[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Isnt what X and others describing called Post Fatigue? I am sure I read in old mags that this was an alternative method
[/quote]
Post-fatigue is a compound exercise followed by an iso . AKA a compound set. [/quote]
Just wait for those that indicate a pre-exhaust, and multijoint, then a post-exhaust and give it a pseudo scientific sounding name is the only way to train.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Isnt what X and others describing called Post Fatigue? I am sure I read in old mags that this was an alternative method
[/quote]
Post-fatigue is a compound exercise followed by an iso . AKA a compound set. [/quote]
Just wait for those that indicate a pre-exhaust, and multijoint, then a post-exhaust and give it a pseudo scientific sounding name is the only way to train.
[/quote]
Tri-set?
real technique that everyone uses so they donât appear weak: compound chest movements first, then isolation movements/machines
I doubt most bros doing cable crossover flyes can even do pushups at that point in the workout
So what is going on in hereâŠDamn Iâm lost
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
So what is going on in hereâŠDamn Iâm lost[/quote]
Donât worry about it Austin. Just slowly back up, turn around, and quietly exit the way you came in. I promise you if you do what I say, you wonât get a single feather ruffled.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Sentoguy,
As far as the biggest muscles being the weakest link-if a lifter doesnât 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 itâs size, but if you canât make it work properly, itâs still the weakest link.
[/quote]
But, then is the âlargeâ muscle going to stay the large muscle, or is the assistance muscle quickly going to become the largest muscle? So, isnât the assistance muscle (which will quickly become the larger muscle) actually the strongest link? [/quote]
I guess I might be confused at what you are driving at. You asked about a scenario in which the âlargestâ muscle was the âweakestâ. I thought you were talking about cross-secional size. Are you talking about strength in regards to âsizeâ?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Seriously, when was the last time that you heard someone say âman, you know Iâve got these huge quads that I totally feel working while I squat, I just wish they werenât so pathetically weak compared to my tiny underdeveloped hamstrings?â [/quote]
Iâve never heard that and this seems to be the opposite of what we are talking about. We arenât talking about a prime mover that is large AND we have a good MMC with. We are talking about a prime mover that is large and we CANâT feel or wonât do what itâs supposed to. Thatâs the whole point of this conversation. No one would tell someone who is really feeling their well developed quads to pre-exhaust them while their hams and glutes are weak. This is about making sure the TARGET muscle is properly stimulated, working properly, and fully fatigued.
If someone is doing squats for their quads and feeling them, that is great. If they are doing squats for their hams/glutes and they are only feeling their quads, something needs to change.
Edit: Now, if we are talking about a prime mover that is the largest AND have a good MMC with, that is also the target muscle, and has synergistic muscles assisting it in a specific lift, then traditional pre-exhaust would be the technique of choice.
This is not the situation you and X have been discussing though.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
What you usually get is âmy 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 didnât grow from them.â [/quote]
Youâre right. That is usually what you get. But again, itâs about what muscle you are targeting and whether or not you have a major imbalance. You seem to keep driving at a situation that is different than what traditional pre-exhaust would be used for. If your triceps are taking over that much, then Xâs method MIGHT be useful. But like I said before, that method is all dependent on whether or not you are actually able to now recruit your chest to do the work after you have fatigued your triceps. If you have a poor MMC with you chest and a good one with your tris, fatiguing them may just cause your set to be crap because your tris failed and your chest never picked up the slack.
I think there are better alternatives to fixing that particular situation that what is being suggested.
[quote]cueball wrote:
I guess I might be confused at what you are driving at. You asked about a scenario in which the âlargestâ muscle was the âweakestâ. I thought you were talking about cross-secional size. Are you talking about strength in regards to âsizeâ?
[/quote]
Hmmm, ok let me try this.
What I am saying is that the muscles that are the biggest most developed (in a trained individually specifically, though even in untrained individuals it would hold true to a point) are the ones with the best neuromuscular connections and thus the strongest links in the chain. Not the muscles with the most potential for development, but the ones with the actual most development.
