[quote]Professor X wrote:
crod266 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
crod266 wrote:
hey prof x i have a question for u, I know for chest u like the hammer strengh flat press where u lay down and press like a reglar bench press. What do u think of the flat press where your basically seated and pressing outward if you know what im talking about
I don’t like it. It is not the same movement. The one in that picture I posted is about as close as you can get to copying the movement of a regular bench press…something that can become more difficult to actually reach your heaviest weight on using a barbell if you have no spotter once you get to a more advanced weight.
The seated one doesn’t even feel the same.
Their seated “upright” wide grip press is great though.
ya I agree they dont feel the same, now the upright wide grip one is that just the incline press or am i missing something?
No, they make an incline (which is also good), a decline, a wide grip flat press that is upright, and finally the laying and upright flat press.[/quote]
o ok i have seen every one besides the upright wide grip u mentioned, i got to look for it now i would be suprised if they dont have it.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I hate you people for having access to hs machines… [/quote]
I was working out all summer at a 24 hour fitness, which had all of the mentioned HS machines take away the laying flat bench. I especially liked using the incline press and row variations. A few machines such as the decline press I did not like due to strain on my arms.
I now work out at a university gym which has all Cybex and some other sub-par brand of machines of which I forget the name. I do miss my old gym and its HS machines.
[quote]crod266 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I hate you people for having access to hs machines…
o that blows man haha wait so ur gym has no hs machines at all??[/quote]
We only have some crappy German brand… Bloody backwater area I’m living in… Though I don’t think that there are more than 2-3 well equipped gyms in Germany. Markus Rühl’s gym would be one, no clue where Wolf works out…
Best thing: The standing calf-raise machine over here feels more natural for overhead pressing than the overhead-press machine.
You said when you trained chest twice a week you treated like two different body parts.
Can I assume from this then that you peformed double the volume for your chest (if you add up both days) compared to any other body part a week. Or did you slightly lower the volume of each chest session.
Phoenix Theory
It was double the volume for the most part. I treated my chest as if “upper” and “lower” were two different body parts. I did that because years back, a bodybuilding competitor I knew noticed that my upper chest was lagging. It isn’t now and I do credit that time for why to a large degree.
For the most part, any body part I am focusing on to bring up will get an increase in volume and in the frequency that it is trained.[/quote]
Could you give an example if you don’t mind on your upper and lower pec split. I want to build my upper chest so I cant see my clavicle anymore. I just want to see an examply on how you did it.
[quote]Wilmernuts wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Phoenix Theory wrote:
X
You said when you trained chest twice a week you treated like two different body parts.
Can I assume from this then that you peformed double the volume for your chest (if you add up both days) compared to any other body part a week. Or did you slightly lower the volume of each chest session.
Phoenix Theory
It was double the volume for the most part. I treated my chest as if “upper” and “lower” were two different body parts. I did that because years back, a bodybuilding competitor I knew noticed that my upper chest was lagging. It isn’t now and I do credit that time for why to a large degree.
For the most part, any body part I am focusing on to bring up will get an increase in volume and in the frequency that it is trained.
Could you give an example if you don’t mind on your upper and lower pec split. I want to build my upper chest so I cant see my clavicle anymore. I just want to see an example on how to split the two up.
[/quote]
So have you ALWAYS done the sets this way or was it something that you needed to do due to your strength increases.
(NOTE: I think for most people who don’t really understand how you train in those first few exercise can best be described in Thibs LOCKED AND LOADED article under Flat Pyramid Loading, though I know that your reps don’t stay the same)
would you agree that somebody with the goal of pure numbers is better off doing full body 3x a week compounds, especially at a beginner/intermediate level (5"9 195, 245/335/410)
[quote]Wilmernuts wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Phoenix Theory wrote:
X
You said when you trained chest twice a week you treated like two different body parts.
Can I assume from this then that you peformed double the volume for your chest (if you add up both days) compared to any other body part a week. Or did you slightly lower the volume of each chest session.
Phoenix Theory
It was double the volume for the most part. I treated my chest as if “upper” and “lower” were two different body parts. I did that because years back, a bodybuilding competitor I knew noticed that my upper chest was lagging. It isn’t now and I do credit that time for why to a large degree.
For the most part, any body part I am focusing on to bring up will get an increase in volume and in the frequency that it is trained.
Could you give an example if you don’t mind on your upper and lower pec split. I want to build my upper chest so I cant see my clavicle anymore. I just want to see an examply on how you did it.
[/quote]
So have you ALWAYS done the sets this way or was it something that you needed to do due to your strength increases.
(NOTE: I think for most people who don’t really understand how you train in those first few exercise can best be described in Thibs LOCKED AND LOADED article under Flat Pyramid Loading, though I know that your reps don’t stay the same)
Thanks[/quote]
You need to specify what you mean. If you are referring to the act of pyramiding up in weight, yes, that is something I always did from the very beginning.
would you agree that somebody with the goal of pure numbers is better off doing full body 3x a week compounds, especially at a beginner/intermediate level (5"9 195, 245/335/410)[/quote]
I think someone who actually NEEDS to do a full body routine to see the most progress may not have the genetics to make the most progress in the first place. Full body routines handed out to beginners like candy seem to imply that the beginner is so uncoordinated and athletically challenged that they simply would not see the greatest benefit from isolation movements used in a regular routine.
I see no reason for someone to approach training as a newbie by avoiding training specific muscle groups directly.
The big guys in the past didn’t do that and they don’t do it now. You don’t get extra credit for NOT doing lateral raises. What you get is lesser shoulder development which has the potential to translate into other weaknesses.
It is fairly common knowledge that if your bench press weight isn’t going up, you may need to back off and start training the other muscle groups involved in the movement directly. That includes triceps, biceps, shoulders and even back. If you have it in your head that you can avoid training those groups directly and still make the most progress possible, you are mistaken.
No, I am not a fan of full body training and I am still waiting on those of you who went from skinny to really huge to post some pics of the transformation using this routine only without any glaring weaknesses showing up in your development as a result.
When you were focusing on your upper chest how did you find your progression on the chest exercises.
Did the exercises that you were already doing before you split it in two, continue at roughly (as strength does come in spurts) the same rate or slower due to the higher volume and frequency your chest was hit at?
When you were focusing on your upper chest how did you find your progression on the chest exercises.
Did the exercises that you were already doing before you split it in two, continue at roughly (as strength does come in spurts) the same rate or slower due to the higher volume and frequency your chest was hit at?[/quote]
My upper chest grew in strength rapidly when I switched to training like that. I was originally doing 3-4 sets on the HS incline, 2-3 sets on the smith machine incline press and 2 sets of dumbbells presses.
I can honestly say it was the best move I made as far as chest development next to ignoring people who act like all machines should be avoided.
