Bros… this thread is about everyone being strapped in Texas, larger than average penises and blasting delts/tri’s before benching.
Please try to stay on topic.
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
I rarely ever login lately, but I want to make a couple of points. I think pre-exhaust in the traditional sense is the way to go and for the most part I disagree with X. That being said, despite disagreeing, it does make some sense in a weird way.
Say a lifter can normally bench 300 for however many reps but wishes to use more chest during the movement. Using the method X and matty have been promoting, pre-exhausting shoulders and or tris, the lifter is forced to use less weight, say 250. This is the weight the chest is still capable of lifting, given the weakened state and therefore less contribution from delts
and tris. Now the lifter works his way back up to 300 over the next weeks/months continuing with weakened delts and tris. If I understand what x and matty are trying to say, a lifter using some chest and a lot of delt/tri initially to bench 300, is now a lifter using mostly chest and some delt/tri to put up the same 300. Theoretical result: increased chest stimulation and growth.
If that is what x and matty are getting at (correct me if I’m wrong, as if that needed to be said lol), then I can see the merit in both methods and will only know how I react after trying both.[/quote]
Yea youll end up having big triceps and delts since ull be training them 3x a week on chest, shoulder and arms day
P.S. This thread has been entertaining, annoying, ridiculous, hilarious, sad, and ultimately AWESOME.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Thats why arnold did leg extensions before squats so he could feel his quads more
Like flys before benchpress
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Man, that’s a huge can of worms. I would probably say that pre-exhaust wasn’t the correct technique to fix that problem. I might suggest some activation, maybe even a different set-up in the squat to try and reduce quads while forcing more of the work to the glutes/hams. Otherwise, I would say quit squatting and focus on exercises that were hip dominant only and didn’t involve the knee until everything els was up to par. Do some isolation work for the quads after.
I guess I would suggest the same for pecs, delts, tris. I certainly don’t think pre-exhaust is a technique that will out right fix imbalances. And like I said in my post to Matty, the technique you guys are discussing might be beneficial to remove an obviously dominant link so the target can get worked.
I just don’t think these two methods we’ve been discussing are inter-changable as a solution for the same problem.
Edited
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Man, that’s a huge can of worms. I would probably say that pre-exhaust wasn’t the correct technique to fix that problem. I might suggest some activation, maybe even a different set-up in the squat to try and reduce quads while forcing more of the work to the glutes/hams. Otherwise, I would say quit squatting and focus on exercises that were hip dominant only and didn’t involve the knee until everything els was up to par. Do some isolation work for the quads after.
I guess I would suggest the same for pecs, delts, tris. I certainly don’t think pre-exhaust is a technique that will out right fix imbalances. And like I said in my post to Matty, the technique you guys are discussing might be beneficial to remove an obviously dominant link so the target can get worked.
I just don’t think these two methods we’ve been discussing are inter-changable as a solution for the same problem.
Edited[/quote]
Yeah, I agree that both methods likely have merit.
Well, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that one use pre-fatigue to necessarily fix imbalances. What I was getting at is that suggesting that the muscles which are growing the most are in fact the weak links seems unlikely and, well, just wrong. Yet for some reason it is believed that if your triceps and shoulders blow up from benching, while your pecs don’t respond, that it’s because the triceps and shoulders are the weak links. Why? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the chest is actually the weak link and that it’s the triceps and shoulders that are the strong links?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Man, that’s a huge can of worms. I would probably say that pre-exhaust wasn’t the correct technique to fix that problem. I might suggest some activation, maybe even a different set-up in the squat to try and reduce quads while forcing more of the work to the glutes/hams. Otherwise, I would say quit squatting and focus on exercises that were hip dominant only and didn’t involve the knee until everything els was up to par. Do some isolation work for the quads after.
I guess I would suggest the same for pecs, delts, tris. I certainly don’t think pre-exhaust is a technique that will out right fix imbalances. And like I said in my post to Matty, the technique you guys are discussing might be beneficial to remove an obviously dominant link so the target can get worked.
I just don’t think these two methods we’ve been discussing are inter-changable as a solution for the same problem.
Edited[/quote]
Yeah, I agree that both methods likely have merit.
Well, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that one use pre-fatigue to necessarily fix imbalances. What I was getting at is that suggesting that the muscles which are growing the most are in fact the weak links seems unlikely and, well, just wrong. Yet for some reason it is believed that if your triceps and shoulders blow up from benching, while your pecs don’t respond, that it’s because the triceps and shoulders are the weak links. Why? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the chest is actually the weak link and that it’s the triceps and shoulders that are the strong links?
[/quote]
So you think the strong links fatigue first ?
Here’s how I see it.
If you want to put emphasis on chest and maximize your chances at hypertrophy, pre-exhaust before a compound. Also do this if the target muscle is the strongest in the chain to make sure it’s fully fatigued.