So, in the case of someone who gets huge triceps and delts from benching, their triceps and delts are their strongest links and the chest (which doesnât grow much) is the weakest link. So the weakest link theory doesnât make sense.
Now, it does make sense to train the weakest link and develop the neuromuscular connection with it, and then train the compound movement (light enough so again the weakest can perform the movement without having to rely on the stronger links to take over) to reteach the body how to perform the movement using the desired muscle (which is pretty much what the quote that Brick described).
Does that make more sense?
Again, let me try to rephrase it.
In the example, what would you say was the strongest link during the squats? The quads right? Why? Because they had developed the most from performing the squats. How, had I reversed the size of the muscles and said that the glutes and hamstrings were huge and the quads were undeveloped which would you say were the strongest links in that personâs squat? The glutes and hammies right? Why? Because they developed the most, while the quads would be considered the weakest link.
Follow what Iâm trying to say?
Right, goals would have to be taken into consideration as to whether something needed to change or not, but the strongest and weakest links would remain unchanged.
Well, in that case then they really wouldnât need any special techniques (unless you mean to bring down the load lifted for the sake of saftey and joint health, which Iâd agree with), but yeah, if they wanted to then traditional pre-exhause would be fine.
[quote]
Youâre right. That is usually what you get. But again, itâs about what muscle you are targeting and whether or not you have a major imbalance. You seem to keep driving at a situation that is different than what traditional pre-exhaust would be used for. If your triceps are taking over that much, then Xâs method MIGHT be useful. But like I said before, that method is all dependent on whether or not you are actually able to now recruit your chest to do the work after you have fatigued your triceps. If you have a poor MMC with you chest and a good one with your tris, fatiguing them may just cause your set to be crap because your tris failed and your chest never picked up the slack.
I think there are better alternatives to fixing that particular situation that what is being suggested.[/quote]
Again, hopefully my new explanation made more sense.
To be perfectly honest, Iâm not 100% certain of what the body will do either way. Some people will probably be able to get their weak link to fire and do the work with Xâs method and some people probably wonât be able to. Not everyone has the same degree of neuromuscular coordination after all. So, it might be a great method for some and a crappy one for others.
I think Iâm going to test it out on some of my training clients and myself in the new few weeks and see what happens. Thatâs really the only way of knowing if anything really works in the gym anyhow.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Edit: Now, if we are talking about a prime mover that is the largest AND have a good MMC with, that is also the target muscle, and has synergistic muscles assisting it in a specific lift, then traditional pre-exhaust would be the technique of choice.
[/quote]
Well, in that case then they really wouldnât need any special techniques (unless you mean to bring down the load lifted for the sake of saftey and joint health, which Iâd agree with), but yeah, if they wanted to then traditional pre-exhause would be fine.[/quote]
Deleted the rest because I think this is what it all comes to. I would disagree with the fact you said the individual above doesnât need any special technique. This is also where the topic of âweakest linkâ comes in. Which, I think you are discussing differently than we are.
In the case above, the target muscle (chest) is also the prime mover, is also the strongest and has the best MMC. Now, performing only bench press, which will necessarily put into use the tris and delts due to the lifts mechanics, the chest will outperform the assistance muscles to a degree that it will not be optimally stimulated or fatigued before the others give out. This makes the tris and delts the weakest links, obviously.
So to eliminate this issue and get the most stimulation and fatigue for the chest, you have to pre-exhaust so it is weaker and fails at the same time or before the actual weakest links.
Honestly, Iâm not sure where or why we started talking about assisntance muscles, that arenât the target muscle, being the strongest link, ie: tris instead of chest. Itâs a completely different problem and doesnât have anything to do with traditional pre-exhaust.
