c’mon people, learn the lesson- its not Professor X who is marching out of time with the band, its everyone else!
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I would think since you are pre-fatiguing your tri’s your chest is taking on more of the load, thus making it stronger as your tris are less involved[/quote]
If your chest and tri’s are dominant throughout bench that would mean on a max effort set that your chest shoulders and tri’s are already working at max capacity to get the weight up right? (hence, max effort set)
By pre fatiguing your shoulders and tri’s you would HAVE to bench less weight (obviously) and would be lowering the weight to a number that your chest could handle as the primary mover… Yet the decreased amount of weight wouldn’t place MORE stress on your chest because in both scenarios your chest is working at max capacity.
In scenario A. You’re fresh and benching 315x8 but when you pre fatigue your shoulders you’re only benching 245x6 (arbitrary numbers, I know) so what logic says that your chest is getting more stimulation from putting up 245x6 as the primary muscle vs 315x8 as a “secondary” muscle?
Don’t you think Matty?[/quote]
Excellent points Greg…and I will defer to you guys ultimately. However I still believe X and my approach deserve its merit, as since your tris and shoulders are weakened most of the stress will go onto your pecs. I can liken it to a Hammer Strength machine, I would think you are taking stabilizing muscles out of the picture to a degree so the chest gets better stimulation, in the same sense this is how I think of fatiguing your tris and shoulders so your chest gets the brunt of the action, as it really doesnt know how much weight its lifting.
Just more than one way to skin a cat.
[/quote]
But…no 6 or 7 posters talking out of their ass about you being “objectively wrong”?
LOL.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
c’mon people, learn the lesson- its not Professor X who is marching out of time with the band, its everyone else!
[/quote]
But, is Matty “marching out of time”?
Look, a lot of you just made yourselves look more foolish. You tried too hard here. Matty is fucking huge. My guess is, you ain’t.
X you have what I like to call the Rasheed Wallace effect. You could be doing nothing wrong yet still get called for a Technical foul
Hilarious. Only in internet land do people act like guys got huge by not knowing anything at all and that all you need to know has already been studied in detail in peer reviewed studies.
Once again, we learn that experience means shit and we should just re-quote whatever personal trainer is hottest right now only.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
X you have what I like to call the Rasheed Wallace effect. You could be doing nothing wrong yet still get called for a Technical foul[/quote]
But I am loving this. This whole thread just shows how stupid a lot of these guys have gotten with this.
The OP is happy and learned something…but the same guys trying to find a fault anywhere they can are the first to jump in.
Most here didn’t even catch that we were not speaking of the same concept until page 3.
LOL!!
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
I mean, isn’t that the whole premise behind a lot of Mountain Dog training style?
[/quote]
What is the premise behind MD Training? Pre fatiguing your shoulders and tris before benching?[/quote]
No…he generally recommends putting the compound movement for any given bodypart at the end of the workout rather than leading off with it. AKA…1980’s volume training! [/quote]
I ddid this with shoulders yesterday. Loved it. Of course my military press was weaker, but my pump was fucking massive and my shoulders are smoked today.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
You said that it would lead to greater muscle growth…[/quote]
Wait…are you saying a better MMC will NOT lead to greater muscle growth?
WTF?
Why would someone gifted in that area be worried with this?
You are making a very weak argument…and there are still too many here who do get it.[/quote]
You are making up things I never said and trying to put words in my mouth.
Please stick to discussing actual facts.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hilarious. Only in internet land do people act like guys got huge by not knowing anything at all and that all you need to know has already been studied in detail in peer reviewed studies.
Once again, we learn that experience means shit and we should just re-quote whatever personal trainer is hottest right now only.[/quote]
Dude, realize that the majority of people arguing with you are taking their positions based on what is typically agreed upon and defined in most publications as “pre-exhaust” or “pre-fatigue” training. Yes, everyone sees your avatar and concedes that you’ve built some respectable size, but so have a staggering number of amateurs and professionals utilizing the method that your approach seems to be at odds with.
I won’t ever get personal in any exchanges with people I disagree with on here, but your habit of always summing up and rationalizing your approaches with the fact that it worked for you explains why every thread you participate in becomes a personal one.
S
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
So you say.
There is no evidence to prove this theory is correct.[/quote]
WTF???
Most of bodybuilding progressed without studies. You serious with this shit? Have you fucking tried it?[/quote]
Since the discussion is about using these techniques for CHEST, I’ll just throw this out here for everybody in regards to X’s question “Have you fucking tried it?”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally have had no reason to do this aside from with my biceps.[/quote]
So, if YOU haven’t tried it for chest, X, how do YOU know what you’re saying works?
