Question About Pre-Fatiguing

Training
421

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
Stu’s,Zraw’s(and whoever else agree to do it this way) believes fatiguing the major muscle first will help you get a better mind muscle connection during the exercises , which also forces the muscle work harder and take over.[/quote]

I just want to clarify that my use of traditional pre-exhaust methods isn’t necessarily about having trouble feeling a muscle, it’s about addressing the natural imbalance between the multiple muscles that are all engaged to some degree when performing a compound lift.

If three muscle groups are all called into play, and there exists a fairly large natural strength discrepancy between the small ones and the large ones, then obviously the smaller ones (the ‘weak link in the chain’) will determine at what point the exercise can no longer be fully performed. Additionally, a muscle that is not stimulated to the point of eliciting an adaptive response (in the case of my training, hypertrophy) will most likely remain a weak point in the trainers physique.

So do you feel that X’s way works?

422

I absolutely love this thread! please do not let it die… please please please

423

[quote]DazeDolo wrote:

Im not saying Stu’s and Zraw’s is wrong/right , but if X’s method is right wouldn’t that mean that fatiguing chest would cause the shoulders and triceps to do more of the work ?

[/quote]

Well, they are right… and so was/is Dorian Yates, Arthur Jones, Casey Viator, Ray Mentzer, Mike Mentzer, John Meadows, Trevor Smith, and whoever else liberally uses/used pre-exhaust!

424

And read any of the classic texts from the 60’s to 90’s and you’ll see how the damn method has ALWAYS been used! Please, pick up a Weider or Bob Kennedy book from the 80’s to late 90’s. How do they describe pre-exhaust? The way many discuss it here: isolation before compound. NEVER has it been addressed the other way around. Also see CT’s older artictles discussing the method!

425

Dorian having Centaponi pre-exhausting BACK on BACK DAY–a SENSELESS practice!

426

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would I want to “pre-fatigue” my chest on CHEST DAY???[/quote]

because some people have difficulty with the mind muscle connection with exercises like bench press…

427

Did Tricep workout. Did some pec dec before close grip benching and felt it more in my upper chest and front delt.

428

[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
Did Tricep workout. Did some pec dec before close grip benching and felt it more in my upper chest and front delt.

[/quote]

you are doing it wrong.
you are gonna listen to a guy who can’t even do a lunge
do some triceps extensions before close-grip press /thread

429

[quote]DazeDolo wrote:
Did Tricep workout. Did some pec dec before close grip benching and felt it more in my upper chest and front delt.

[/quote]

Crazy right? You train your chest and you feel it in the chest.

I am pretty sure Dave Tate means instead of flys and then benchpress, he likes benchpress and then flys, combo more.

Not tricep extension + benchpress. It’s hilarious that someone can even argue about it for 18 pages, and even more hilarious that the one has never tried it but just debates about it because of his personal ego.

430

While I didnt argue for 18 pages, coupled with taking in what more accomplished BBers on this site and what the professionals said. I HAVE used this technique before and it did work for me. I actually have done light shoulder and/or tricep movements before hitting chest in the past and while the load was was less the muscle hit was more chest than it was tri or delt.

Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster. While X and I may be wrong in our understanding of what the term pre-fatiguing meant (I admit this on my part) I will still do what I think is effective for me. I will certainly take other peoples opinions especially the well accomplished ones to heart…the bullshit and aside there was alot to be gained from the thread, unfortunately its lost amist all the garbage.

431

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
While I didnt argue for 18 pages, coupled with taking in what more accomplished BBers on this site and what the professionals said. I HAVE used this technique before and it did work for me. I actually have done light shoulder and/or tricep movements before hitting chest in the past and while the load was was less the muscle hit was more chest than it was tri or delt.

Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster. While X and I may be wrong in our understanding of what the term pre-fatiguing meant (I admit this on my part) I will still do what I think is effective for me. I will certainly take other peoples opinions especially the well accomplished ones to heart…the bullshit and aside there was alot to be gained from the thread, unfortunately its lost amist
all the garbage.[/quote]

I have no personal grudge against X eventhough he calls me by names, “mental vacancy” etc.
I just have problems when someone justifies a technique by saying “I am big” when he has admitted several pages ago he hasnt used it.

Warming up your delts and triceps is good. I always warmup my delts before benchpress. However it’s different than prefatiguing.

Have you had time to try prefatigue triceps/anterior delts before benchpress for chest ?

I tried it, and didnt work for me. But doing benchpress and supersetting with fly’s works nicely,too, compared to flys first then benchpress.

