Question About Pre-Fatiguing

Training
601

[quote]cueball 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]

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]

Both methods equalize a strong link with a weak link: whether it’s a dominant muscle or working around an injury, and the use of one doesn’t preclude the use of the other, which is why I’ve been trying to remain neutral in this.

I’m baffled by the ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ attitude.

602

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[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[/quote]

But, as someone brought up earlier, you can perform back exercises by focusing on pulling with the elbows, thus limiting the degree that the arm flexors contribute to the motion. Technically the lats do not cross the elbow joint and therefore cannot perform elbow flexion, but because of the fixed position of the hands and the movement of the elbows in relation to the body, the elbows wind up flexing.

Now, assuming that the hands were in a similar fixed position (as in push-ups, BB benching, HS machines, and possibly even DB’s assuming you had the strength in the shoulder stabilizers), the pecs performing horizontal shoulder Adduction the elbows could be made to extend.

603

Actually, I always perform my back exercises by pulling with the elbows, and eliminating any elbow flexion as much as I can. I like to think that’s why my back has been one of my strong points. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to mimic a chest pressing movement in a similar little to no arm contribution manner.

I’m glad this has become an intelligent discussion, but it still baffles me that such a simple concept is even being batted back and forth, no matter how politely it’s being done.

S

604

Sentoguy,

As far as the biggest muscles being the weakest link-if a lifter doesn’t have the ability to recruit that large muscle in a significant way, and compensates by using an assistance muscle he has good MMC with, then I would say that large muscle is the weakest link. It may have the potential to be the strongest due to it’s size, but if you can’t make it work properly, it’s still the weakest link.

605

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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?[/quote]

606

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Actually, I always perform my back exercises by pulling with the elbows, and eliminating any elbow flexion as much as I can. I like to think that’s why my back has been one of my strong points. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to mimic a chest pressing movement in a similar little to no arm contribution manner.

I’m glad this has become an intelligent discussion, but it still baffles me that such a simple concept is even being batted back and forth, no matter how politely it’s being done.

S[/quote]

Well, to be fair I’m not arguing the efficacy of pre-fatiguing, I’m only questioning why it works and suggesting that the weak link hypothesis seems problematic to me.

And way back when, my chest was a weak point. I decided to reteach myself how to press with my chest, so I started performing DB benching just focusing on contracting my chest against the weights, eventually I found that I could do the same thing with barbell benching variations, push-ups, or machine benching. Now, years later, my chest is no longer a weak point and even when going heavy on flat benching I can feel my chest working, my pecs get pumped, and they grow.

I can still press with my triceps or deltoids if I want to though.

But, maybe your mileage varies.

Edited: Because typing on a smart phone sucks.

607

[quote]cueball wrote:
Sentoguy,

As far as the biggest muscles being the weakest link-if a lifter doesn’t have the ability to recruit that large muscle in a significant way, and compensates by using an assistance muscle he has good MMC with, then I would say that large muscle is the weakest link. It may have the potential to be the strongest due to it’s size, but if you can’t make it work properly, it’s still the weakest link.

[/quote]

But, then is the “large” muscle going to stay the large muscle, or is the assistance muscle quickly going to become the largest muscle? So, isn’t the assistance muscle (which will quickly become the larger muscle) actually the strongest link?

Seriously, when was the last time that you heard someone say “man, you know I’ve got these huge quads that I totally feel working while I squat, I just wish they weren’t so pathetically weak compared to my tiny underdeveloped hamstrings?”

What you usually get is “my triceps and delts blew up from barbell benching (were the biggest, most developed muscles as a result), and I could press lots of weight, but my chest just didn’t grow from them.”

608

[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]

Yeah, pretty much what they are talking about.

609

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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?[/quote]
[/quote]

Honestly, it looks more like this

610

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[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]

Yeah, pretty much what they are talking about.[/quote]

Yep. Just a note
there are some very well informed posters here. Discussions used to contain way more of THIS and way less “attack and meme” posts cluttering threads.

If your triceps are freaking HUGE from benching and your chest doesn’t seem to grow, you may want to try that method.

This is not some recommendation for all people in all cases to train with.

I think the confusion is because there are some guys who know ALOT about what they read on the internet
but not so much about what guys learned in the gyms by just watching the big guys lift and make progress.

Those able to access both fields of information will gain the most benefit.

611

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
Sentoguy,

As far as the biggest muscles being the weakest link-if a lifter doesn’t have the ability to recruit that large muscle in a significant way, and compensates by using an assistance muscle he has good MMC with, then I would say that large muscle is the weakest link. It may have the potential to be the strongest due to it’s size, but if you can’t make it work properly, it’s still the weakest link.