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I would think since you are pre-fatiguing your tri’s your chest is taking on more of the load, thus making it stronger as your tris are less involved[/quote]
If your chest and tri’s are dominant throughout bench that would mean on a max effort set that your chest shoulders and tri’s are already working at max capacity to get the weight up right? (hence, max effort set)
By pre fatiguing your shoulders and tri’s you would HAVE to bench less weight (obviously) and would be lowering the weight to a number that your chest could handle as the primary mover… Yet the decreased amount of weight wouldn’t place MORE stress on your chest because in both scenarios your chest is working at max capacity.
In scenario A. You’re fresh and benching 315x8 but when you pre fatigue your shoulders you’re only benching 245x6 (arbitrary numbers, I know) so what logic says that your chest is getting more stimulation from putting up 245x6 as the primary muscle vs 315x8 as a “secondary” muscle?
Don’t you think Matty?[/quote]
Excellent points Greg…and I will defer to you guys ultimately. However I still believe X and my approach deserve its merit, as since your tris and shoulders are weakened most of the stress will go onto your pecs. I can liken it to a Hammer Strength machine, I would think you are taking stabilizing muscles out of the picture to a degree so the chest gets better stimulation, in the same sense this is how I think of fatiguing your tris and shoulders so your chest gets the brunt of the action, as it really doesnt know how much weight its lifting.
Just more than one way to skin a cat.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying but I think the difference between pre fatiguing your stabilizers on bench and just doing HS machines is pretty big.
When doing HS machines you are taking some of the stabilizers out of the lift to a certain extent and, I agree, can out more stress on the target muscle. That is why they are a valuable tool for a BBer…
BUT the difference with regards to pre fatiguing is that you aren’t taking those stabilizers out of the lift you are just making them weaker/more tired. They are still needed for a free weights exercise like BB.
Definitely more than one way to skin a cat.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
For example, Thib says:
"Pre-fatigue (isolation first, compound second): Advantageous if you have problems recruiting a muscle group during a compound movement. Pre-fatiguing the muscle group will make it fail first during the compound lift. Pre-fatiguing the muscle will also increase the mind-muscle connection as you’ll “feel it” more because of the pre-existing fatigue/burn. So if you have problems “feeling” or recruiting a certain muscle group, pre-fatigue might be the solution. The downside is that you’ll have to use less weight for the compound movement because of the pre-fatigued state of the muscle.
For example, you might perform the bench press to build up your pecs, but if your front delts and/or triceps are overpowering, chances are that your chest will be left sub-optimally stimulated from your bench pressing work. By adding an isolation exercise for the pectorals either after (post-fatigue), before (pre-fatigue), or before and after (pre and post-fatigue) you’ll be able to fully fatigue the chest."[/quote]
seems this post was skipped over
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
So you say.
There is no evidence to prove this theory is correct.[/quote]
WTF???
Most of bodybuilding progressed without studies. You serious with this shit? Have you fucking tried it?[/quote]
Since the discussion is about using these techniques for CHEST, I’ll just throw this out here for everybody in regards to X’s question “Have you fucking tried it?”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally have had no reason to do this aside from with my biceps.[/quote]
So, if YOU haven’t tried it for chest, X, how do YOU know what you’re saying works?[/quote]
I never had a problem with my tris firing first.
I did with shoulders at one time…so yes.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
For example, Thib says:
"Pre-fatigue (isolation first, compound second): Advantageous if you have problems recruiting a muscle group during a compound movement. Pre-fatiguing the muscle group will make it fail first during the compound lift. Pre-fatiguing the muscle will also increase the mind-muscle connection as you’ll “feel it” more because of the pre-existing fatigue/burn. So if you have problems “feeling” or recruiting a certain muscle group, pre-fatigue might be the solution. The downside is that you’ll have to use less weight for the compound movement because of the pre-fatigued state of the muscle.
For example, you might perform the bench press to build up your pecs, but if your front delts and/or triceps are overpowering, chances are that your chest will be left sub-optimally stimulated from your bench pressing work. By adding an isolation exercise for the pectorals either after (post-fatigue), before (pre-fatigue), or before and after (pre and post-fatigue) you’ll be able to fully fatigue the chest."[/quote]
seems this post was skipped over[/quote]
LOL yeah didnt see it…DOH
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
You said that it would lead to greater muscle growth…[/quote]
Wait…are you saying a better MMC will NOT lead to greater muscle growth?