432

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
While I didnt argue for 18 pages, coupled with taking in what more accomplished BBers on this site and what the professionals said. I HAVE used this technique before and it did work for me. I actually have done light shoulder and/or tricep movements before hitting chest in the past and while the load was was less the muscle hit was more chest than it was tri or delt.

Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster. While X and I may be wrong in our understanding of what the term pre-fatiguing meant (I admit this on my part) I will still do what I think is effective for me. I will certainly take other peoples opinions especially the well accomplished ones to heart…the bullshit and aside there was alot to be gained from the thread, unfortunately its lost amist all the garbage.

[/quote]

18 pages long…about 2 pages of actual content. Another winner for T-Nation.

433

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster.
[/quote]

Matty, it’s not even about semantics or dislike, at least for me. It’s about a poster who whined over and over that others said HIS method was wrong or made little sense. Then, when others point out that he did the exact same thing, he denied it, diverted the conversation, made personal attacks, then here at the end just flat out ignored it.

The "arguing’ was about blatant hypocrisy and the inability to say “Oh, you’re right, I did say that. My bad”. Instead, that fact gets ignored and the discussion gets framed around how “maybe if the little guys were in the gym instead of arguing” or “I’m bigger than you so you don’t know”.

Have you seen him ONCE address this issue below?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I never thought the other way was nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

He also admitted he had never used the technique. See the issue? He did exactly what he was belittling others for doing.

434

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
While I didnt argue for 18 pages, coupled with taking in what more accomplished BBers on this site and what the professionals said. I HAVE used this technique before and it did work for me. I actually have done light shoulder and/or tricep movements before hitting chest in the past and while the load was was less the muscle hit was more chest than it was tri or delt.

Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster. While X and I may be wrong in our understanding of what the term pre-fatiguing meant (I admit this on my part) I will still do what I think is effective for me. I will certainly take other peoples opinions especially the well accomplished ones to heart…the bullshit and aside there was alot to be gained from the thread, unfortunately its lost amist
all the garbage.[/quote]

I have no personal grudge against X eventhough he calls me by names, “mental vacancy” etc.
I just have problems when someone justifies a technique by saying “I am big” when he has admitted several pages ago he hasnt used it.

Warming up your delts and triceps is good. I always warmup my delts before benchpress. However it’s different than prefatiguing.

Have you had time to try prefatigue triceps/anterior delts before benchpress for chest ?

I tried it, and didnt work for me. But doing benchpress and supersetting with fly’s works nicely,too, compared to flys first then benchpress.[/quote]

I am going to try the fly in between bench sets, sounds interesting.

435

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster.
[/quote]

Matty, it’s not even about semantics or dislike, at least for me. It’s about a poster who whined over and over that others said HIS method was wrong or made little sense. Then, when others point out that he did the exact same thing, he denied it, diverted the conversation, made personal attacks, then here at the end just flat out ignored it.

The "arguing’ was about blatant hypocrisy and the inability to say “Oh, you’re right, I did say that. My bad”. Instead, that fact gets ignored and the discussion gets framed around how “maybe if the little guys were in the gym instead of arguing” or “I’m bigger than you so you don’t know”.

Have you seen him ONCE address this issue below?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I never thought the other way was nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

He also admitted he had never used the technique. See the issue? He did exactly what he was belittling others for doing.[/quote]

I understand Cue, Im not trying to defend X, as we all know he can defend himself. I do however feel even if he did admit he was wrong, some people (not you specifically) would still come in this thread simply to bust his balls just to turn the thread into a shitstorm. Seriously there has been posters in this thread just to make fun of his lunges. If you wanna see something really comical watch me do a lunge! I dont even have the excuse of an accident!

436

With all this in mind:

I pre-fatigue my muscles every workout because I save the isolation exercises for the end. That means that after bench pressing and pullups I finish with tricep extensions and bicep curls.

That is pre-fatigueing. Right?

Warming up a muscle group to build the mind-muscle-connection is more like this: Bench pressing for 20 reps and then doing flys on the incline to isolate the pecs.

That is building the mind muscle connection. Right?

437

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster.
[/quote]

Matty, it’s not even about semantics or dislike, at least for me. It’s about a poster who whined over and over that others said HIS method was wrong or made little sense. Then, when others point out that he did the exact same thing, he denied it, diverted the conversation, made personal attacks, then here at the end just flat out ignored it.

