Rippetoe on chest exercises

[PoweredUp]

I've been reading Mark Rippetoe's latest book, and he points out that if you do flat bench pressing and overhead pressing in your routine, then it is pointless to do the incline bench press. He also said that there is no reason to ever do the decline bench press, as he considers that exercise a waste of time. I don't believe he even talks about dumbbell flyes through the entire book, which pretty much shows just how important they are (not at all). I've read quite a few articles recently that talk about flyes being nothing more tha a single-joint isolation movement that should be eliminated from your routine.

So in the end, assuming that you do overhead presses, then there are only 3 chest exercises worth doing - barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, and dips. Anything else will be far less effective at building muscle.

 

[chaos13]

i dont' know about that......i don't feel the top part of my chest being hit very well from flat bench or overhead.....i would still include an incline press in my chest workout.

 

[PoweredUp]

i dont' know about that......i don't feel the top part of my chest being hit very well from flat bench or overhead.....i would still include an incline press in my chest workout.

The idea that the incline works the "top" of the chest is actually a fallacy. The chest is one large muscle, and you can not isolate one part of it form another during an exercise.

When you do an incline press, all you are really doing is putting yourself in a position that forces you to drop the amount of weight that you can lift. The incline can be used in place of the overhead press to hit the shoulders (notice in the 5x5 that on Wednesday you have the option between the incline or military), but for the chest the flat bench is the optimal position.

 

[billfred]

I disagree on the flies but I am just an amateur.

One of the chest muscles primary function is to bring the arm across the body which is what the fly is. I believe I get more pump from that than the bench - but hey that is just me.

 

[PoweredUp]

I disagree on the flies but I am just an amateur.

One of the chest muscles primary function is to bring the arm across the body which is what the fly is. I believe I get more pump from that than the bench - but hey that is just me.

Here is what Jeff Willet (2X Team Universe Champion - all natural bodybuilder) says about flyes, and I agree with him completely:

"The first thing you need to ask yourself before choosing an exercise is: Will this provide maximum overload?

Flyes are an isolation movement for the chest because they remove the triceps and shoulders out of the movement. However, isolation reduces overload. Less overload means less muscle fiber stimulation.

Another reason people mistakenly do flyes is to shape the muscle. Let me make this perfectly clear, you cannot change the genetic shape of your muscles. You can make them bigger which may appear to change the shape, but you cannot change the genetically predetermined shape of your muscles.

Flyes are basically a worthless exercise in my book. You expend a lot of energy for a little overload. Flyes are not efficient."

 

[lanny]

HELL YEAH TO THAT!!!

i do OHP's AND barbell banch! but OHP's are H-A-R-D to increase!!!! HELP!! i've got a journal here, tune in!! =)

 

[billfred]

Here is what Jeff Willet (2X Team Universe Champion - all natural bodybuilder) says about flyes, and I agree with him completely:

"The first thing you need to ask yourself before choosing an exercise is: Will this provide maximum overload?

Flyes are an isolation movement for the chest because they remove the triceps and shoulders out of the movement. However, isolation reduces overload. Less overload means less muscle fiber stimulation.

Another reason people mistakenly do flyes is to shape the muscle. Let me make this perfectly clear, you cannot change the genetic shape of your muscles. You can make them bigger which may appear to change the shape, but you cannot change the genetically predetermined shape of your muscles.

Flyes are basically a worthless exercise in my book. You expend a lot of energy for a little overload. Flyes are not efficient."

I am once again going to call BS on this guy. Just becuase you are able to lift more weights in a certain excersise does not mean it is the most important to build that muscle group.

With flat bench, you are using a lot more than just your chest muscles to lift the weight, hence the increase load. Flyes (sic) are more concentrated on just the pectoral major and therefore a perfect exercise for isolating that muscle.

 

[PoweredUp]

I am once again going to call BS on this guy. Just becuase you are able to lift more weights in a certain excersise does not mean it is the most important to build that muscle group.

With flat bench, you are using a lot more than just your chest muscles to lift the weight, hence the increase load. Flyes (sic) are more concentrated on just the pectoral major and therefore a perfect exercise for isolating that muscle.

Since when is isolation a positive? The reason that compound exercises are the bread and butter of any routine is because they work the whole body as a system. Because the flat bench press incorporates so many other muscles is why it is vastly superior to an exercise like the fly.

Dumbbell flyes isolate the chest, and therefore it becomes a far less effective and efficient movement because it does not work the body as a system. Fewer muscles involved means less muscle fiber stimulation, which means less weight can be lifted, which in the end means less muscle growth.

 

[billfred]

Since when is isolation a positive? The reason that compound exercises are the bread and butter of any routine is because they work the whole body as a system. Because the flat bench press incorporates so many other muscles is why it is vastly superior to an exercise like the fly.

Dumbbell flyes isolate the chest, and therefore it becomes a far less effective and efficient movement because it does not work the body as a system. Fewer muscles involved means less muscle fiber stimulation, which means less weight can be lifted, which in the end means less muscle growth.

You are making my argument for me. If you want to work the chest, the fly is a very effective exercise. I did not say you don't use the bench either. Both are a perfect combo. To say you don't do flyes because you can't lift as much is idiotic.

 

[lanny]

then again, u're the amateur..

 

[silver_shadow]

then again, u're the amateur..

+1 and it's showing.

 

[djeclipse]

You are making my argument for me. If you want to work the chest, the fly is a very effective exercise. I did not say you don't use the bench either. Both are a perfect combo. To say you don't do flyes because you can't lift as much is idiotic.

Go back and read what PoweredUp told you a few posts back. Don't be so ignorant, stop reading those BS muscle mags that are simply there to try and sell you worthless supplements that you don't need. And most of all don't listen to the ignorant guys at your gym that tell you you have to hit the chest, bies, tries form "different angles" becasue they are moron's.

The idea that the incline works the "top" of the chest is actually a fallacy. The chest is one large muscle, and you can not isolate one part of it form another during an exercise.

When you do an incline press, all you are really doing is putting yourself in a position that forces you to drop the amount of weight that you can lift. The incline can be used in place of the overhead press to hit the shoulders (notice in the 5x5 that on Wednesday you have the option between the incline or military), but for the chest the flat bench is the optimal position.

Read the above 5 times and then go to here and really read what Madcow is saying. Lifting core movements, adding weight to the bar every week is the best way to gain strength and grow.

http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/index.htm

 

[PoweredUp]

Go back and read what PoweredUp told you a few posts back. Don't be so ignorant, stop reading those BS muscle mags that are simply there to try and sell you worthless supplements that you don't need. And most of all don't listen to the ignorant guys at your gym that tell you you have to hit the chest, bies, tries form "different angles" becasue they are moron's.

Who said they got any info from a muscle magazine and who said anything about supplements?