[/quote]

But, then is the “large” muscle going to stay the large muscle, or is the assistance muscle quickly going to become the largest muscle? So, isn’t the assistance muscle (which will quickly become the larger muscle) actually the strongest link?

Seriously, when was the last time that you heard someone say “man, you know I’ve got these huge quads that I totally feel working while I squat, I just wish they weren’t so pathetically weak compared to my tiny underdeveloped hamstrings?”

What you usually get is “my triceps and delts blew up from barbell benching (were the biggest, most developed muscles as a result), and I could press lots of weight, but my chest just didn’t grow from them.” [/quote]

Yep. Once again, thanks for posting.

612

[quote]roybot wrote:

Both methods equalize a strong link with a weak link: whether it’s a dominant muscle or working around an injury, and the use of one doesn’t preclude the use of the other, which is why I’ve been trying to remain neutral in this.

I’m baffled by the ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me’ attitude.
[/quote]

Don’t be baffled. This was an attempt at a “shit storm thread”. It just turned out that the mob attack tried so hard it kept real information from getting out.

This was never some battle between two methods.

If people wanted an intelligent discussion, they would have made one instead of this.

You seem to understand it just fine though.

browndisaster 613
614

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess that explains why mine (arms) keeps growing.

I’m doing it wrong.[/quote]

615

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[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]

Yeah, pretty much what they are talking about.[/quote]

Yep. Just a note
there are some very well informed posters here. Discussions used to contain way more of THIS and way less “attack and meme” posts cluttering threads.

If your triceps are freaking HUGE from benching and your chest doesn’t seem to grow, you may want to try that method.

This is not some recommendation for all people in all cases to train with.

I think the confusion is because there are some guys who know ALOT about what they read on the internet
but not so much about what guys learned in the gyms by just watching the big guys lift and make progress.

Those able to access both fields of information will gain the most benefit.[/quote]

We’ve actually posted several videos of “big guys in gyms”-you know, Dorian, Centaponi, Kai-- doing pre-exhaust as we speak of or a guy competing at a high level explaining how it’s done right in this thread.

616

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

We’ve actually posted several videos of “big guys in gyms”-you know, Dorian, Centaponi, Kai-- doing pre-exhaust as we speak of or a guy competing at a high level explaining how it’s done right in this thread. [/quote]

Unless you also posted videos of the concept we are describing here I am not sure what your point is.

617

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If your triceps are freaking HUGE from benching and your chest doesn’t seem to grow, you may want to try that method.

This is not some recommendation for all people in all cases to train with.

I think the confusion is because there are some guys who know ALOT about what they read on the internet
but not so much about what guys learned in the gyms by just watching the big guys lift and make progress.[/quote]

Guy with huge triceps should not prefatigue with tricep extensions, since he could use the energy to exhaust his chest even more in benchpress.

Funny that you still think its ‘sound advice’ considering you havent done it in gym.

618

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

I don’t know what you would like to call in then X lol


I just want to be able to feel my chest doing more of the work than my shoulders or tris. So by your logic, I should be pre-fatiguing shoulders and tris to accomplish this?[/quote]

That’s what I would do and what every HUGE guy over 35 I have known did
but I also know that the internet has made jargon king so what you call something is now very important.

I don’t “pre-fatigue” anything.

I am saying your problem ain’t a new one and the way HUGE guys used to fix it was PRE-FATIGUING a muscle group so it didn’t fire first.
.[/quote]

619

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If your triceps are freaking HUGE from benching and your chest doesn’t seem to grow, you may want to try that method.

This is not some recommendation for all people in all cases to train with.

I think the confusion is because there are some guys who know ALOT about what they read on the internet
but not so much about what guys learned in the gyms by just watching the big guys lift and make progress.[/quote]

Guy with huge triceps should not prefatigue with tricep extensions, since he could use the energy to exhaust his chest even more in benchpress.

Funny that you still think its ‘sound advice’ considering you havent done it in gym.[/quote]

Dear God.

If Sentoguy’s explanation wasn’t enough, you clearly just want to troll the forum.

620

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If your triceps are freaking HUGE from benching and your chest doesn’t seem to grow, you may want to try that method.

This is not some recommendation for all people in all cases to train with.

I think the confusion is because there are some guys who know ALOT about what they read on the internet
but not so much about what guys learned in the gyms by just watching the big guys lift and make progress.[/quote]

Guy with huge triceps should not prefatigue with tricep extensions, since he could use the energy to exhaust his chest even more in benchpress.

Funny that you still think its ‘sound advice’ considering you havent done it in gym.[/quote]

Dear God.

If Sentoguy’s explanation wasn’t enough, you clearly just want to troll the forum.
[/quote]

Na man your the one whos been trollin and manipulating people for 25pages now :slight_smile: