. Usually if you get to over a 300 lb bench it will fill out a lot more.
Is this a joke? I know guys that bench much more then I do and I still have better chest development. And you can have a "big chest overall" and still have weak points within it. I wish there was some magical number like 300lb where BAM! that chest just fills in lol. Im sorry man but I havent really found from experience a huge correlation between what someone benches and the size of their chest.
Im guessing that his inner area is more an issue of bodyfat then anything else. It seems that when people have issues with this area of the chest, they are most likely still holding on to some fat there which makes it look like it is lagging. Since I have started dieting my chest (which has always been a strong point) has looked bigger and more defined then it has in a while.
My point:
Most guys who make a post like this bench 100-200 lbs. They don't have a big chest overall. Usually if you get to over a 300 lb bench it will fill out a lot more.
Is this a joke? I know guys that bench much more then I do and I still have better chest development. And you can have a "big chest overall" and still have weak points within it. I wish there was some magical number like 300lb where BAM! that chest just fills in lol. Im sorry man but I havent really found from experience a huge correlation between what someone benches and the size of their chest.
Im guessing that his inner area is more an issue of bodyfat then anything else. It seems that when people have issues with this area of the chest, they are most likely still holding on to some fat there which makes it look like it is lagging. Since I have started dieting my chest (which has always been a strong point) has looked bigger and more defined then it has in a while.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Why so many post like this... "how can I fill out my inner pecs/ outer pecs/ lower pecs"? Think about this... if someone were to say on this board:
Muscle shape is NOT genetic.
You can alter the shape of a muscle through training.
...or other such statements, wouldn't they be rediculed and laughed at by anyone who has any knowledge of biology? Yet why do we persist in answering these questions? Either muscle shape is genetic or it isn't. If it is, then you cannot force part of a muscle to develop faster than another, nor can you isolate certain parts of a muscle by changing the grip or angle of a lift. If that is the case, then all you can do is continue to overload that muscle, and all portions of it should grow at a similar rate. It could be that the inner insertions in the pecs are much smaller in thinckness than the meaty part of the muscle, so while a 100% increase in overall pec mass might account 2 extra inches of thickness on the thicker part of the muscle, a 100% incease on this person's inner chest, because it was 1/5th of the thickness of ther belly of the muscle to begin with, so the depth of this part of the muscle has increased by less than 1/2". Or perhaps he is missing that deep cut down the middle that he associates with inner chest development, but it is only body fat or extra subcontanious water that is obscuring it. My advice, continue to develop your chest and clean your diet up a bit, and achieve what you desire. Just my 2 cc's...
Muscle shape is NOT genetic.
You can alter the shape of a muscle through training.
...or other such statements, wouldn't they be rediculed and laughed at by anyone who has any knowledge of biology? Yet why do we persist in answering these questions? Either muscle shape is genetic or it isn't. If it is, then you cannot force part of a muscle to develop faster than another, nor can you isolate certain parts of a muscle by changing the grip or angle of a lift. If that is the case, then all you can do is continue to overload that muscle, and all portions of it should grow at a similar rate. It could be that the inner insertions in the pecs are much smaller in thinckness than the meaty part of the muscle, so while a 100% increase in overall pec mass might account 2 extra inches of thickness on the thicker part of the muscle, a 100% incease on this person's inner chest, because it was 1/5th of the thickness of ther belly of the muscle to begin with, so the depth of this part of the muscle has increased by less than 1/2". Or perhaps he is missing that deep cut down the middle that he associates with inner chest development, but it is only body fat or extra subcontanious water that is obscuring it. My advice, continue to develop your chest and clean your diet up a bit, and achieve what you desire. Just my 2 cc's...
BlkWS6
New member
I thought that we have covered the fact that you can isolate different parts of the muscle, but not anything like individual fibers. 
I argued bodyfat from the start once I heard the "inner chest" problem. Im not quite sure I follow what you are saying Body seems like it was a lot of open ended questions. Care to clarify a little?
I argued bodyfat from the start once I heard the "inner chest" problem. Im not quite sure I follow what you are saying Body seems like it was a lot of open ended questions. Care to clarify a little?