Read the above 5 times and then go to here and really read what Madcow is saying. Lifting core movements, adding weight to the bar every week is the best way to gain strength and grow.

http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/index.htm

Madcow and I are on the same page. Did you see dumbbell flyes included anywhere in his 5x5? I'm not sure how you make the argument "Lifting core movements, adding weight to the bar every week is the best way to gain strength and grow" and then at the same time you talk about dumbbell flyes being a worthwhile movement.

 

[djeclipse]

Who said they got any info from a muscle magazine and who said anything about supplements?

That is usually where they get crappy info like that, they always have those rediculous "get big quick" workouts that involve a bunch of isolation crap.

Madcow and I are on the same page. Did you see dumbbell flyes included anywhere in his 5x5? I'm not sure how you make the argument "Lifting core movements, adding weight to the bar every week is the best way to gain strength and grow" and then at the same time you talk about dumbbell flyes being a worthwhile movement.

Go back and re-read my post dude, where do I mention dumbell flies anywhere in my post? I don't waste my time with shit like that. Slow down and re-read my post, I was talking to billfred

 

[PoweredUp]

You are making my argument for me. If you want to work the chest, the fly is a very effective exercise. I did not say you don't use the bench either. Both are a perfect combo. To say you don't do flyes because you can't lift as much is idiotic.

The fly is as effective for the chest as the preacher curl machine is for the bicep. It will have minimal impact, if any. Flyes are an isolation movement, and strict isolation movements are well beyond second fiddle.

You said that to claim that flyes are worthless because you can't lift as much is "idiotic." Well why would you say that? The chest is one large muscle, and we know that to get muscles to grow we have to continue increasing the weight, and that should be done through heavy compound movements. The only exercises that effectively allow this to happen are flat bench presses (barbell and dumbbell) and weighted dips. Anything else like flyes, cable cross-overs, etc is a complete waste of your time and energy.

 

[PoweredUp]

Go back and re-read my post dude, where do I mention dumbell flies anywhere in my post? I don't waste my time with shit like that. Slow down and re-read my post, I was talking to billfred

You know what...your icon was very similar to billfred's which is why I thought I was responding to him. Sorry about that!

 

[djeclipse]

You know what...your icon was very similar to billfred's which is why I thought I was responding to him. Sorry about that!

It's all good.

Cheers

 

[thebadguy54]

I've been reading Mark Rippetoe's latest book, and he points out that if you do flat bench pressing and overhead pressing in your routine, then it is pointless to do the incline bench press. He also said that there is no reason to ever do the decline bench press, as he considers that exercise a waste of time. I don't believe he even talks about dumbbell flyes through the entire book, which pretty much shows just how important they are (not at all). I've read quite a few articles recently that talk about flyes being nothing more tha a single-joint isolation movement that should be eliminated from your routine.

So in the end, assuming that you do overhead presses, then there are only 3 chest exercises worth doing - barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, and dips. Anything else will be far less effective at building muscle.

I agree.

Although, many on here will disagree and think that they know better than Rip.

They don't.

 

[dabuffguy]

You are making my argument for me. If you want to work the chest, the fly is a very effective exercise. I did not say you don't use the bench either. Both are a perfect combo. To say you don't do flyes because you can't lift as much is idiotic.

I think you make a good point in that the fly can have additional benefit, sure. But, it is small in comparison to the press.

 

[lanny]

owned.

 

[djeclipse]

billfred must have ordered this book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHn1Rg0cRI&NR=1

lol

 

[billfred]

Check out this dumb fucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A88TFNAvgN8

 

[PoweredUp]

Check out this dumb fucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A88TFNAvgN8

Just because Arnold did flyes does not mean that it is an effective exercise. And I know you're probably going to say "Look at Arnold!!! How can you criticize his routine???" Arnold no doubt built his chest through heavy pressing, and he probably assumed (along with many people still to this day) that flyes were more of a sculpting exercise. We now know scientifically that you can not change the shape of your muscles. You can only increase the size. Flyes will not achieve that goal. And for all I know, he was just warming up for his pressing...

PS - what's up with the name calling? Dumb fucker? Come on...

 

[dabuffguy]

Check out this dumb fucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A88TFNAvgN8

LOL


The fly is a good excercise IMO. I enjoy doing it, and I can only acheive a solid pump in the middle of my chest where it divides (sternum) only by doing flys. I feel it is a beneficial excercise that everyone should include. Now, it is not the mass builder a press is by any means, but there is added benefit for sure.

 

[djeclipse]

LOL


The fly is a good excercise IMO. I enjoy doing it, and I can only acheive a solid pump in the middle of my chest where it divides (sternum) only by doing flys. I feel it is a beneficial excercise that everyone should include. Now, it is not the mass builder a press is by any means, but there is added benefit for sure.

You do realise that the "pump" you feel/ are referring to has absolutley nothing to do with muscle growth and is not any way to gauge how well you have trained.

 

[PoweredUp]

The fly is a good excercise IMO. I enjoy doing it, and I can only acheive a solid pump in the middle of my chest where it divides (sternum) only by doing flys. I feel it is a beneficial excercise that everyone should include. Now, it is not the mass builder a press is by any means, but there is added benefit for sure.

If you acknowledge that it isn't a mass builder, then why do it? Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the goal of lifting weights isn't to add more muscle, then why are we doing it? After throwing up 315 lbs on the bench, I wouldn't see any possible benefit to following that up by grabbing a pair of 50 lb dumbbells to do flyes. Maybe it gives a great pump. So what? Almost any isolation exercise will. I want the movements that will actually build muscle.

 

[SouthernLord]

I can't believe I just read all of this. You guys are like a bunch of girls.

 

[lanny]

poweredup : lifting is gaining mass, am i right? so, maybe they're not here to gain mass?

josephus : its called KNOWLEDGE! u BUM!!

 

[Tweakle]

No, it most certainly is not.

You would be very hard pressed (pun intended) to find someone above the intermediate level who trains for size and doesn't do some degree of isolation work, which should always be done for many sets of high reps imo to prevent overstressing already weary joints and tendons.

Flyes I don't personally do (beyond the DC extreme stretch for chest), but rear delt work, biceps, calves, abs, hams, laterals, pushdowns all have a place. Not to mention all kinds of pre-rehab work for adductors, hips, glutes which you have to do if you don't want to crumble under a heavy workload.

I would venture to say that most people doing the basic 'squat three times a week' are probably not lifting enough to grind them down if they tried to train on compound only.

 

[lanny]

well, for ppl like me doing the basic squat three times a week, is just not really big enuff to do any other isolation work, cuz if not i'll look shity small n HUGE! so i dont want that, need to gain size FIRST!