WTF?
Why would someone gifted in that area be worried with this?
You are making a very weak argument…and there are still too many here who do get it.[/quote]
You are making up things I never said and trying to put words in my mouth.
Please stick to discussing actual facts. [/quote]
I am. You are claiming that all people should benefit. That concept misses the point that the goal of this is to teach someone to feel a muscle working better.
Someone innately good at this will not need to do this obviously.
That isn’t putting words in your mouth.
It is answering your question logically.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I would think since you are pre-fatiguing your tri’s your chest is taking on more of the load, thus making it stronger as your tris are less involved[/quote]
If your chest and tri’s are dominant throughout bench that would mean on a max effort set that your chest shoulders and tri’s are already working at max capacity to get the weight up right? (hence, max effort set)
By pre fatiguing your shoulders and tri’s you would HAVE to bench less weight (obviously) and would be lowering the weight to a number that your chest could handle as the primary mover… Yet the decreased amount of weight wouldn’t place MORE stress on your chest because in both scenarios your chest is working at max capacity.
In scenario A. You’re fresh and benching 315x8 but when you pre fatigue your shoulders you’re only benching 245x6 (arbitrary numbers, I know) so what logic says that your chest is getting more stimulation from putting up 245x6 as the primary muscle vs 315x8 as a “secondary” muscle?
Don’t you think Matty?[/quote]
Excellent points Greg…and I will defer to you guys ultimately. However I still believe X and my approach deserve its merit, as since your tris and shoulders are weakened most of the stress will go onto your pecs. I can liken it to a Hammer Strength machine, I would think you are taking stabilizing muscles out of the picture to a degree so the chest gets better stimulation, in the same sense this is how I think of fatiguing your tris and shoulders so your chest gets the brunt of the action, as it really doesnt know how much weight its lifting.
Just more than one way to skin a cat.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying but I think the difference between pre fatiguing your stabilizers on bench and just doing HS machines is pretty big.
When doing HS machines you are taking some of the stabilizers out of the lift to a certain extent and, I agree, can out more stress on the target muscle. That is why they are a valuable tool for a BBer…
BUT the difference with regards to pre fatiguing is that you aren’t taking those stabilizers out of the lift you are just making them weaker/more tired. They are still needed for a free weights exercise like BB.
Definitely more than one way to skin a cat.[/quote]
I understand, comprehension fail on my part.
Great post Stu and cueball.
So as professor X says, he is arguing about a technique nobody has heard of and he says he isnt doing it himself either.
Great work.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Dude, realize that the majority of people arguing with you are taking their positions based on what is typically agreed upon and defined in most publications as “pre-exhaust” or “pre-fatigue” training. [/quote]
I was convinced that we cleared up by ;page 3 that we were not discussing the same concept and that I got the term itself wrong. That doesn’t change the concept. Why would someone still be arguing what the definition is?
[quote]
Yes, everyone sees your avatar and concedes that you’ve built some respectable size, but so have a staggering number of amateurs and professionals utilizing the method that your approach seems to be at odds with.[/quote]
Not the point. My point is, I have done this and seen it work…so maybe the OP should try it.
By no means was I implying that I am the ONLY big guy here especially since I just posted how HUGE Matty is.
[quote]
I won’t ever get personal in any exchanges with people I disagree with on here, but your habit of always summing up and rationalizing your approaches with the fact that it worked for you explains why every thread you participate in becomes a personal one.
S[/quote]
But, that isn’t all I am saying. I am not just basing it on “it worked for me”. That would also include quite a few years of personal training and quite a bit of medical knowledge.
I do not read up on training articles much though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
So you say.
There is no evidence to prove this theory is correct.[/quote]
WTF???
Most of bodybuilding progressed without studies. You serious with this shit? Have you fucking tried it?[/quote]
Since the discussion is about using these techniques for CHEST, I’ll just throw this out here for everybody in regards to X’s question “Have you fucking tried it?”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally have had no reason to do this aside from with my biceps.[/quote]
So, if YOU haven’t tried it for chest, X, how do YOU know what you’re saying works?[/quote]
I never had a problem with my tris firing first.
I did with shoulders at one time…so yes.[/quote]
Oh, my bad. I must have misread your post where you said you had only done it for biceps. Sorry.
The video above depicts Kai Greene, an unknown bodybuilder with no credentials or results to speak of, doinitwrong.