Pullovers for Upper Pec Mass

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

the pullover is most definitely a chest exercise (as well as a lat exercise)thats just basic anatomy, is not exotic and using it if it works for you is not complicating things.

[/quote]

That’s like saying the squat is a lower back exercise since it gets activated.
[/quote]

yes.

[/quote]

The answer is actually, “NO”.

Squats are not “most definitely a lower back exercise” the same way you think the chest is worked with pull overs.

Just because a muscle is activated at all, it does not mean that is the best way to train it for strength and size.

You won’t be finding too many Olympias who have huge chests from years and years of avoiding presses and only doing pull overs.

Sorry.
[/quote]

no need to be sorry, its not your fault.

actually the answer is “maybe”. I dont live in in a binary world where the answer is always 1 or 0, yes or no, on or off.

the world, including human behaviour is more analogue. So the answer is maybe yes, maybe no, depending on a lot of variables.

[/quote]
Post pics of “variable” physique with huge pecs from pull overs.[/quote]

oh dear,oh dear, oh dear,
I dont have huge pecs. Pullovers do, however, work my chest. They may help the op. That is the important thing.

the older and hopefully wiser you get, the more you realise that things are rarely black and white, yes or no etc.

42

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve noticed that a lot of people has difficulty actually lifting with their chest muscles because of a couple of performance issues. As someone whose delts definitely overpowered his pecs for a long time, these would be my suggestions:

-Learn to squeeze your shoulder blades together and keep them like that during your pressing movements
-Don’t let your shoulders roll forward at the ‘top’ of presses
-Press your weight (DBs or BBs) in a slight arcing manner to really target upper pecs
-Don’t press to full lock-out
-If all else fails, and it really is a strength imbalance problem, incorporate some type of pre-exhaust work

S[/quote]

I’ve heard of squeezing your blades back, but I can’t say that I’ve ever given much thought to bar path during a bench. Could you elaborate more on the “arcing” that you mentioned?

I definitely need to work on my mind-muscle connection. Especially for lifting back, I rarely actually feel anything when I lift back. I always feel chest and leg workouts really well, but leave my back workouts disappointed.

43
44

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

the pullover is most definitely a chest exercise (as well as a lat exercise)thats just basic anatomy, is not exotic and using it if it works for you is not complicating things.

[/quote]

That’s like saying the squat is a lower back exercise since it gets activated.
[/quote]

yes.

[/quote]

The answer is actually, “NO”.

Squats are not “most definitely a lower back exercise” the same way you think the chest is worked with pull overs.

Just because a muscle is activated at all, it does not mean that is the best way to train it for strength and size.

You won’t be finding too many Olympias who have huge chests from years and years of avoiding presses and only doing pull overs.

Sorry.
[/quote]

no need to be sorry, its not your fault.

actually the answer is “maybe”. I dont live in in a binary world where the answer is always 1 or 0, yes or no, on or off.

the world, including human behaviour is more analogue. So the answer is maybe yes, maybe no, depending on a lot of variables.

[/quote]
Post pics of “variable” physique with huge pecs from pull overs.[/quote]

oh dear,oh dear, oh dear,
I dont have huge pecs. Pullovers do, however, work my chest. They may help the op. That is the important thing.

the older and hopefully wiser you get, the more you realise that things are rarely black and white, yes or no etc.
[/quote]

Dude, it IS black and white unless your goal is to try every training strategy known to man just to see how each works.

If there are ZERO people walking around with huge pec development from pull overs alone, it is illogical to waste to your time thinking it is “most definitely a chest exercise”.

I know you don’t have huge pecs.

Someone who did wouldn’t have written that.

45

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

the pullover is most definitely a chest exercise (as well as a lat exercise)thats just basic anatomy, is not exotic and using it if it works for you is not complicating things.

[/quote]

That’s like saying the squat is a lower back exercise since it gets activated.
[/quote]

yes.

[/quote]

The answer is actually, “NO”.

Squats are not “most definitely a lower back exercise” the same way you think the chest is worked with pull overs.

Just because a muscle is activated at all, it does not mean that is the best way to train it for strength and size.

You won’t be finding too many Olympias who have huge chests from years and years of avoiding presses and only doing pull overs.

Sorry.
[/quote]

no need to be sorry, its not your fault.

actually the answer is “maybe”. I dont live in in a binary world where the answer is always 1 or 0, yes or no, on or off.

the world, including human behaviour is more analogue. So the answer is maybe yes, maybe no, depending on a lot of variables.