 

[SouthernLord]

poweredup : lifting is gaining mass, am i right? so, maybe they're not here to gain mass?

josephus : its called KNOWLEDGE! u BUM!!

Come on bro? Knowledge? Well my dad can beat up your mom. All you guys sound like a bunch of newbs with this shit.

 

[PoweredUp]

Come on bro? Knowledge? Well my dad can beat up your mom. All you guys sound like a bunch of newbs with this shit.

I'm not quite sure why you're viewing it the way that you are. The goal here (at least from my angle) was to provide information so that people are not wasting their time and energy trying to add on muscle size. Their is fairly conclusive scientific data that flyes are nowhere near the same zip code as heavy pressing amd dips in terms of growing the chest muscle. So its not quite the same as "My dad can beat up your dad." If the thread doesn't interest you personally, then don't get involved.

 

[lanny]

its My dad can beat up your mum..

i think he's prolly 15... sheesh.. continue with the fly's and bence arguement.. its good thing to know.. i saw someone doing the DB bench, and the going for incline, then doing flies the other day.. he's kinda big, twice my size.. but i think he was originally fat...=.=

and i rmbr'd reading something about doing incline is useless once we do Barbell bench..?

 

[PoweredUp]

and i rmbr'd reading something about doing incline is useless once we do Barbell bench..?

Not quite. Rippetoe says that if you do BOTH flat bench presses and overhead presses (military or push) then the incline is rendered useless. If you don't do the military or push presses, then the incline is fine. The decline is pointless at all times.

 

[silver_shadow]

Come on bro? Knowledge? Well my dad can beat up your mom. All you guys sound like a bunch of newbs with this shit.

that's a childish argument.

 

[lanny]

oo.. well i do the flat bench AND the OHP... which OHP is farkin hard to increase!!

 

[djeclipse]

oo.. well i do the flat bench AND the OHP... which OHP is farkin hard to increase!!

Try going up 2.5lbs instead of 5lbs/ week, it helps keep the weight moving.

 

[SouthernLord]

I'm not quite sure why you're viewing it the way that you are. The goal here (at least from my angle) was to provide information so that people are not wasting their time and energy trying to add on muscle size. Their is fairly conclusive scientific data that flyes are nowhere near the same zip code as heavy pressing amd dips in terms of growing the chest muscle. So its not quite the same as "My dad can beat up your dad." If the thread doesn't interest you personally, then don't get involved.

You're right. I should have stayed out of it. I do agree with the bench and dips being superior to flyes. Actually Dips are about as complete as a chest exercise as you can get. But is is all relative. I have trained for PL and competed and I have trained for purely cosmetic reasons and put on mass. Flyes are used by almost every bodybuilder and they do help with size gain in the chest. Are they superior to dips and bench? No. The "My dad can beat up your mom" was a joke and directed to Lenny who called me a "BUM". Btw lenny, I have read your log and my squat is bigger than your squat/bench/dead combined so stf and go eat something.

 

[djeclipse]

You're right. I should have stayed out of it. I do agree with the bench and dips being superior to flyes. Actually Dips are about as complete as a chest exercise as you can get. But is is all relative. I have trained for PL and competed and I have trained for purely cosmetic reasons and put on mass. Flyes are used by almost every bodybuilder and they do help with size gain in the chest. Are they superior to dips and bench? No. The "My dad can beat up your mom" was a joke and directed to Lenny who called me a "BUM". Btw lenny, I have read your log and my squat is bigger than your squat/bench/dead combined so stf and go eat something.

lanny is just starting out, but he is on the right track with good training. You've been training longer and I would hope that your lifts would be more.

 

[SouthernLord]

lanny is just starting out, but he is on the right track with good training. You've been training longer and I would hope that your lifts would be more.

You're right he is on the right track, and I am a disgruntled asshole. I think I might shoot him some K. Peace

 

[lanny]

wow.. were u trying to scare me off with ur training n compteting? cuz erm.. it din really matter to me... and its L*A*NNY. with an "A". well, squatting MORE than my squat + dl + bench, and u still talk like that.. seriously, wat use are u being that good at lifting with an attitude like yours? talking about ppl's mum's... get a grip will ya?

 

[lanny]

and why did u send me karma points?

 

[SouthernLord]

and why did u send me karma points?

Because I was an ass. My posts came off in the wrong tone. I was only joking/being sarcastic and sometimes that does not come off very well over the internet. Anyway I have officially derailed this thread and I apologize.

 

[djeclipse]

Props to jocephus, most people would never appologise (sp?) on the message board.

Lanny, take the K and say thx, he is trying to make good.

 

[binö]

the only thing that gets worked when i do flys is my rotator cuff
hurts something fierce, fuck flys

 

[lanny]

LOL! jocep, i know wat u mean, when u try to be sarcastic over the net, it just comes out WRONG... muzhahahaa.. i was also fooling around.. but i guess it didn't turn out right.. BOTTOMS UP dude! DRINK! i'm sorry too.. SO K is KARMA.. i thought i was man juice... LOL! haha.. i never did flies.. but i'm learning alot here.. BEGINNER IN THE HOUSE>.<

 

[mad_monkey59]

The idea that the incline works the "top" of the chest is actually a fallacy. The chest is one large muscle, and you can not isolate one part of it form another during an exercise.

When you do an incline press, all you are really doing is putting yourself in a position that forces you to drop the amount of weight that you can lift. The incline can be used in place of the overhead press to hit the shoulders (notice in the 5x5 that on Wednesday you have the option between the incline or military), but for the chest the flat bench is the optimal position.

You can, infact target the upper and lower parts of your chest.

Decline is superfluous because the flat bench works the lower part of the chest fine.

But there is value in doing inclines. The muscle fibres move from you strenum and outward so it is possible to train up and down the pec (but not in and out which gets wrongly bounded around by alot of people.)

 

[PoweredUp]

You can, infact target the upper and lower parts of your chest.

You can target them, but the entire chest muscle is going to move the load, so there is no reason to press from an inclined position (at least not when trying to work the chest). You want to press from the position that allows you to move the greatst amount of weight (flat bench).

 

[djeclipse]

You can, infact target the upper and lower parts of your chest.

Decline is superfluous because the flat bench works the lower part of the chest fine.

But there is value in doing inclines. The muscle fibres move from you strenum and outward so it is possible to train up and down the pec (but not in and out which gets wrongly bounded around by alot of people.)

Don't believe the hype dude.

There is no upper, loser left quadrant, right quadrant or what ever the latest BS bb mag is telling you.

The chest muscle is one muscle, the only thing you can do to it is make it grow and if you want it to stand out more remove the fat that is on top of it. You can't change the shape of your muscle no matter how hard you try, lol

Listen to PoweredUp.

 

[PoweredUp]

Don't believe the hype dude.