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Sorry about that BlkWS, I'll clairify. You can't reshape a muscle. He needs to develop larger overall pecs, and probably lose some body fat. I guess you already made the same point, as I got near the end I just scanned the last two posts, so I didn't catch that in yours, I reread it carefully and agree with everything you said.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Blk, of course Greco wrote "Recently I have incorporated some close grip incline barbell presses and have notice some change." and others suggested changes in his routine that would somehow magically reshape his chest.
BlkWS6
New member
Originally posted by BodyByFinaplix
Blk, of course Greco wrote "Recently I have incorporated some close grip incline barbell presses and have notice some change." and others suggested changes in his routine that would somehow magically reshape his chest.
Yeah you are right, and this occurs a lot on the forum but it has always made me think. I mean as soon as someone says that are lagging in upper chest, everyone is quick to jump on suggesting incline presses which would once again assume that changing the angle will "hit a different part of the muscle". And I just find it hard to believe that a change in angle or exercise for that matter wouldnt result in a change in which part of a muscle is being stimulated, of course not on an individual fiber level.
Blk, of course Greco wrote "Recently I have incorporated some close grip incline barbell presses and have notice some change." and others suggested changes in his routine that would somehow magically reshape his chest.
Yeah you are right, and this occurs a lot on the forum but it has always made me think. I mean as soon as someone says that are lagging in upper chest, everyone is quick to jump on suggesting incline presses which would once again assume that changing the angle will "hit a different part of the muscle". And I just find it hard to believe that a change in angle or exercise for that matter wouldnt result in a change in which part of a muscle is being stimulated, of course not on an individual fiber level.
D
Debaser
Guest
My guess that the people who experience changes by changing to inclines is something like this:
1. They switch to the incline press.
2. They also sometimes have a new zeal for training, thinking they're gonna start making a good change in their chest.
3. They bring their incline press up by 50+ lbs.
4. They say, "wow my upper chest is bigger"
I wonder if they realize that it's still a press. If they added 50 lbs to their bench, their chest would have grown everywhere too (including the upper and inner areas).
HOWEVER, there is a clavicular head. An incline press may target this area a bit more. This would account for some extra growth.
Here is the big HOWEVER though, you need to concentrate on increasing the load (whether it is over time with strength training or in cycles by HST) to see REAL CHANGES in your pecs.
It's really not a big deal to have both presses in a workout, though. I myself do a set of hammer machine presses as well as a set of barbell inclines.
A PRESS IS STILL A PRESS. Here is where many people make the mistake. They want to just add the exercise into their routine. If your current chest routine is 3 sets of a bench press (and believe me, you don't need any more than that for hypertrophy), you should not add another 3 sets of inclines. Replace a set of flat with a set of incline, and be done with it.
This post was kind of long and rambling so I'll cut it short here
1. They switch to the incline press.
2. They also sometimes have a new zeal for training, thinking they're gonna start making a good change in their chest.
3. They bring their incline press up by 50+ lbs.
4. They say, "wow my upper chest is bigger"
I wonder if they realize that it's still a press. If they added 50 lbs to their bench, their chest would have grown everywhere too (including the upper and inner areas).
HOWEVER, there is a clavicular head. An incline press may target this area a bit more. This would account for some extra growth.
Here is the big HOWEVER though, you need to concentrate on increasing the load (whether it is over time with strength training or in cycles by HST) to see REAL CHANGES in your pecs.
It's really not a big deal to have both presses in a workout, though. I myself do a set of hammer machine presses as well as a set of barbell inclines.
A PRESS IS STILL A PRESS. Here is where many people make the mistake. They want to just add the exercise into their routine. If your current chest routine is 3 sets of a bench press (and believe me, you don't need any more than that for hypertrophy), you should not add another 3 sets of inclines. Replace a set of flat with a set of incline, and be done with it.
This post was kind of long and rambling so I'll cut it short here
BlkWS6
New member
Originally posted by Debaser
HOWEVER, there is a clavicular head. An incline press may target this area a bit more. This would account for some extra growth.
