I’ve seen several well known authors criticize those who proclaim lower, middle, and upper chest need to be worked by use of decline, flat, and incline presses respectively.
Well, the anatomy chart shows the pectoralis major muscle has 3 heads:
- Abdominal head (lower chest)
- sternocostal head (medium chest)
- Clavicular head (upper chest)
It seems to be reasonable to assume by doing decline presses you’ll put more pressure on the abdominal head of Pec Major. By doing flat presses you’ll put more pressure on the sternocostal head. And by doing incline presses you’ll put more pressure on the clavicular head.
Am I right? Comments will be apreciated. If you’re gonna prove me wrong, there’s no need to be disrepectful. Keep it factual.
Diesel,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with your line of thinking.
I don’t know if you meant that I was one of the experts who criticized the use of incline/flat/decline press, but if so, let me expound. BTW, I frequently prescribe all the exercises you mentioned. But for hypertrophy purposes, things need to change a little.
Yes, you are correct that the pectoral fibers have different heads. The orgin of the upper fibers (clavicular portion) is on the anterior surface of the sternal half of the clavicle. The origin of the lower fibers (sternocostal portion) is on the anterior surface of the sternum and the cartilages of the first six or seven ribs and aponeurosis of the external oblique. But the INSERTION point is basically the same for all the fibers. In other words, if you held your arms out to the sides (making a “T” with your body) all of the pectoral fibers would basically be heading in the same direction (to the insertion point on the humerus). I refer to this “T” position since this is the same position your humerus is in for the majority of traditional pressing movements. While in this “T” position, the fibers are running upward at an angle 45-60 degrees. For hypertrophy purposes, it is advisable to match the line of resistance with the direction of fibers - barbells and dumbbells cannot do this throughout a full range of motion. The line of resistance must be pointing away from the trunk at an angle that matches the fiber direction (again, 45-60 degrees).
But the real problem I addressed in my chest building article was about the primary function of the pectorals. The majority of the fibers act to horizontally adduct the humerus. Therefore, resistance should challenge horizontal adduction through a FULL range of motion. Once again, barbells and dumbbells cannot do this. When you perform a traditional incline, flat or decline press, the pectorals are only being challenged for ~50% of their true range of motion. The hands must be brought close together as the humerus horizontally adducts, while being challenged against resistance. This is only possible with a line of resistance that points away from the midline of the body. If you bring your hands together with dumbbells, the line of resistance is straight down (through the joints), therefore they do not challenge the pecs through a full ROM.
Hope this helps.
Chad, would that mean that cable flyes would work to solve the problem because in that case the line of resistance points away from the midline of the body?
Yeah, that makes sense.
I do a shitload of chest exercises on this free-motion cable machine that is adjustable from either 90 degrees up to 90 degrees down (and everything in between). I have even experimented with “hyper” declines by almost doing something equivalent to a dip. I do flyes in various positions and it really seems to shred my chest up good.
I’m not sure if this is what is being said here… I know for sure that my range of motion far exceeds dumbbells and especially a bar which stops at the chest.
Chad thanx for clarifying.
I certainly did not intend to criticize anyone. It was merely a question out of curiosity.
Personally, I thought your article to be of great value!
I use the free motion machine too. I adjust the levers to the “T” position and go to work. I have also tried the low pulley cable press, but I have not been able to tell if it is effective because I think I am doing it wrong. In Chad’s article I cannot tell if the bench is directly in the middle of the cable stacks or if just the head of the bench is between the stacks. I think the free motion machine mimics the “T” position pretty well. Well anyways good stuff Chad.
Chest development is actually one area I’ve found a positive use for the swiss ball through Dumbell Presses.
As Chad noted, the insertion point for all three heads is essentially the same. Thus in terms of development, I feel that it’s more the plane of the muscle in relation to the insertion point - than in relation to the ostensible placement/ location of the muscle on the chest - that you’re trying to activate [if you take my meaning].
DB Press on the swiss ball allows me to alter the plane vis a vis the insertion point more effectively than the variously angled benches as I find you are able to account for personal vagaries in body composition that way.
IMHO anyway.