There is no upper, loser left quadrant, right quadrant or what ever the latest BS bb mag is telling you.

The chest muscle is one muscle, the only thing you can do to it is make it grow and if you want it to stand out more remove the fat that is on top of it. You can't change the shape of your muscle no matter how hard you try, lol

Listen to PoweredUp.

Sadly - dj - I think you and I are on an island along with very few others regarding the necessity of the incline bench press.

 

[deathdroprob]

To Contradict most peopele in this thread, when I threw some Incline Flies into my routine I notcied my upper chest grow wider a tiny bit and I had better "cleavage".

Why not do flies, they dont stop you from doing Press or Dips?

 

[mad_monkey59]

Don't believe the hype dude.

There is no upper, loser left quadrant, right quadrant or what ever the latest BS bb mag is telling you.

The chest muscle is one muscle, the only thing you can do to it is make it grow and if you want it to stand out more remove the fat that is on top of it. You can't change the shape of your muscle no matter how hard you try, lol

Listen to PoweredUp.

"You can target them, but the entire chest muscle is going to move the load, so there is no reason to press from an inclined position (at least not when trying to work the chest). You want to press from the position that allows you to move the greatst amount of weight (flat bench). - Powered Up"

The two of you are actually disagreeing with each other here.

Poweredup is saying you can target upper and lower but the optimal position is flat.

DJeclipse is arguing that you cannot target and it therefore is superfluous.

My argument is that targeting the upper chest is:
a) Possible
b) Beneficial to your development

I don't read BS magazines, I am a scientist, I know how muscles work and I am going to have to respectivly disagree with both of you on this one.



- Don't quote me on this, but it might be interesting to note that I think I read an artical from Madcow which dispelled the inner outer thing, but then agreed with the up and down thing. I had a quick look and can't find it, but it might be worth a plat doing a good search and having a look for it.

 

[PoweredUp]

"You can target them, but the entire chest muscle is going to move the load, so there is no reason to press from an inclined position (at least not when trying to work the chest). You want to press from the position that allows you to move the greatst amount of weight (flat bench). - Powered Up"

The two of you are actually disagreeing with each other here.

Poweredup is saying you can target upper and lower but the optimal position is flat.

DJeclipse is arguing that you cannot target and it therefore is superfluous.

My argument is that targeting the upper chest is:
a) Possible
b) Beneficial to your development

I don't read BS magazines, I am a scientist, I know how muscles work and I am going to have to respectivly disagree with both of you on this one.



- Don't quote me on this, but it might be interesting to note that I think I read an artical from Madcow which dispelled the inner outer thing, but then agreed with the up and down thing. I had a quick look and can't find it, but it might be worth a plat doing a good search and having a look for it.

When I said that you can "target" the upper chest, it was somewhat of a sarcastic comment. My comment was meant to point out that you can target it all you want, but there is no way to isolate that portion of you chest in hopes of growing it more than the rest of your chest. The entire chest muscle is going to move the load.

 

[MetalDead]

Flyes have definitely worked for me. I believe Rippetoe states flyes as useless during HIS PROGRAM. If you follow his program, which is dedicated to doing simple compound exercises that hit lots of muscles, hard, then you don't need to isolate the chest and do flyes. However, if you're on your own program, and you have a chest + triceps day or whatever, then flyes (in my humble opinion) are a very useful exercise in helping your chest grow (I do them after I bench and after I dip).

Also, I am positive you cannot "isolate" the upper or lower chest, that's basically common sense, though I think it might be possible to do certain exercises that work the upper and lower chest harder than when you just do flat bench (though you're still using your entire chest, just the top or bottom is emphasized). I've tried researching this (via the lazy-man's research tool: google) and I just find tons of sites for, and tons of sites against being able to emphasize the top or bottom of the chest. I don't know...

Even if inclines did emphasize the upper chest, I doubt it would be enough to make much of a difference at all.

 

[djeclipse]

Sadly - dj - I think you and I are on an island along with very few others regarding the necessity of the incline bench press.

Unfortunately on this baord and in most gym's yes, we are a small frew.

But here, on this board people actually know what they are talking about, we are not alone, lol

http://www.afboard.com/forum/

 

[djeclipse]

DJeclipse is arguing that you cannot target and it therefore is superfluous.

You miss understood me. I am not saying you can not target the chest, I am saying there is no way to target the "upper, lower, left, right, inner, outter bla, bla, bla.

The chest muscle is one muscle, there is no sections to it. Heavy flat bench with proper form is the best way to make it grow.

Incline bench is not as effective as it incorporates more shoulder recrutiment then when on flat bench.

It is that simple.

 

[djeclipse]

Also, I am positive byou cannot "isolate" the upper or lower chest, that's basically common sense, though I think it might be possible to do certain exercises that work the upper and lower chest harder than when you just do flat bench (though you're still using your entire chest, just the top or bottom is emphasized). I've tried researching this (via the lazy-man's research tool: google) and I just find tons of sites for, and tons of sites against being able to emphasize the top or bottom of the chest. I don't know...

You just contradicted your self here, lol

 

[djeclipse]

- Don't quote me on this, but it might be interesting to note that I think I read an artical from Madcow which dispelled the inner outer thing, but then agreed with the up and down thing. I had a quick look and can't find it, but it might be worth a plat doing a good search and having a look for it.

I would love to see it as I have read just about everything Madcow has written and I don't rememebr that.

 

[PoweredUp]

Flyes have definitely worked for me. I believe Rippetoe states flyes as useless during HIS PROGRAM. If you follow his program, which is dedicated to doing simple compound exercises that hit lots of muscles, hard, then you don't need to isolate the chest and do flyes.

Well just to be clear, Rippetoe emphasizes the exercises that will produce the most strength, which in turn means that they are the exercises that will add the most size. He stresses 5 exercises - the Squat, Bench Press, Deadlift, Power Cleans, and the Press (military/push). Rippetoe also states that the Barbell Row can be done in place of the Power Clean if desired.

Now, these aren't the only 5-6 exercises that he covers in his book. He also mentions any and all assistance exercises that would be beneficial to the heavy compound lifts. Those include things like rack pulls, front squats, chin-ups, good mornings, incline presses (which again - he states aren't necessary if you do bench presses and overhead presses), dips, hyper extensions, tricep extensions, and curls. When you read the book you can tell that he isn't real high on recommending bicep curls, but says that since he knows most guys are going to do them anyway then he would rather they know the correct way to do them.

Nowehere, and I mean nowehere, are dumbbell flyes mentioned. If they had any benefit for increasing strength, then they would be included in his extremely detailed book.

 

[djeclipse]

Well just to be clear, Rippetoe emphasizes the exercises that will produce the most strength, which in turn means that they are the exercises that will add the most size. He stresses 5 exercises - the Squat, Bench Press, Deadlift, Power Cleans, and the Press (military/push). Rippetoe also states that the Barbell Row can be done in place of the Power Clean if desired.