Not sure what issue you have with the weakest link in the chain theory as it regards to pre-exhaust.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Deleted the rest because I think this is what it all comes to. I would disagree with the fact you said the individual above doesnât need any special technique. This is also where the topic of âweakest linkâ comes in. Which, I think you are discussing differently than we are.
In the case above, the target muscle (chest) is also the prime mover, is also the strongest and has the best MMC. Now, performing only bench press, which will necessarily put into use the tris and delts due to the lifts mechanics, the chest will outperform the assistance muscles to a degree that it will not be optimally stimulated or fatigued before the others give out. This makes the tris and delts the weakest links, obviously.
So to eliminate this issue and get the most stimulation and fatigue for the chest, you have to pre-exhaust so it is weaker and fails at the same time or before the actual weakest links.
[/quote]
Ok, I think I get what youâre saying, and understand the use of the term âweakest linksâ in that context. Though, Iâm not sure I completely agree that itâs necessary.
To take that to itâs logical conclusion, then we should all be performing pre-exhaust for all of our muscles (or only performing machine exercises) due to the possibility that our stabilizing muscles might fail before the prime movers. Now, clearly you could make that assertion, and hey, maybe youâd even get some good results training that way, but plenty of people have made great progress using freeweights and cables.
For instance, letâs take the guy with the big quads, and strong MMC with his quads and squatting example again. His quads are doing most of the work (and even if not, theyâre growing well, so who really cares) when he squats. Are you suggesting that he âneedsâ to do leg extensions before he squats to bring his quads down to the point of his hammies and glutes? After all, isnât the point of him doing squats to build up his quads (letâs assume that it is)? So isnât it working? Why the âneedâ to change things then?
Honestly, Iâm not sure where or why we started talking about assisntance muscles, that arenât the target muscle, being the strongest link, ie: tris instead of chest. Itâs a completely different problem and doesnât have anything to do with traditional pre-exhaust.
[/quote]
Generally classical pre-exhaust is used to target muscles which arenât getting the stimulation you want them to in compound exercises. For instance, youâd use pre-exhaust for your chest if your triceps and delts naturally dominate on bench presses (probably the classic example), or for your quads if your glutes and hamstrings naturally dominated. So, itâs not really about making any of the links weaker, but instead about improving MMC with the desired muscle.
At least thatâs how itâs always been prescribed and utilized in the past when Iâve heard it being discussed.
Hopefully the above helps you understand more where I am coming from. But if not Iâll enjoy continuing this intelligent discussion with you. 
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Deleted the rest because I think this is what it all comes to. I would disagree with the fact you said the individual above doesnât need any special technique. This is also where the topic of âweakest linkâ comes in. Which, I think you are discussing differently than we are.
In the case above, the target muscle (chest) is also the prime mover, is also the strongest and has the best MMC. Now, performing only bench press, which will necessarily put into use the tris and delts due to the lifts mechanics, the chest will outperform the assistance muscles to a degree that it will not be optimally stimulated or fatigued before the others give out. This makes the tris and delts the weakest links, obviously.
So to eliminate this issue and get the most stimulation and fatigue for the chest, you have to pre-exhaust so it is weaker and fails at the same time or before the actual weakest links.
[/quote]
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Ok, I think I get what youâre saying, and understand the use of the term âweakest linksâ in that context. Though, Iâm not sure I completely agree that itâs necessary.
To take that to itâs logical conclusion, then we should all be performing pre-exhaust for all of our muscles (or only performing machine exercises) due to the possibility that our stabilizing muscles might fail before the prime movers. Now, clearly you could make that assertion, and hey, maybe youâd even get some good results training that way, but plenty of people have made great progress using freeweights and cables.
