[quote]NikH wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]NikH wrote:
I seriously wish that you will try it in the gym, so you will know how bad advice it is.
It will be good for your front delts and triceps for sure but bad for your pecs. And I mean fatigument not warming up.
[/quote]
While I haven’t specifically tried front delts and triceps, here are some counter examples to your argument:
- While I was doing DC training heavily the exercise order on “B” days went:
-Biceps
-Forearms
-Calves
-Hamstrings
-Quads
Now obviously the first two don’t follow X’s concept, but the last 2 do (since both hamstrings and quads are either prime movers or synergists in squatting or leg pressing movements) and I can tell you that although my hamstrings were generally quite fatigued when I went to do squats, I sure as hell felt my quads working hard during my quad movements.
-
Again, John Meadows suggests doing brachialis and brachioradialis prior to doing biceps training. Hasn’t seemed to result in his clients winding up with huge forearms and tiny biceps.
-
CT has/had people who were doing his HP mass program perform
-Overhead press (shoulders and triceps intensive) variation
-Incline press (shoulders, triceps, and clavicular pec intensive) variation
-Flat or decline (sternal pec, shoulders, and triceps intensive) variation
I didn’t hear droves of people complaining that they couldn’t feel their pecs working by the time they got to flat bench, even though if they were doing the exercise right their shoulders and triceps were obviously at least a little fatigued by the time they got to the flat/decline variation. I know that I for one always felt my chest working hard by the time I got to flat bench and didn’t only feel it in my shouders and triceps, despite them being “pre fatigued”.
So, there is 3 examples of 3 of the most knowledgeable coaches that I know of not adhering to the idea that you must work at muscle group first should you want it to be focused on/hit hard during a compound movement.
Obviously they are also not following the same model as classical pre-fatigue (isolation followed by compound) format, but I think it’s silly to think that there isn’t still fatigue pressent in the previously trained muscles by the time you get to the final compound movement.
And again, read the article that Super Saiyan originally posted and I quoted a few pages back. The researchers found that when the subjects performed an isolation chest exercise prior to performing bench presses, that there was no increase in chest MMC, but there was a significant increase in triceps MMC. Now, I’m not saying that I put my total blind faith in EMG tests, but don’t you guys think this was an interesting phenomenon and at least lends some scientific credence to this counter line of thinking?
And again, I’m not arguing that classical pre-fatigue doesn’t work, there are too many examples of people who have built real flesh and blood results with it to do that, just trying to actually get some intelligent discussion going on this subject rather than all this name calling and finger pointing.
I was always under the impression that pre-exhaustion was designed to increase the intramuscular force produced within a muscle (due to the presence of increased blood flow and metabolites) thereby which the lifter could more easily increase their neuromuscular connection/control of their pecs and over ride their natural neuromuscular tendencies.
In other words, because some people are natural “triceps and shoulders dominant pressers” (meaning better neuromuscular connections/control of those muscles) and have poor neuromuscular connections to their pecs and so isolating the pecs before moving onto the compound allows you to “get in touch” with your pecs so you can better stimulate them during the compound.
[/quote]
Are you reading my posts at all?
- Hamstring is the antagonist to quad and is alot less involved in squatting than the quad.
Correct “X” comparison would be to prefatigue your glutes to get most of quads for squatting. Which is weird too.
-
I never argued about this. Do you read my posts? X said he “prefatigues” where he meant warmsup his brachioradialis alone. Not brachialis or anything else. What means he did reverse wrist curls which as a prefatigument for bicep curls would be silly and nearly useless.
All what meadow says is different, and it’s not considered prefatigument either. He just trains brachialis etc first.
-
This is not prefatiguement obviously, have you not understood the concept? Prefatigument is when you fatigue the muscle and SUPERSET with the compound movement. HP Mass surely didnt do Over Head Presses close to failure and then superset with bench press.
[/quote]
Not sure what you’re misunderstanding here, Sentoguy’s post made perfect sense and at this point I wonder if you are just arguing for argument’s sake.
- It is a good analogy, hamstrings are synergists in squatting and are pretty involved, and depending on width of stance, leverage, and depth yes, the quads may be more involved to a degree. Just because it is an antagonist doesn’t mean the muscle can’t be heavily involved in a squat, look up “Lombard’s Paradox.” And why would you single out the glutes as apposed to the hamstrings? Personally I feel the squat more in hamstrings than glutes (due to my glute strength), though that will vary from person to person.
I had the same experience as Sentoguy both with DC training and a John Meadow’s routine. I found that lying or seated leg curls before squat or leg press made me feel quads more, and quads were always trashed the next two days. I have tried both ways in doing hammer or reverse curls before biceps or after, both seem to work well for me.
- I didn’t understand him as arguing what you said, but hey, feel free to argue whatever point you want.