Now, these aren't the only 5-6 exercises that he covers in his book. He also mentions any and all assistance exercises that would be beneficial to the heavy compound lifts. Those include things like rack pulls, front squats, chin-ups, good mornings, incline presses (which again - he states aren't necessary if you do bench presses and overhead presses), dips, hyper extensions, tricep extensions, and curls. When you read the book you can tell that he isn't real high on recommending bicep curls, but says that since he knows most guys are going to do them anyway then he would rather they know the correct way to do them.

Nowehere, and I mean nowehere, are dumbbell flyes mentioned. If they had any benefit for increasing strength, then they would be included in his extremely detailed book.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to PoweredUp again.


Cheers

 

[herblcure]

Here is what I don't get. Muscle fiber, tissue, all that shit...relates back to science. Could you imagine if someone who could simply eat anything they saw and never gain a pound, wrote a book telling us that donuts and cookies are just as effective at losing weight as chicken and vegies.

Bringing things back to reality - the only argument here that could/should hold water is a scientific analysis of each muscle and how it best developes. I mean, jusat because one guy does not need flys does not mean we all do not need flys. And just because one guy says that 5x5 works best does not mean it will work the best for everyone.

What the hell is the argument about anyway. Do you really thing that one persons workout will work for everyone? How about this... When determining whether or not flys are useless, did anyone have a doctor monitor their actually tissue reaction during the workout? Did they monitor tears in the muscle fiber? So far, this has been an argument of I say you say I say etc...

Bullshit - there is a science to muscle growth - that is why we have so many bad ass chemicals that can lend helping hands. And just as doctors and scientists have created chems to help, they would also be able to create workouts based on our own development and not some general one.

With that said - good luck to all...

 

[PoweredUp]

Here is what I don't get. Muscle fiber, tissue, all that shit...relates back to science. Could you imagine if someone who could simply eat anything they saw and never gain a pound, wrote a book telling us that donuts and cookies are just as effective at losing weight as chicken and vegies.

Bringing things back to reality - the only argument here that could/should hold water is a scientific analysis of each muscle and how it best developes. I mean, jusat because one guy does not need flys does not mean we all do not need flys. And just because one guy says that 5x5 works best does not mean it will work the best for everyone.

What the hell is the argument about anyway. Do you really thing that one persons workout will work for everyone? How about this... When determining whether or not flys are useless, did anyone have a doctor monitor their actually tissue reaction during the workout? Did they monitor tears in the muscle fiber? So far, this has been an argument of I say you say I say etc...

Bullshit - there is a science to muscle growth - that is why we have so many bad ass chemicals that can lend helping hands. And just as doctors and scientists have created chems to help, they would also be able to create workouts based on our own development and not some general one.

With that said - good luck to all...

Actually, yes...they have done scientific studies that measure the relative overload intensity on muscle fibers. One in particular done by Pete Sisco's group found that the barbell bench press scored a perfect 100% and that same study also showed that the dumbbell fly measured only 45.5%. The incline bench press scored 53.8%, and just for informational purposes, the chest exercise that came last (the biggest waste of time and energy) was the dumbbell pullover at 12.8%.

AST Sports Science does more research than any company and here is there take on dumbbell flyes:

"Flat dumbbell flys are not a very efficient exercise for maximum muscle stimulation. Flat dumbbell flys are an isolation exercise and they limit the amount of overload you can use.

Compound exercises like flat dumbbell presses are much more effective for muscular strength and development."

So I'll say it again - if it isn't a barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, or a weighted dip, then it is a waste of time in terms of developing the chest.

 

[lanny]

LOL!! no shit! u know ur stuff!!! haha! that outa keep ppl's mouth shut! good on ya!

 

[herblcure]

Actually, yes...they have done scientific studies that measure the relative overload intensity on muscle fibers. One in particular done by Pete Sisco's group found that the barbell bench press scored a perfect 100% and that same study also showed that the dumbbell fly measured only 45.5%. The incline bench press scored 53.8%, and just for informational purposes, the chest exercise that came last (the biggest waste of time and energy) was the dumbbell pullover at 12.8%.

AST Sports Science does more research than any company and here is there take on dumbbell flyes:

"Flat dumbbell flys are not a very efficient exercise for maximum muscle stimulation. Flat dumbbell flys are an isolation exercise and they limit the amount of overload you can use.

Compound exercises like flat dumbbell presses are much more effective for muscular strength and development."

So I'll say it again - if it isn't a barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, or a weighted dip, then it is a waste of time in terms of developing the chest.

Thank you.. I will never argue with science..and now I hope others will also see the light! You rock for the post bro!

 

[PoweredUp]

Thank you.. I will never argue with science..and now I hope others will also see the light! You rock for the post bro!

I'm a scientist as well, and its all I care about in terms of how I train. Reading people say what worked for them, etc, etc doesn't really matter. Just show me the science and that's what I will follow. I take the same route with supplements. If it isn't protein, creatine, L-Glutamine, BCAAs, or a multi-vitamin then keep it the hell away from me. Those are the supplements that have actual scientifc studies from major universities showing some real benefit. Everything else like pro-hormones and nitric oxide is just money down the drain...

 

[djeclipse]

Bullshit - there is a science to muscle growth - that is why we have so many bad ass chemicals that can lend helping hands. And just as doctors and scientists have created chems to help, they would also be able to create workouts based on our own development and not some general one.

With that said - good luck to all...

I am sorry to say but these so called "doctors" and "scientists" have not created any of the bull shit supplements out there to help anyone. They have created that crap to make money.

And if they were to create a special scientist approved work out it would be oriented only to sell more of their bull shit products so they can make more money.

This is why 99.9% of the workouts in those bb mags are shit, they don't want you to know it is really this simple.

They want you to buy their sponcors product and buy into the latest BS workout to put 2" on your arms in just 10 days. But only if you take "super pump, L-pumpo and therma lean to-the-ma -X- YO! As these products are essential to muscle growth and fat burn... lol

Thank you.. I will never argue with science..and now I hope others will also see the light! You rock for the post bro!

Glad you have an open mind, if only more people were like you. But then again if they were there'd be a line up at the squat rack and I hate waiting

 

[djeclipse]

I'm a scientist as well, and its all I care about in terms of how I train. Reading people say what worked for them, etc, etc doesn't really matter. Just show me the science and that's what I will follow. I take the same route with supplements. If it isn't protein, creatine, L-Glutamine, BCAAs, or a multi-vitamin then keep it the hell away from me. Those are the supplements that have actual scientifc studies from major universities showing some real benefit. Everything else like pro-hormones and nitric oxide is just money down the drain...