Yeah I agree with what you just said man, but this is the part that Im really interested about. I mean if a press is a press and a row is a row etc. it is strange that we often associate something for "width" and something for "thickness" (using back training as one example) Since you are a big advocate of DC training, why do you think he calls for an exercise for both? I mean essentially wouldnt a deadlift hit everything one would need to hit (width, and thickness) if we are following the logic of one exercise basically stimulating all parts of a muscle, as opposed to changing angles in an attempt to stimulate a different head???
HOWEVER, there is a clavicular head. An incline press may target this area a bit more. This would account for some extra growth.
Yeah I agree with what you just said man, but this is the part that Im really interested about. I mean if a press is a press and a row is a row etc. it is strange that we often associate something for "width" and something for "thickness" (using back training as one example) Since you are a big advocate of DC training, why do you think he calls for an exercise for both? I mean essentially wouldnt a deadlift hit everything one would need to hit (width, and thickness) if we are following the logic of one exercise basically stimulating all parts of a muscle, as opposed to changing angles in an attempt to stimulate a different head???
gsxr1000
New member
Thanks for all the advice guys.
I always work out alone, so I usually won't go higher than about 250 lbs. I can't really do much higher than that and retain good form, so there's no real point to it. I can max at 300, but I'm not trying to powerlift. I usually don't do weighted dips since I usually end up doing them at the end of a workout for one last pump and by then most of my strength is gone. But I'll try incorporating some the movements you guys mentioned above, again I appreciate the input.
I always work out alone, so I usually won't go higher than about 250 lbs. I can't really do much higher than that and retain good form, so there's no real point to it. I can max at 300, but I'm not trying to powerlift. I usually don't do weighted dips since I usually end up doing them at the end of a workout for one last pump and by then most of my strength is gone. But I'll try incorporating some the movements you guys mentioned above, again I appreciate the input.
D
Debaser
Guest
BlkWS6 said:Originally posted by Debaser
HOWEVER, there is a clavicular head. An incline press may target this area a bit more. This would account for some extra growth.
Yeah I agree with what you just said man, but this is the part that Im really interested about. I mean if a press is a press and a row is a row etc. it is strange that we often associate something for "width" and something for "thickness" (using back training as one example) Since you are a big advocate of DC training, why do you think he calls for an exercise for both? I mean essentially wouldnt a deadlift hit everything one would need to hit (width, and thickness) if we are following the logic of one exercise basically stimulating all parts of a muscle, as opposed to changing angles in an attempt to stimulate a different head???
I can't remember how DC distinguishes the two exactly, but a major reason to do both is to have pulling movements in both the horizontal and vertical plane. Rowing is important as you need to keep your horizontal pulling strength in balance with your pushing, otherwise your shoulders will be pulled forward. Rows also seem to hit your traps a lot more. In my opinion rows are really a superior exercise to pullups/pulldowns, but I feel both should be done.
I agree completely. The human chest/back/shoulder interactive system is designed essentially for one thing: To allow pushing and pulling in a complete 360 degree sphere around the center of the body.
Significantly changing the angle of a push/pull will significantly change the muscle contribution to the movement. For instance, a vertical pull is mostly lats and lower traps, a horizontal pull mostly middle/upper traps and rhomboids. I, like Debaser, think a complete routine should include both.
-casualbb
Significantly changing the angle of a push/pull will significantly change the muscle contribution to the movement. For instance, a vertical pull is mostly lats and lower traps, a horizontal pull mostly middle/upper traps and rhomboids. I, like Debaser, think a complete routine should include both.
-casualbb
bignate73
New member
as for DC advocating "width" and "thickness" exercises:
"width" referring to exercises that are lat dominant. pulldowns/pullups are primarily involving the lats.
"thickness" is calling for more upper/mid traps (as casualbb said), movements that row or at the least retract the shoulder blades under resistance (deadlifts do so with isometric contraction for the most part).
that is my take on it.
magman1
New member
i dont agree with the "only need one pressing exercise"--its like saying if u do barbell curls, thats ur bicep workout--ur chest is one of ur largest muscles, and if ur hitting it once a week, flat and incline is fine--i really dont believe flat adequately develops ur upper pecs(yeah, i know all the shit about how ur pec is only two pieces)--i didnt do incline for my first year of working out-my flat was pretty strong, but i looked like a fuckin moron with no upper chest
JollyRogers
New member
Debaser said:
lol ya think so... ?
Similar threads