The "arguing’ was about blatant hypocrisy and the inability to say “Oh, you’re right, I did say that. My bad”. Instead, that fact gets ignored and the discussion gets framed around how “maybe if the little guys were in the gym instead of arguing” or “I’m bigger than you so you don’t know”.

Have you seen him ONCE address this issue below?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I never thought the other way was nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

He also admitted he had never used the technique. See the issue? He did exactly what he was belittling others for doing.[/quote]

I understand Cue, Im not trying to defend X, as we all know he can defend himself. I do however feel even if he did admit he was wrong, some people (not you specifically) would still come in this thread simply to bust his balls just to turn the thread into a shitstorm. Seriously there has been posters in this thread just to make fun of his lunges. If you wanna see something really comical watch me do a lunge! I dont even have the excuse of an accident![/quote]

OK. Then we are on the same page. I certainly hope no one thinks I’m defending the actions of others either. I do think, though, some of that behavior comes from a backlash to the personal attacks on ones physique or size as a means to bolster their position. And it does happen.

Whether it’s a “chicken or the egg” thing, I dunno. But neither side is innocent of personal attack.

438

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster.
[/quote]

Matty, it’s not even about semantics or dislike, at least for me. It’s about a poster who whined over and over that others said HIS method was wrong or made little sense. Then, when others point out that he did the exact same thing, he denied it, diverted the conversation, made personal attacks, then here at the end just flat out ignored it.

The "arguing’ was about blatant hypocrisy and the inability to say “Oh, you’re right, I did say that. My bad”. Instead, that fact gets ignored and the discussion gets framed around how “maybe if the little guys were in the gym instead of arguing” or “I’m bigger than you so you don’t know”.

Have you seen him ONCE address this issue below?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I never thought the other way was nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

He also admitted he had never used the technique. See the issue? He did exactly what he was belittling others for doing.[/quote]

I understand Cue, Im not trying to defend X, as we all know he can defend himself. I do however feel even if he did admit he was wrong, some people (not you specifically) would still come in this thread simply to bust his balls just to turn the thread into a shitstorm. Seriously there has been posters in this thread just to make fun of his lunges. If you wanna see something really comical watch me do a lunge! I dont even have the excuse of an accident![/quote]

I agree with both of you 100%. X was ridiculous and some butthurt posters couldn’t help themselves.

And I didn’t see this infamous lunge video but as I haven’t ever performed a lunge, I can’t imagine I’d look good, either.

439

500×667 79.4 KB

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
And I didn’t see this infamous lunge video but…
[/quote]

440

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Again it seems like the argument for at leat 13 pages was semantics, and personal dislike for a poster.
[/quote]

Matty, it’s not even about semantics or dislike, at least for me. It’s about a poster who whined over and over that others said HIS method was wrong or made little sense. Then, when others point out that he did the exact same thing, he denied it, diverted the conversation, made personal attacks, then here at the end just flat out ignored it.

The "arguing’ was about blatant hypocrisy and the inability to say “Oh, you’re right, I did say that. My bad”. Instead, that fact gets ignored and the discussion gets framed around how “maybe if the little guys were in the gym instead of arguing” or “I’m bigger than you so you don’t know”.

Have you seen him ONCE address this issue below?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I never thought the other way was nonsense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

He also admitted he had never used the technique. See the issue? He did exactly what he was belittling others for doing.[/quote]

I understand Cue, Im not trying to defend X, as we all know he can defend himself. I do however feel even if he did admit he was wrong, some people (not you specifically) would still come in this thread simply to bust his balls just to turn the thread into a shitstorm. Seriously there has been posters in this thread just to make fun of his lunges. If you wanna see something really comical watch me do a lunge! I dont even have the excuse of an accident![/quote]

I agree with both of you 100%. X was ridiculous and some butthurt posters couldn’t help themselves.

And I didn’t see this infamous lunge video but as I haven’t ever performed a lunge, I can’t imagine I’d look good, either.

[/quote]

I was ridiculous? Me and Matty both made the same response initially. LOL at that.

What I noticed is that the larger posters here mostly agreed on this…while everyone else here just for the purpose of causing shitstorms seemed extremely confused.

I don’t do lunges. My knees are blown out. I couldn’t do any leg work for a month after that trip to CO…so people can laugh all they want.

Most of the ones laughing haven’t built enough muscle to justify the attitude.

I wasn’t familiar with the term as it is used in training articles. neither as Matty. My guess is, none of the big guys in my gym over the age of 30 know or care about it either.

It would help if most were here to make progress…instead of do this in every thread.