On a side note, if your protein supplement already has L-Glutemine and amino acids in it, why do you take more of them?

 

[PoweredUp]

On a side note, if your protein supplement already has L-Glutemine and amino acids in it, why do you take more of them?

It may not be necessary in regards to the BCAAs, but I figure that it's better to be safe than sorry. As for L-Glutamine, I've noticed that when I take an excess amount I seem to recover much quicker from heavy workout sessions. As for protein, I am a pescetarian (a vegetarian who eats fish), so I often need a few shakes a day to get my total protein consumption up to 250 grams or so. Protein consumption is crucial just before and just after workout sessions, so I definitely have some whay at those times. I typically have egg protein when I wake up (mixed with soy milk) and I take some casein protein before bed.

 

[djeclipse]

So if you get excess of amino acids or L-Glutamine, what does your body do with the left over that it doesn't need/ use?

 

[lanny]

i dont understand. >.<

 

[PoweredUp]

So if you get excess of amino acids or L-Glutamine, what does your body do with the left over that it doesn't need/ use?

Waste product

 

[djeclipse]

Waste product

It doesn't get stored as fat?

 

[PoweredUp]

It doesn't get stored as fat?

I've always read that any excess stuff like amino acids, vitamins, or creatine are excreted through the urine.

 

[MetalDead]

Actually, yes...they have done scientific studies that measure the relative overload intensity on muscle fibers. One in particular done by Pete Sisco's group found that the barbell bench press scored a perfect 100% and that same study also showed that the dumbbell fly measured only 45.5%. The incline bench press scored 53.8%, and just for informational purposes, the chest exercise that came last (the biggest waste of time and energy) was the dumbbell pullover at 12.8%.

AST Sports Science does more research than any company and here is there take on dumbbell flyes:

"Flat dumbbell flys are not a very efficient exercise for maximum muscle stimulation. Flat dumbbell flys are an isolation exercise and they limit the amount of overload you can use.

Compound exercises like flat dumbbell presses are much more effective for muscular strength and development."

So I'll say it again - if it isn't a barbell bench press, dumbbell bench press, or a weighted dip, then it is a waste of time in terms of developing the chest.

What about cable flys?

 

[tropo]

Here is what Jeff Willet (2X Team Universe Champion - all natural bodybuilder) says about flyes, and I agree with him completely:

"The first thing you need to ask yourself before choosing an exercise is: Will this provide maximum overload?

Flyes are an isolation movement for the chest because they remove the triceps and shoulders out of the movement. However, isolation reduces overload. Less overload means less muscle fiber stimulation.

Another reason people mistakenly do flyes is to shape the muscle. Let me make this perfectly clear, you cannot change the genetic shape of your muscles. You can make them bigger which may appear to change the shape, but you cannot change the genetically predetermined shape of your muscles.

Flyes are basically a worthless exercise in my book. You expend a lot of energy for a little overload. Flyes are not efficient."

I agree 100%. Apart from being totally useless, they put bad stress on the shoulder joint.

Most people fly like they're doing wide DB incline/flat presses anyway, so why even bother with it? I think it's some kind of holding onto the past that keeps this exercise in favour amongst a percentage of trainers.

One point that no one has mentioned: The fly doesn't offer any peak contraction, only load at stretch (thus making it very dangerous for the shoulder joint)....which makes it a useless isolation movement as well. As soon as the arms go past about 60% there's no load on the pecs at all.

I have no idea why anyone would favour a fly over the pec deck which offers tension through the full ROM as well as a great peak contraction.

 

[PoweredUp]

I have no idea why anyone would favour a fly over the pec deck which offers tension through the full ROM as well as a great peak contraction.

Here is what AST Sports Science (the same group that I previously quoted about dumbbell flyes) has said about the Pec Deck:

"This is the same as flyes only they have made a machine to do them on. A waste of time. Too much effort for too little overload. Leave this one to the Saturday morning fitness crowd."

 

[FriendlyCanadian]

Here is what AST Sports Science (the same group that I previously quoted about dumbbell flyes) has said about the Pec Deck:

"This is the same as flyes only they have made a machine to do them on. A waste of time. Too much effort for too little overload. Leave this one to the Saturday morning fitness crowd."

Now you're saying cable flys are useless too..

good lord..

how big are you guys? (I'm just curious)

also where are the sources on these "scientific evidence" are they academic?

more strength ='s in turn more size??? I think that is outright wrong.. most bodybuilders can't lift as much as powerlifters.. but are fucking huge in comparision.. so I'd def have to disagree there.

 

[Singleton]

Flyes I don't personally do (beyond the DC extreme stretch for chest), but rear delt work, biceps, calves, abs, hams, laterals, pushdowns all have a place. Not to mention all kinds of pre-rehab work for adductors, hips, glutes which you have to do if you don't want to crumble under a heavy workload.

Is this the one:-

Chest

Flat bench 90lb dumbbells chest high--lungs full of air--first 10 seconds
drop down into deepest stretch and then next 50 seconds really push the
stretch (this really, really hurts) but do it faithfully and come back and
post on the AE message board in 4 weeks and tell me if your chest isn't much
fuller and rounder

???

I like stretching on the Icarian dip stations, though they're a little too narrow.

BTW - Chest is more than one muscle. In fact, pecs are divided into 2 heads - upper and lower. There's the clavicular head (upper) and the sternal head (lower).

Both heads are fan-shaped. Origin is on the upper-arm bone, and many insertion points on the sternum (sternal head) and clavicle (clavicular head).

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/ExList/ChestWt.html

 

[PoweredUp]

Now you're saying cable flys are useless too...

Beyond useless...

how big are you guys?.

I'm 240 pounds. I'm mostly muscle, but I could stand to drop some fat around my mid-section.

also where are the sources on these "scientific evidence" are they academic?

AST Sports Science does tons of academic research and they post their findings from major university studies on their web site. Here is a good place to start:

www.ast-ss.com/research/cribb/research_reviews/cribb_review_main.asp

more strength ='s in turn more size??? I think that is outright wrong.. most bodybuilders can't lift as much as powerlifters.. but are fucking huge in comparision.. so I'd def have to disagree there.

That's because bodybuilding is all about aesthetics, which in turn means that they do steroid cycles like a mother fucker. I'm not saying that a powerlifter never touches anadrol, but a major aspect of bodybuilding is running one stack after another. Obviously, that is going to have a major effect on their muscle size and their overall physique when comparing them to powerlifters. Also, bodybuilders are extremely disciplined about their diet, whereas powerlifters often pay little attention to diet other than to ensure that they are getting enough protein. Take your average powerlifter, strip away all of their fat and you will see a ton of muscle underneath.

 

[PoweredUp]

Chest is more than one muscle. In fact, pecs are divided into 2 heads - upper and lower. There's the clavicular head (upper) and the sternal head (lower).

Both heads are fan-shaped. Origin is on the upper-arm bone, and many insertion points on the sternum (sternal head) and clavicle (clavicular head).

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/ExList/ChestWt.html

Yes, technically there are several muscles that make up the chest, but it is absolutely impossible to train only one of those muscles when weight training. The entire chest acts as one muscle when moving a load.

 

[silver_shadow]

Now you're saying cable flys are useless too..

good lord..

how big are you guys? (I'm just curious)

also where are the sources on these "scientific evidence" are they academic?

more strength ='s in turn more size??? I think that is outright wrong.. most bodybuilders can't lift as much as powerlifters.. but are fucking huge in comparision.. so I'd def have to disagree there.

220lbs at 13% and bulking to hit 240-245 hopefully by the end of the year.... natty

bodybuilders are fucking huge compared to PLs? you sure? or do they just LOOK way huger because of lower BF on stage?

 

[djeclipse]

Does anyone have the link to that powerlifter that decided to really watch his diet and cut fat? When he was done he was f'n ripped and huge. This was posted a while back, it was a link to some powerlifting board.

 

[stevefdl]

LOL


The fly is a good excercise IMO. I enjoy doing it, and I can only acheive a solid pump in the middle of my chest where it divides (sternum) only by doing flys.

...and, you can get an awesome shoulder pump by lifting a full bag of Cheetos over your head one million timers a day.

On some days, when I've too tired for that, I just get pumped by holding my leg or arms in the air for two minutes.

What a pump! I'm still weak as crap, and skinny as all hell, but I get pumped!

 

[djeclipse]

...and, you can get an awesome shoulder pump by lifting a full bag of Cheetos over your head one million timers a day.

On some days, when I've too tired for that, I just get pumped by holding my leg or arms in the air for two minutes.

What a pump! I'm still weak as crap, and skinny as all hell, but I get pumped!

mmm Cheetos

 

[PoweredUp]

Does anyone have the link to that powerlifter that decided to really watch his diet and cut fat? When he was done he was f'n ripped and huge. This was posted a while back, it was a link to some powerlifting board.

Here's one example right here:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=727966

 

[silver_shadow]

Here's one example right here:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=727966

that's the same dude that dj was refering to....

k

 

[djeclipse]

ya, that is the guy. Great example of the muscle those so called "fat" power lifters have. Loose the fat and they are cut and actually strong. Instead of just looking strong like body builders.

 

[mad_monkey59]

I would love to see it as I have read just about everything Madcow has written and I don't rememebr that.

If you have an actual scientific artical supporting your argument I would like to see it prior to changing my routine around...

Thanks

 

[djeclipse]

If you have an actual scientific artical supporting your argument I would like to see it prior to changing my routine around...

Thanks

Sorry dude, you are the one claiming Madcow said it, It is up to you to show me.

I could care less how you train and you're not worth my time to do any research for you.

Once again, show me where mad cow said it as you are the one that claimed so.

And as for scientific articles, PoweredUp has posted a few already.

Train how you wish, if you want to waste time and effort with non effective lifts, by all means go ahead. But don't come here and post lies about what madcow and world class strength coach Mark rippetoe have written just to justify your way of training. And don;t try and get others to train your way by using these lies.

 

[mad_monkey59]

Your are arguing a point of view I have said I have heard other wise, but I think I have been quite open with the fact that I am not 100% sure about it. I don't think I have purposely misguided anybody, infact posting lies would be consistent with making arguments which are completely unproven and based (As far as I am currently aware) on the opinions of two men, not opening debate, but just insulting other members of this board if they disagree with you.

The fact of the matter is bodybuilders, in general, say and do stupid shit, compare the methods of Tom Platz's training compared to the ethos of this board and you will find that information across peers is generally inconsistent. And I think it would be fair to say that Tom Platz is/was just a tiny little bit more succesful then Madcow.

The only authority in this argument is science, and the only purpose of this is board is to learn and to discuss. It seems to me that based on that response you are unwilling or incapable of all three.

The fact of the matter is buddy, I asked you for help, I asked you to show me the stuff that has made you train a certain way and you refused. You have not presented your argument more effectively, nor have you provided any evidence other then the opinions of other people. You're just shouting louder, and that doesn't make your opinion right, nor does it make me a liar.

Sorry dude, you are the one claiming Madcow said it, It is up to you to show me.

I could care less how you train and you're not worth my time to do any research for you.

Once again, show me where mad cow said it as you are the one that claimed so.

And as for scientific articles, PoweredUp has posted a few already.

Train how you wish, if you want to waste time and effort with non effective lifts, by all means go ahead. But don't come here and post lies about what madcow and world class strength coach Mark rippetoe have written just to justify your way of training. And don;t try and get others to train your way by using these lies.

 

[djeclipse]

Your are arguing a point of view I have said I have heard other wise, but I think I have been quite open with the fact that I am not 100% sure about it. I don't think I have purposely misguided anybody, infact posting lies would be consistent with making arguments which are completely unproven and based (As far as I am currently aware) on the opinions of two men, not opening debate, but just insulting other members of this board if they disagree with you.

The fact of the matter is bodybuilders, in general, say and do stupid shit, compare the methods of Tom Platz's training compared to the ethos of this board and you will find that information across peers is generally inconsistent. And I think it would be fair to say that Tom Platz is/was just a tiny little bit more succesful then Madcow.

The only authority in this argument is science, and the only purpose of this is board is to learn and to discuss. It seems to me that based on that response you are unwilling or incapable of all three.

The fact of the matter is buddy, I asked you for help, I asked you to show me the stuff that has made you train a certain way and you refused. You have not presented your argument more effectively, nor have you provided any evidence other then the opinions of other people. You're just shouting louder, and that doesn't make your opinion right, nor does it make me a liar.

You posted this

- Don't quote me on this, but it might be interesting to note that I think I read an artical from Madcow which dispelled the inner outer thing, but then agreed with the up and down thing....

I asked YOU to show me where he said this as I have never read anything of the sort from Madcow.

You made the proposition, it is up to you to do the research and back up what you have said. Not I. I know he hasn't said anything of the sort.


As far as Tom Platz vs Madcow and cradentials? Everything madcow has written is based on Mark Rippetoe who's credentials speak for itself. madcow simply took the time to make a coles notes sort of speak for all of us for free.

 

[PoweredUp]

Does anyone have the link to that powerlifter that decided to really watch his diet and cut fat? When he was done he was f'n ripped and huge. This was posted a while back, it was a link to some powerlifting board.

I think DaveTSI from right here on our own boards is a great example of this as well.

 

[silver_shadow]

You posted this



I asked YOU to show me where he said this as I have never read anything of the sort from Madcow.

