“Multi-joint press exercises are better for building muscle mass, while fly and crossovers are more suited for shaping and increasing striations[citation needed]. This muscle is often said to consist of four portions (upper, lower, inner and outer) but the pectoralis actually contracts evenly across all heads during most exercises and as such no portion can be ‘targeted’[citation needed].”
This is from the Wikipedia article on Pectoralis Major. Everyone abandon incline pressing 
Anything with Ped in it is to close to Pedo so as a source can’t be trusted.
[quote]Consul wrote:
“Multi-joint press exercises are better for building muscle mass, while fly and crossovers are more suited for shaping and increasing striations[citation needed]. This muscle is often said to consist of four portions (upper, lower, inner and outer) but the pectoralis actually contracts evenly across all heads during most exercises and as such no portion can be ‘targeted’[citation needed].”
This is from the Wikipedia article on Pectoralis Major. Everyone abandon incline pressing ;)[/quote]
Shaping and increasing striations with exercise choice? Nonsense.
[quote]2020Wellness wrote:
[quote]Consul wrote:
“Multi-joint press exercises are better for building muscle mass, while fly and crossovers are more suited for shaping and increasing striations[citation needed]. This muscle is often said to consist of four portions (upper, lower, inner and outer) but the pectoralis actually contracts evenly across all heads during most exercises and as such no portion can be ‘targeted’[citation needed].”
This is from the Wikipedia article on Pectoralis Major. Everyone abandon incline pressing ;)[/quote]
Shaping and increasing striations with exercise choice? Nonsense.
[/quote]
I can just imagine someone asking a guy at the gym: “Bro how did you shape your striations like that? I’ve tried everything!”
“It’s easy, its called the bench press. Wikipedia told me. Now my striations are shaped perfectly!”
I’m not surprised they couldn’t provide any sources to support their claims.
I overheard a pretty chubby guy at the gym last night explaining to his buddy how they weren’t using high reps because they’re not focusing on ‘cutting up’ at the moment.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I overheard a pretty chubby guy at the gym last night explaining to his buddy how they weren’t using high reps because they’re not focusing on ‘cutting up’ at the moment.
S[/quote]
Unbelievable. Where do they get these ideas from?
Man there is a lot of stupid out there.
[quote]Consul wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I overheard a pretty chubby guy at the gym last night explaining to his buddy how they weren’t using high reps because they’re not focusing on ‘cutting up’ at the moment.
S[/quote]
Unbelievable. Where do they get these ideas from?
[/quote]
Muscle and Fitness frequently promulgated such crap years ago. When you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes “truth”.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Consul wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I overheard a pretty chubby guy at the gym last night explaining to his buddy how they weren’t using high reps because they’re not focusing on ‘cutting up’ at the moment.
S[/quote]
Unbelievable. Where do they get these ideas from?
[/quote]
Muscle and Fitness frequently promulgated such crap years ago. When you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes “truth”.[/quote]
I wouldn’t be surprised if Men’s Health etc were found to be spreading similar bullshit.
about “striations and shaping”,
A LOT of people here thinks that “striations= isolation excercises= light weights&high reps”,
few months before summer time many of them lower the (already low) loads and go for 15reps plus for set.
have to say that their conditioning is good,size absolutely not…
about targeting one portion of the muscle (f/e: upper/clavicular chest), if this is possible (i’m not saying no) why some of TOP bbers (Cutler,Centopani,Yates) had very shallow upper pecs?
too little incline press??
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Consul wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I overheard a pretty chubby guy at the gym last night explaining to his buddy how they weren’t using high reps because they’re not focusing on ‘cutting up’ at the moment.
S[/quote]
Unbelievable. Where do they get these ideas from?
[/quote]
Muscle and Fitness frequently promulgated such crap years ago. When you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes “truth”.[/quote]
well said!
I would say magazines are a good exampe of contro-information (to force people to join supa-tech -expensive- gyms and buy 1000$ per month of MAGIC supplements?).
boh?