For instance, letâs take the guy with the big quads, and strong MMC with his quads and squatting example again. His quads are doing most of the work (and even if not, theyâre growing well, so who really cares) when he squats. Are you suggesting that he âneedsâ to do leg extensions before he squats to bring his quads down to the point of his hammies and glutes? After all, isnât the point of him doing squats to build up his quads (letâs assume that it is)? So isnât it working? Why the âneedâ to change things then?[/quote]
Ah, well, thatâs the thing. I donât think anybody was inferring that itâs an across the board, useful for EVERY exercise kind of thing. Squating is different than bench. The point of using it is due to the fact the chest ISN"T growing great like your quad example. If somebodyâs chest was blowing up from bench press alone, then obviously itâs not needed.
I think we are also discussing the crossover between hypertrophy and strength. The chest may continue to get stronger (more efficient maybe) and still be the strongest link in the bench press, but not hypertrophy in an ideal manner. Employ pre-exhaust.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Honestly, Iâm not sure where or why we started talking about assisntance muscles, that arenât the target muscle, being the strongest link, ie: tris instead of chest. Itâs a completely different problem and doesnât have anything to do with traditional pre-exhaust.
[/quote]
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Generally classical pre-exhaust is used to target muscles which arenât getting the stimulation you want them to in compound exercises. For instance, youâd use pre-exhaust for your chest if your triceps and delts naturally dominate on bench presses (probably the classic example), or for your quads if your glutes and hamstrings naturally dominated. So, itâs not really about making any of the links weaker, but instead about improving MMC with the desired muscle.
At least thatâs how itâs always been prescribed and utilized in the past when Iâve heard it being discussed.[/quote]
No. Traditional pre-exhaust is used, as I outlined in my earlier post, for the muscle that is the dominant muscle but ALSO the target. This is what weâve been trying to explain. If your tris are dominating your bench (tris are not the target muscle in this scenario) and you are wanting it to target your pecs, pre-exhausting your tris just makes them fail earlier and you chest hasnât gotten enough stimulation still.
X argued that the chest would HAVE to take up the slack. Fine and good in theory, but, if your MMC with your chest sucks in the first place, when you pre-exhaust your tris which has the best MMC, thatâs all you are going to feel because they are already pumped. Set ends sooner because the prime mover was fatigued, and your chest is still in the same spot.
Much better ways to tackle that problem, IMO.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Not sure what issue you have with the weakest link in the chain theory as it regards to pre-exhaust.
[/quote]
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Hopefully the above helps you understand more where I am coming from. But if not Iâll enjoy continuing this intelligent discussion with you.
[/quote]
I tried to fix the quotes, didnât happen. Hope you can sift through it.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Ah, well, thatâs the thing. I donât think anybody was inferring that itâs an across the board, useful for EVERY exercise kind of thing. Squating is different than bench. The point of using it is due to the fact the chest ISN"T growing great like your quad example. If somebodyâs chest was blowing up from bench press alone, then obviously itâs not needed.
[/quote]
Ok, then weâre in agreement about that.
We can also agree about that.
[quote]cueball wrote:
No. Traditional pre-exhaust is used, as I outlined in my earlier post, for the muscle that is the dominant muscle but ALSO the target. This is what weâve been trying to explain. If your tris are dominating your bench (tris are not the target muscle in this scenario) and you are wanting it to target your pecs, pre-exhausting your tris just makes them fail earlier and you chest hasnât gotten enough stimulation still.
[/quote]
âDominantâ in what way? If your triâs are doing dominating your bench, then your chest isnât the dominant muscle, but it might still be the target muscle. Hence you would use classical pre-exhaust. If the chest was the dominant muscle AND the target muscle on bench, then you wouldnât need to perform pre-exhaust in most cases.
I think weâre saying the same thing.
Now, with Xâs method, what he is saying is that by first tiring out your triceps (and making them weaker), that your chest is going to have to pick up the slack when you bench. This is a completely different method/approach and doesnât work via the same mechanisms as traditional pre-exhaust. It also wouldnât be performed âsuper-setâ style like traditional pre-exhaust.
And again therein lies the rub. Can the body re-route effort to other synergists to perform the movement in the case that the preferred muscle is not functioning optimally? Again, in some cases it probably can, in others maybe not. The only real way to know would be to test it out.
