While I appreciate a person wanting to know, where a thing is already known in practice to most surely be true, if underlying reasons have been discovered as to why it is true, just out of interest, that interest is really an entirely different thing than bodybuilding and isn’t necessary to success.
All too often it seems that such interest instead impedes success, with people doing bizarre things or not doing well-known-to-be-necessary things on account of either some study apparently showing the bizarre thing to be fruitful when practice shows it is not, or not doing the necessary thing on account of “lack of studies proving it.”
(I do know that it wasn’t HueyLewis’s intention to do either of the above – a weird thing on account of some study, or not doing an in-practice-proven thing for lack of a study – I was speaking in general.)
I also think CT stated that the pectoral muscle’s main purpose is pulling the arms together (think fly’s) rather than extending the arms (think pressing.) However, don’t quote me on that.
I want you to think about what you just wrote…and then kick yourself.[/quote]
What’s this? A joke? X?
The holidays must really bring out the bright side of you.
its a forum, i just expressed curiosity. clearly this must show my likelihood to impede success or rely on random scientific studies. ill go re evaluate my thinking now.
Conversations sometimes diverge, for example as a result of stating that you know something in bodybuilding isn’t the case and then wanting to be given reasons, when the only thing known is the practical result.
It’s inappropriate to comment or have any discussion on that?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Conversations sometimes diverge, for example as a result of stating that you know something in bodybuilding isn’t the case and then wanting to be given reasons, when the only thing known is the practical result.
It’s inappropriate to comment or have any discussion on that?[/quote]
i clearly asked if there was any evidence other than practical result to back it up. a simple no there isnt its really just the way it is, would have sufficed
[quote]HueyLewis wrote:
theoretically why couldnt you just bench your entire life and nothing else, and build a ridiculously out of proportion chest to the rest of you? again i know thats not how it works im just saying why[/quote]
you can. half a dozen guys walk around my gym with an out of proportion chest and zero back and leg development.something to do with belonging to the bench and curl crowd.
[quote]alit4 wrote:
HueyLewis wrote:
theoretically why couldnt you just bench your entire life and nothing else, and build a ridiculously out of proportion chest to the rest of you? again i know thats not how it works im just saying why
you can. half a dozen guys walk around my gym with an out of proportion chest and zero back and leg development.something to do with belonging to the bench and curl crowd.
[/quote]
But curls don’t build arms. I saw that in a few posts here somewhere so it’s true.
[quote]HueyLewis wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
HueyLewis wrote:
its a forum, i just expressed curiosity. clearly this must show my likelihood to impede success or rely on random scientific studies. ill go re evaluate my thinking now.[/quote]
Conversations sometimes diverge, for example as a result of stating that you know something in bodybuilding isn’t the case and then wanting to be given reasons, when the only thing known is the practical result.
It’s inappropriate to comment or have any discussion on that?
i clearly asked if there was any evidence other than practical result to back it up. a simple no there isnt its really just the way it is, would have sufficed[/quote]
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I don’t think there is any debate on targeting certain areas of the chest. I think it’s fact.
Why aren’t you doing decline? I’d say that’s your problem right there. If need be switch your bench press to dumb bells as well, you can go deeper and get a better stretch which is ideal for growth.[/quote]
declines are pretty pointless IMO flat bench works just as well. Decline bench puts the shoulder in a compromising position and only activates 20% or so of the muscle… Your chest will gain that swoop with more size and more definition dont worry about it until your larger and more cut, probably wont be an issue then.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
alit4 wrote:
HueyLewis wrote:
theoretically why couldnt you just bench your entire life and nothing else, and build a ridiculously out of proportion chest to the rest of you? again i know thats not how it works im just saying why
you can. half a dozen guys walk around my gym with an out of proportion chest and zero back and leg development.something to do with belonging to the bench and curl crowd.
But curls don’t build arms. I saw that in a few posts here somewhere so it’s true.[/quote]
I know you are being a funnyman here, but are there people who believe you don’t have to do curls or extensions to get big arms?
Yes, there are people who (in most cases) over-react to the tendency of many to devote to arm isolation moovements too high a percentage of training work, and go to the other extreme of advising not doing any at all.
My guess is that part of how they fall into this is having rigid ideas on volume, furthermore falling into the fear-of-high-volume category, and so they see a set of curls or skullcrushers or what have you as being a set of squats, deadlifts, rows, or chins that as a result was not done.
Perhaps these persons have trouble believing that it’s possible in a week, for someone serious, to not only do all the squats, deadlifts, rows etc that they should but ALSO do some effective specific arm work, rather than it being an “instead of” question.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, there are people who (in most cases) over-react to the tendency of many to devote to arm isolation moovements too high a percentage of training work, and go to the other extreme of advising not doing any at all.
My guess is that part of how they fall into this is having rigid ideas on volume, furthermore falling into the fear-of-high-volume category, and so they see a set of curls or skullcrushers or what have you as being a set of squats, deadlifts, rows, or chins that as a result was not done.
Perhaps these persons have trouble believing that it’s possible in a week, for someone serious, to not only do all the squats, deadlifts, rows etc that they should but ALSO do some effective specific arm work, rather than it being an “instead of” question. [/quote]
Gaining muscle is a lot more than just breaking down the tissue and then waiting for it to rebuild bigger and stronger. Weight lifting generates a huge hormonal response that completely changes your body’s metabolism, not just in the one area that you worked. The reason that most people are unable to build only one muscle group is that neglecting the others means that 90% of your body is not contributing to you overall metabolism.
You go to the gym monday and do chest (which is also obviously working your triceps and delts too) and leave the gym with elevated levels of HGH, much lower levels of insulin, much higher cardiac output, increased respiration and oxygen delivery to your tissues. Then you go home and pound down a huge meal of carbohydrates and proteins. Do you think these effects are limited to your chest?? Of course not! Obviously your chest is going to need more of those nutrients to repair, but every organ in your body feels these increases. The difference is that if you are not creating a nutrient deficit prior to this loading, most of it will not be absorbed and will just turn to fat.