You made the proposition, it is up to you to do the research and back up what you have said. Not I. I know he hasn't said anything of the sort.


As far as Tom Platz vs Madcow and cradentials? Everything madcow has written is based on Mark Rippetoe who's credentials speak for itself. madcow simply took the time to make a coles notes sort of speak for all of us for free.

and throw in bill starr for good measure.... still want to talk credentials MM?

 

[mad_monkey59]

Buddy, I think you have missed the point.

Training is typically inconsistent across peers therefore science is used as a bench mark... thats the point, it was an example.

I'd rather go back and talk about BB'ing, we are all grown men and I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

and throw in bill starr for good measure.... still want to talk credentials MM?

 

[djeclipse]

and throw in bill starr for good measure.... still want to talk credentials MM?

yup, care to dispute either of those 2 MM

You were the one that brought up cradentials lol

 

[mad_monkey59]

yup, care to dispute either of those 2 MM

You were the one that brought up cradentials lol

NO.

Tom Platz (a former Mr Universe) was one of the first guys to talk about overloading and shocking muscles and would do 80+ sets per workout etc... etc... with lots of different variations.

Arnold (a man who needs no introduction) would drive into a Forest and do squats with his buddy for an entire day, there are examples of Arny doing a 'shock day' training comprising of around 6 hours and countless sets of the same 'isolation' exercise.

I don't think you can argue that either of these two were unsuccessful. But, based on the ethos of this board, these guys don't have a fucking clue when it comes to training.

You're saying look at Starr and Rippetoe they are both saying 'x'... all I am doing is pointing out that successful people (Arny and Platz) make mistakes and do stupid stuff sometimes. It doesn't stop them being successful though.

The argument is you cannot base your beliefs on the credentials of other people. Be it famous bodybuilders or strength coaches without independant satisfactory scientific evidence.

What I need to see is an independant scientific artical stating that the upper muscle fibres in the pec are not stimulated any more by incline bench then flat bench.

If you can show me that then please do so, I am hugely interested by what you are saying. I will happpily put my hands up and say thanks, I was wrong on this one.

This used to be what this board was about, a comparison of opinions and athletes trying to help each other... when did it get populated by a bunch of girls who are more interested in winning arguments then they are in bodybuilding?

 

[djeclipse]

With enough AAS one can lift a rock 200 times a day and they will grow. Does this mean that lifting said rock is optimal training? Hell no.

Just becasue Arnold and Tom Platz were able to pump themselves with any and every drug they could find does not mean their training was even remotely optimal.

On the other hand Mark Rippetoe, Bill Star do not rely on ASS to supplement their training, they get results without the use of AAS. Good proper training is all that is needed t oput on size and strength in a very short period of time. They get results

So much results that when people follow their training more often then not they get accused of using AAS because of the size and strength gains they are making. The people that blindly try and mimic what Arnold does have less then optimal gains and can't believe that anyone can make such gains without taking AAS.

As I've said before, train how you want, if you want to "shock" your muscles, do 50 sets of curls like Arnold does, train one body part a week, go right ahead, that is your decision. But just because your favorite body builder does it while filling their body with 40,000/ year worth of AAS, does not mean it's good training, not even close.

As far as the upper and lower chest goes, you were the one that suggested Madcow said it somewhere. It is up to you to prove it to be true as you are making the claim. Don't try and turn it around and put it on me to do research for you. Show me where madcow said anything fo the sort... please as it was your claim. I know he said nothing of the sort, why would I go looking for something that isn't there?

 

[silver_shadow]

NO.

Tom Platz (a former Mr Universe) was one of the first guys to talk about overloading and shocking muscles and would do 80+ sets per workout etc... etc... with lots of different variations.

Arnold (a man who needs no introduction) would drive into a Forest and do squats with his buddy for an entire day, there are examples of Arny doing a 'shock day' training comprising of around 6 hours and countless sets of the same 'isolation' exercise.

I don't think you can argue that either of these two were unsuccessful. But, based on the ethos of this board, these guys don't have a fucking clue when it comes to training.

You're saying look at Starr and Rippetoe they are both saying 'x'... all I am doing is pointing out that successful people (Arny and Platz) make mistakes and do stupid stuff sometimes. It doesn't stop them being successful though.

The argument is you cannot base your beliefs on the credentials of other people. Be it famous bodybuilders or strength coaches without independant satisfactory scientific evidence.

What I need to see is an independant scientific artical stating that the upper muscle fibres in the pec are not stimulated any more by incline bench then flat bench.

If you can show me that then please do so, I am hugely interested by what you are saying. I will happpily put my hands up and say thanks, I was wrong on this one.

This used to be what this board was about, a comparison of opinions and athletes trying to help each other... when did it get populated by a bunch of girls who are more interested in winning arguments then they are in bodybuilding?

well with that kind of attitude i doubt you are going to get very far on any board.

anyway. i don't know much about the way tom platz trained, but i've heard enough about arnie was full of shit... at least what he told us was *probably* not what he actually did.... with that said, i doubt very much that very many folks other than arnie and platz themselves actually benefitted a whole deal from their training styles. remember the superior genetics and (at least in arnie's case) the use of AAS. now if you want to talk about rippetoe/starr, then there's enough proof that normal average joe's ARE actually doing well on their routine's.... right up to more elite lifters... many of them are natty. based on that itself, i'd pick rippetoe/starr over arnie/platz....
science? i'll probably have to look around....

 

[mad_monkey59]

well with that kind of attitude i doubt you are going to get very far on any board.

anyway. i don't know much about the way tom platz trained, but i've heard enough about arnie was full of shit... at least what he told us was *probably* not what he actually did.... with that said, i doubt very much that very many folks other than arnie and platz themselves actually benefitted a whole deal from their training styles. remember the superior genetics and (at least in arnie's case) the use of AAS. now if you want to talk about rippetoe/starr, then there's enough proof that normal average joe's ARE actually doing well on their routine's.... right up to more elite lifters... many of them are natty. based on that itself, i'd pick rippetoe/starr over arnie/platz....
science? i'll probably have to look around....

I wasn't refering to you.

Anyway I absolutely agree with you... I fully take on board what you are saying, there is no doubt that Rippetoe/Starr's method is better then Arnies.

However, I am just refering to that one particular aspect of training, i.e. inclines being superfluous, which it is alot harder to conclude on based on observations.

 

[silver_shadow]

call it anecdotal or whatever but many including myself haven't noticed much carryover from incline bench to flat bench... if we have, then it was when the incline wasn't too much.... maybe just a slight incline or max 30 degrees.

you have to look at it in the context of what rippetoe is trying to achieve which is to get his lifters as strong as possible in (usually) the big 3.

that's not an official scientific study though.