[quote]buzza wrote:
about “striations and shaping”,
A LOT of people here thinks that “striations= isolation excercises= light weights&high reps”,
few months before summer time many of them lower the (already low) loads and go for 15reps plus for set.
have to say that their conditioning is good,size absolutely not…
about targeting one portion of the muscle (f/e: upper/clavicular chest), if this is possible (i’m not saying no) why some of TOP bbers (Cutler,Centopani,Yates) had very shallow upper pecs?
too little incline press??[/quote]
I’d say more like a little to much flat bench press. And the disproportion is increased by the insane amount of drugs they use. Makes most peoples pecs that do them look like a women’s tits. Who cares if you can load it up with the most weight and it gets your chest to 54"+ though, cuz stretching the tape measure determines success. IMO, Size without shape is grotesque
[quote]buzza wrote:
about “striations and shaping”,
A LOT of people here thinks that “striations= isolation excercises= light weights&high reps”,
few months before summer time many of them lower the (already low) loads and go for 15reps plus for set.
have to say that their conditioning is good,size absolutely not…
about targeting one portion of the muscle (f/e: upper/clavicular chest), if this is possible (i’m not saying no) why some of TOP bbers (Cutler,Centopani,Yates) had very shallow upper pecs?
too little incline press??[/quote]
They may have trouble activating that muscle group. Some people are shoulder dominant with any upper chest movement. Unlike the previous poster, I would not blame that on steroids.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]buzza wrote:
about “striations and shaping”,
A LOT of people here thinks that “striations= isolation excercises= light weights&high reps”,
few months before summer time many of them lower the (already low) loads and go for 15reps plus for set.
have to say that their conditioning is good,size absolutely not…
about targeting one portion of the muscle (f/e: upper/clavicular chest), if this is possible (i’m not saying no) why some of TOP bbers (Cutler,Centopani,Yates) had very shallow upper pecs?
too little incline press??[/quote]
They may have trouble activating that muscle group. Some people are shoulder dominant with any upper chest movement.
very probably…
Unlike the previous poster, I would not blame that on steroids.[/quote]
juice only makes your muscle bigger,if someone has shit upper chest it remains shit compared to medium/low portion imo
I meant the flat bench press builds a huge lower chest with no outer or upper pec that tends to make the pecs of most resemble a womens breast and drugs exacerbate the disproportion leading to even more of that appearance. I can see how you guys read that the other way though. Sorry for not being clear
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They may have trouble activating that muscle group. Some people are shoulder dominant with any upper chest movement. Unlike the previous poster, I would not blame that on steroids.
[/quote]
For the most part all bench pressing is done by the shoulders with help from the chest. the only way to really get it mostly out of the picture and make the chest do most of the work anatomically is dumbbell presses where you maintain a neutral grip throughout the motion (all four bells touch together at top) Obviously complete isolation is impossible
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I meant the flat bench press builds a huge lower chest with no outer or upper pec that tends to make the pecs of most resemble a womens breast and drugs exacerbate the disproportion leading to even more of that appearance. I can see how you guys read that the other way though. Sorry for not being clear[/quote]
There is no such thing as an outer pec muscle. It’s the same fibers running horizontally.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
For the most part all bench pressing is done by the shoulders with help from the chest. the only way to really get it mostly out of the picture and make the chest do most of the work anatomically is dumbbell presses where you maintain a neutral grip throughout the motion (all four bells touch together at top) Obviously complete isolation is impossible
[/quote]
Why would wrist angle matter in pec stimulation? Humerus angle is what matters. So no you dont have to use a neutral grip.
Your info is about as good as that wiki article.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They may have trouble activating that muscle group. Some people are shoulder dominant with any upper chest movement. Unlike the previous poster, I would not blame that on steroids.
[/quote]
For the most part all bench pressing is done by the shoulders with help from the chest. the only way to really get it mostly out of the picture and make the chest do most of the work anatomically is dumbbell presses where you maintain a neutral grip throughout the motion (all four bells touch together at top) Obviously complete isolation is impossible
[/quote]
That’s a good example of broscience.
The pectorial major muscle is agonistically involved in pronation, therefore, the four dumbells should not touch eacht other, at least in theory.
For all practical purposes, the dumbell position directly above the chest will provide very little stumulation, because of mechanical reasons.
So the actual db ending position of a rep with that exercise is just not very meaningful and nothing to lose sleep over.
Think of the ending position of a slow barbell curl. Little to no biceps activation.