[/quote]
Post pics of “variable” physique with huge pecs from pull overs.[/quote]

oh dear,oh dear, oh dear,
I dont have huge pecs. Pullovers do, however, work my chest. They may help the op. That is the important thing.

the older and hopefully wiser you get, the more you realise that things are rarely black and white, yes or no etc.
[/quote]

Dude, it IS black and white unless your goal is to try every training strategy known to man just to see how each works.

If there are ZERO people walking around with huge pec development from pull overs alone, it is illogical to waste to your time thinking it is “most definitely a chest exercise”.

I know you don’t have huge pecs.

Someone who did wouldn’t have written that.[/quote]

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago

46

If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?

47

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]

Primarily Teres Major, Lats, Long head of Triceps, and Rear delts.

48

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]
It does work the pecs, and more.

49

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]
It does work the pecs, and more.

[/quote]

/endthread

50

[quote]jake_j_m wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]
It does work the pecs, and more.

[/quote]

/endthread[/quote]

?

It is more like a finishing movement. I don’t think anyone contended that it was useless. I used to do them…but there isn’t one dude on the planet with a giant chest who got it from pull overs. That was the main point.

If you want a chest that makes people take notice, you had better get real acquainted with a bench press and some dumbbells.

When I did them, it was on back day for lats.

This is like suddenly acting like dips are the best chest builder.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jake_j_m wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]
It does work the pecs, and more.

[/quote]

/endthread[/quote]

?

It is more like a finishing movement. I don’t think anyone contended that. I used to do them…but there isn’t one dude on the planet with a giant chest who got it from pull overs. That was the main point.

If you want a chest that makes people take notice, you had better get real acquainted with a bench press and some dumbbells.

When I did them, it was on back day for lats.

This is like suddenly acting like dips are the best chest builder.
[/quote]

True. Im not aware of any successfull bodybuilders that start their chest workouts with pullovers. I don’t think it’s a movement that will make or break you, just something that can be addded in for variety towards the end of a workout.

52

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]JFG wrote:
If it doesn’t work pecs, what does it work?[/quote]
It does work the pecs, and more.

[/quote]

Did you read the 2011 study? Pretty interesting, to be sure…I just finished reading it. It’s pretty clear that the lat gets nothing out of this, but they only looked at the lats and pecs. Pec activity was around 50% MVIA, which isn’t very much in the grand scheme of things. I would much rather have seen the serratus and triceps measured as well, and I think you’d see much higher activation from both than the lat was showing.

So in summary, this would be a poor choice as a primary pec exercise. But it would be fine as a finisher. Basically, exactly what many people have already said.

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is more like a finishing movement. I don’t think anyone contended that. I used to do them…but there isn’t one dude on the planet with a giant chest who got it from pull overs. That was the main point.

If you want a chest that makes people take notice, you had better get real acquainted with a bench press and some dumbbells.

When I did them, it was on back day for lats.

This is like suddenly acting like dips are the best chest builder.[/quote]
I definitely agree that pullovers were never the only chest exercise for bodybuilders. The people who were “just” doing pullovers 70 or 80 years ago weren’t strictly bodybuilders and weren’t as developed, relatively, as your average consistent lifter today.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Im not aware of any successfull bodybuilders that start their chest workouts with pullovers. I don’t think it’s a movement that will make or break you[/quote]
One of the issues I wanted to address in this article was that there have been more than a handful of vocal advocates of pullovers (obviously done in addition to a more complete chest or back workout). A bunch of bodybuilders have said, essentially, that pullovers played a part in building their size.

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Did you read the 2011 study? Pretty interesting, to be sure…I just finished reading it.[/quote]
I took a look at the abstract when Contreras mentioned it to me. It was pretty surprising.

Agreed, and that’s pretty much what I said i the article, in terms of the pullover as a chest exercise.

54

^^ Great job on today’s article, Chris C

55

A pullover does work your upper pecs to some extent, but no better than doing a chest fly, incline press or any number of other chest exercises.

56

Why are pullovers still even being considered for an upper chest exercise? They do amazing things for the chest and back but comon’? Targeting the UPPER chest?
Well here’s what I got: Incline bench flye’s (dumbbell if you’re ready for it it, cable if you’re not; bands work really well, too, in establishing the ‘feel’), overhand-close-grip press has shown good stimulation of the upper pecs, especially at heavier weights; as has reverse-grip press (though awkward, if you can manage it, it definitely has good stimulation, which I did for higher rep ranges.) Good luck!