If you have trouble getting your chest to fire during a compound, do some light activation to feel it. don’t fatigue it.
If for some reason you can’t get your chest to fire and your tris do all the work, either change your set-up, find an exercise that works better, or find a way to take tris out of the equation. This is where I think X’s method makes the most sense. But it is all dependent on whether or not you have the ability to now make your chest work when your previous prime mover is in a fatigued state.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Man, that’s a huge can of worms. I would probably say that pre-exhaust wasn’t the correct technique to fix that problem. I might suggest some activation, maybe even a different set-up in the squat to try and reduce quads while forcing more of the work to the glutes/hams. Otherwise, I would say quit squatting and focus on exercises that were hip dominant only and didn’t involve the knee until everything els was up to par. Do some isolation work for the quads after.
I guess I would suggest the same for pecs, delts, tris. I certainly don’t think pre-exhaust is a technique that will out right fix imbalances. And like I said in my post to Matty, the technique you guys are discussing might be beneficial to remove an obviously dominant link so the target can get worked.
I just don’t think these two methods we’ve been discussing are inter-changable as a solution for the same problem.
Edited[/quote]
Yeah, I agree that both methods likely have merit.
Well, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that one use pre-fatigue to necessarily fix imbalances. What I was getting at is that suggesting that the muscles which are growing the most are in fact the weak links seems unlikely and, well, just wrong. Yet for some reason it is believed that if your triceps and shoulders blow up from benching, while your pecs don’t respond, that it’s because the triceps and shoulders are the weak links. Why? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the chest is actually the weak link and that it’s the triceps and shoulders that are the strong links?
[/quote]
And this is how all this got started.
One method was being discussed from a view point of hypertrophy and bringing the chest, which was the strongest in the chain, down to the weaker links level.
The other method, as I saw it, was being discussed as a way to fix a dominant assistance muscle so it wasn’t doing all the work.
Again these are two different methods that don’t really address the same issues.
[quote]cueball wrote:
But it is all dependent on whether or not you have the ability to now make your chest work when your previous prime mover is in a fatigued state.
[/quote]
^Herein IMO lies the real crux of whether this would work or not; In real life, not some theorizing about weakened muscle ‘shutting down’ like they might from a trauma related injury simply by working them first.
In X’s bicep issue, we’re talking about different muscles that all essentially cross the same joint. So as he’s experienced himself, it has proven useful to targeting a muscle that for whatever reason, whether structurally, or neurologically doesn’t cooperate in a typical fashion.
In terms of a compound movement where you’ve got the pecs that are able to contract and bring the arms across the body without the involvement of the triceps, or even the delts (albeit to a lesser degree), I think the premise of the pecs being able to ‘take up the slack’ so to speak would in no way work to the degree of being able to stimulate the pecs to the point of an adaptive response.
S
** EDIT: REMOVED BY POSTER. ***
More likely to clutter the thread than accomplish anything else.
The whole fitness world is #doinitwrong!
From an old Christian Thibaudeau article:
"For a ‘stubborn muscle’ I suggest using a pre-fatigue approach: starting with an isolation exercise and then performing either one ‘big movement’ plus one more isolation one, or two ‘big movements’. The key is to start with the isolation one.
Pre-fatigue is a technique that I recommend only for a stubborn muscle group. This technique is effective because by isolating a muscle you ‘prime it’ (both neurologically and physiologically) so that it’s recruited more easily during the subsequent ‘big movement’. The localized pump from the isolation movement also enables you to better ‘feel’ that muscle working during the compound drill (enhanced feedback) and are thus able to have a better mind-muscle connection with that stubborn muscle."
http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/pump_down_the_volume&cr=
[quote]gregron wrote:
Bros… this thread is about everyone being strapped in Texas, larger than average penises and blasting delts/tri’s before benching.
Please try to stay on topic.[/quote]
Bro, don’t you know it’s normal to brandish your Glock when given critique on your exercise form?
God, I love the fact this thread is delivering still.
Keep the hate going guys.
Brofessor X: Let it flow, let the butthurt flow through you, good good, let it flow
I’ve been following this thread for the admittedly awesome entertainment value.
But I have to admit Cueball and Mighty Stu’s posts ^^ were pretty darned informative. Kudos to them.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Sentoguy and many others are really now turning this into a very informative thread. Thanks
Now I am not saying Im right, as I have a shit ton to learn and whatever the greats have used for eons obviously works, and there are many others on this site that look a shit ton better than me, but this is what I still dont quite understand.
If I pre-fatigue my chest being a tri and delt dominate presser would it not be atural for my tris and delts dominate the movement even more since my chest is already pre-fatigued.