Again, going back to that quoted research paper though, apparently (at least some) EMG tests seem to suggest that it can and does.
Not arguing that there arenât others, just not sure why so many are being so quick to write off another possibly beneficial tool? Especially when several well developed people have mentioned that it has worked for them and there is even scientific data to support the concept. Sure, it might not work for everyone (what does really?), but if people havenât really given it a fair try, then whatâs the harm of keeping an open mind?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
âDominantâ in what way? If your triâs are doing dominating your bench, then your chest isnât the dominant muscle, but it might still be the target muscle. Hence you would use classical pre-exhaust. If the chest was the dominant muscle AND the target muscle on bench, then you wouldnât need to perform pre-exhaust in most cases.
Again, going back to that quoted research paper though, apparently (at least some) EMG tests seem to suggest that it can and does.
Not arguing that there arenât others, just not sure why so many are being so quick to write off another possibly beneficial tool? Especially when several well developed people have mentioned that it has worked for them and there is even scientific data to support the concept. Sure, it might not work for everyone (what does really?), but if people havenât really given it a fair try, then whatâs the harm of keeping an open mind? [/quote]
Clipped for brevity.
No. Traditional pre-exhaust is used to fatigue a dominant muscle that is ALSO the target.
Again, that study only measured recruitment, not fatigue, which is what pre-exhaust is used for.
I havenât suggested that Xâs method wouldnât work under any circumstance. And indeed, the chest may work more. But with a bad MMC, will it work enough to get the desired growth?
Not according to CT.
And in fact, nearly every time Iâve ever heard someone suggest Pre-fatiguing a muscle, itâs almost always been as the result of the target muscle not being the dominant muscle. The only person Iâve heard suggest otherwise is Meadows, who does so in order to limit the amount of weight used to minimize the chance of injuries.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Not according to CT.[/quote]
Ok. Because CT described it this way, this means that it is the âtraditionalâ definition of a technique used by bodybuilders for decades?
There have been several posts that suggest otherwise.
You were suggesting employing this technique to remedy an overpowering assistance muscle. Not to remedy âfeeling itâ more with regards to the target muscle.
Sento, I think weâve probably taken this to itâs logical end. At this point we are disputing what the traditional definition is and are beyod discussing it efficacy in the gym. I have no doubt that it could be beneficial the way itâs laid out by CT.
The most important take-away I get from all of this, is that pre-exhaust should be used for the target muscle, not an assistance muscle.
I agree, I donât think there is really any more to add on either of our ends.
Again, I plan on testing out Xâs method and seeing how it pans out. Thatâs the only way to be sure either way.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I agree, I donât think there is really any more to add on either of our ends.
Again, I plan on testing out Xâs method and seeing how it pans out. Thatâs the only way to be sure either way.[/quote]
In the end, it isnât âXâs wayâ. It helped my biceps get biggerâŠand I know others who did it for chest development and they now have chests bigger than anyone in this thread claiming that this concept isnât worth discussing.
I think the take home message is if you plan on throwing out ideas that donât come from training internet authors but are coming from big really muscular liftersâŠmaybe listening and taking what you can use is the best method over arguing what is SUPPOSED to happen.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I agree, I donât think there is really any more to add on either of our ends.
Again, I plan on testing out Xâs method and seeing how it pans out. Thatâs the only way to be sure either way.[/quote]
In the end, it isnât âXâs wayâ. It helped my biceps get biggerâŠand I know others who did it for chest development and they now have chests bigger than anyone in this thread claiming that this concept isnât worth discussing.
I think the take home message is if you plan on throwing out ideas that donât come from training internet authors but are coming from big really muscular liftersâŠmaybe listening and taking what you can use is the best method over arguing what is SUPPOSED to happen.[/quote]
Just had to, didnât you? I do believe itâs a compulsion.