Would it not be beneficial to pre-fatigue my tris and delts so there assistance in the movement would be hindered so my pecs get the brunt of the movement? As roybot stated in this instance who cares about the weight moved[/quote]
Matty, I think maybe we are discussing two somewhat different scenarios.
The method you are talking about seems to stem from having muscles that take over a movement, leaving the “target” muscle behind.
The method others are talking about seems to be from a “how do I get the most hypertrophy of a specific muscle” standpoint.
These are different methods, but I’m not sure I see them being interchangable.[/quote]
Yeah you hit the nail on the head…and I think this is where my confusion stems from, I keep on thinking they are interchangeable when they arent really synonymous at all. My viewpoint comes from muscles “interfering” with the target muscle rather than maximal hypertrophy of the target muscle.
Im just going to listen now lol.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]NikH wrote:
[quote]krillin wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I am not arguing about that. We are talking about X’s logic. I think Meadow and DC training are both good. In this case the person who were doing squats was meant to have weaker glutes, and training prefatiguing them would make him fail earlier and train his quads less properly. (training triceps before benchpress will make your bench weak and chest untrained)[/quote]
What that actually does is fatigue the dominant muscle group sufficiently so that the target muscle can be stressed with less weight - a good thing. A weaker max is only an issue if you’re chasing performance. You wouldn’t want to pre-exhaust in that situation as it’s bringing your fatigue threshold down. If your goal is hypertrophy, targeted stimulation is key, not putting up a PR.
[/quote]
This. Right. Here
Thanks Roy for articulating what I couldnt explain better.
[/quote]
Thanks, Matty!
[quote]NikH wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah, sorry, just realized I got MMC and MVC (maximal voluntary contraction) mixed up in my head. I believe they are measuring MVC, not MMC (which I agree would be tough to quantify).
My bad.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Makes sense.
One thing I noticed when re-reading that study. They were measuring activation, but there was no measure of overall fatigue of that muscle. One of the reasons to pre-exhaust is to make sure that muscle is fully fatigued in the main exercise.
Which one matters more? If you didn’t pre-exhaust, you might have recruited more units, but did you tax it enough to elicit a growth response?
Edit: I think this is where the idea of making sure the target muscle fails before the synergists do. Even though you night get more recruitment to start, you would have to terminate the set before it made enough difference since the assistance muscles are shot.[/quote]
Good point. It would have been interesting to see how fatigue played into the study.
Like I said in my reply to Stu, I’m starting to rethink the concept that pre fatiguing is about bringing the desired muscle down to the synergists’ level. Think about it this way:
-let’s say you have a person with huge quads and tiny Hammie’s and glutes, which muscle would you say was their strongest link and which would you say are their weakest links? Now, which muscle do you suppose they feel working most when they squat?
Why would you think it would be any different with bench pressing and pecs, triceps and delts?
Edited: due to damn autocorrect feature on iPhone.[/quote]
Man, that’s a huge can of worms. I would probably say that pre-exhaust wasn’t the correct technique to fix that problem. I might suggest some activation, maybe even a different set-up in the squat to try and reduce quads while forcing more of the work to the glutes/hams. Otherwise, I would say quit squatting and focus on exercises that were hip dominant only and didn’t involve the knee until everything els was up to par. Do some isolation work for the quads after.
I guess I would suggest the same for pecs, delts, tris. I certainly don’t think pre-exhaust is a technique that will out right fix imbalances. And like I said in my post to Matty, the technique you guys are discussing might be beneficial to remove an obviously dominant link so the target can get worked.
I just don’t think these two methods we’ve been discussing are inter-changable as a solution for the same problem.
Edited[/quote]
Yeah, I agree that both methods likely have merit.
Well, I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that one use pre-fatigue to necessarily fix imbalances. What I was getting at is that suggesting that the muscles which are growing the most are in fact the weak links seems unlikely and, well, just wrong. Yet for some reason it is believed that if your triceps and shoulders blow up from benching, while your pecs don’t respond, that it’s because the triceps and shoulders are the weak links. Why? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the chest is actually the weak link and that it’s the triceps and shoulders that are the strong links?
[/quote]
So you think the strong links fatigue first ? [/quote]
[/quote]
I think the strong links are recruited preferentially by the body due to their superior neuromuscular control and the weaker links don’t ever really get much stimulation. From a biological standpoint this makes perfect sense as the body doesn’t care that you are trying to build big pecs, all it knows is that something heavy is trying to crush you and you’ve got to push it off you, so it’s going to use the best muscles for the job (the strongest links).
So in essence I reject the weak link hypothesis as a reason why classical fatiguing works. That is not to say I reject the method or deny it’s effectiveness, just that I don’t believe this is the reason why it is effective.
But, if someone can tell me why I’m wrong, or give me another example of when you would make the accusation that the biggest muscles would be considered the weakest links, then I’m open to hearing it.