[quote]lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters. [/quote]
I think that you’ve confused upper/lower pecs (which are distinct), with inner/outer pecs (which arent).
[quote]lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters. [/quote]
wrong.
Cant add much to what been said in terms of advice, all looks good, all i can say is that i used to believe that the chest couldnt be slpit into upper/lower, and to my peril , i benched almost exclusivly on flat bench,bad idea! since doing all chest work on some sort of incline over the past 6 months ive seen a massive difference in the thickness of my upper pecs, and a better pec/delt tie in too.i dont know what the science says,sometimes science gets shit wrong, I dont care how these gains came to be, but they coincided nicely with incline work.id say do incline, it cant hurt.
[quote]waltny wrote:
Charged wrote:
The pec is one muscle therefor you cant shape it. You should hit it from all angles to build it optimally though. With that said, read this post, its pretty informative. Its from a board member by the name of Belial:
The existence of the so-called “upper”, “lower”, “inner” and “outer” pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it?s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all?s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as ?heads? by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be ?slack? in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly?s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no ?slack? because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement. For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called ?isolation? approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the ?target? region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to ?isolate? a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can ?feel? different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as ?evidence? by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.
Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved. So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don?t expect to be able to correct so-called ?unbalanced? muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about ?shaping? you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique.
Very good post.
To me what it boils down to is genetics of course, but with that said there is a “upper” head in a pure anatomical sense if you count the clavicular portion that has its orgin along the clavicle. This region can be “stressed” more directly with presses and flys on an incline according to popular wisdom. Do I buy into it? Yes I think I do. I believe that it is another tool to be used and that it could add more side and density to the “upper” region of the pec major.[/quote]
exactly.
Thanks for the replies. I have been trying bench presses on a machine with the seat lower and my arms/elbows about 90 degrees form the body and incline press on the hammer strength folowed by cable crossovers. Seems to be doing great. I agree with the bodyfat post. While I have actually gained some fat, due to poor diet, my chest looks alot better. Better balance between top and bottom and even on the sides and lower/outer part of the pec. So far I have not had any shoulder discomfort with those exercises.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters.
wrong. [/quote]
Right.
[quote]MarcAnthony wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters.
I think that you’ve confused upper/lower pecs (which are distinct), with inner/outer pecs (which arent).[/quote]
Wrong.
Even on exrx it says: Pectoralis Major, then you have the Sternum head and the Calvicular head. The muscle continues to be one i.e. Pectoralis Major.
why has no body mentioned dips?
I have to agree there is definately a Clavicular head that can be developed disproportionately to the sternal head.
This has been demonstrated time and time again we need to lay this to rest. The main problem is most people don’t train it either directlt or with enough emphasis.
You can see a big change in the Physiques of Bbs from the 50’s, 60’s and the Physiques of the BBs from the late 70’s through till the presence some pro’s train uppers almost exclusively and it shows some who have the genetic trait for it show a extremely clear split between the upper and lower portion (See any pic of Franco).
As for the person that started this thread based off of your post I get the impression you may be suffering more from a lack of over all pec developement and high BF%. Because if you are decribing flabbiness in the lower pecs that is a definate fat issue losing weight and prioritizing upper pecs will definately change your look.
As for bringing up Dips why would any body be doing Dips for Upper Pecs?
[quote]algian wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters.
wrong.
Right.
[/quote]
are you saying there is no distinction between the upper and lower pectorals? or are you agreeing with me?
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
algian wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
There is no “upper” or “lower” pec. It is all one muscle fiber. Just get the entire chest bigger for starters.
wrong.
Right.
are you saying there is no distinction between the upper and lower pectorals? or are you agreeing with me?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]legend wrote:
why has no body mentioned dips?[/quote]
Dips always worked my lower and middle pec fibers more than my upper fibers.
One attachment point at shouder/humerous or whatever, and fans out along the sternum.
My bet is all fibres are hit decline, flat, incline presses.
My bet is if you could determine intensity that the various fibres are hit, inclines would put more load on the fibres higher on the sternum and declines would put more of a load on fibres lower on the stermum.
To some extent it is possible to shape a muscle, and we all know that. However genetics are a huge factor in how the muscle can be shaped when trained.
there is the Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head) and the Pectoralis Major (Clavicular Head)
you can focus on each area seperatly but its going to work the other area to an extent. in that picture you posted thats his clavicular head being huge and low body fat % so you can see the distinction thats it
[quote]john-lennon wrote:
there is the Pectoralis Major (Sternal Head) and the Pectoralis Major (Clavicular Head)
you can focus on each area seperatly but its going to work the other area to an extent. in that picture you posted thats his clavicular head being huge and low body fat % so you can see the distinction thats it[/quote]
what excercise(s) emphasizes the clavicular head ?
incline bench pressing will put more focus on it, but will also still work the sternal head
[quote]john-lennon wrote:
incline bench pressing will put more focus on it, but will also still work the sternal head[/quote]
thanks but I have been doing mostly incline barbell presses for the last few years. chest is pretty good…but no where near the develop in the “clavicular head”
im going to try a steeper bench and see if I can find a degree(I assume somewhere between 45 and 90) that hits the “clavicular head” which should be between ant. delts and Sternal Head of the pecs…
thanks
mt
I’ve noticed that the majority of guys at my gym who have good upper pec developement seem to fall into two catagories:
(1) The guys who are huge and just have tons of muscle everywhere.
(2) The guys who have impeccable posture, i.e. look like they were on the rowing team in college and have lots of muscle on their middle back, giving them that pinched together shoulder blade look.
I’ve even seen guys in the second group who weight like 175lbs and have some pretty impressive upper chest developement (relative to their weight of course). So, maybe doing a ton of rows/close grip chins until one gets that pinched together shoulder blade posture is a pre-requisite. I’d imagine that if my posture was that
good, I’d naturally be in a much, much better position to hit the upper part of my pecs, even with just your standard incline press.
Here’s a photo of Mike Mejia from the S2B cover. He’s not gigantic by any means but he looks like he’s got good upper pec developement. (Posture related?)
My chest is quite big. In fact it used to be so big it overshadowed my delts and arms and made dress shirts fit bad. I did not work out for awhile and the pecs atrophied down. I emphasized delts/ arms and got a better overall look and better porportion/symetry to my physique. The pec thing is now my flaw. No meat near the clavicle and a handful and the bottom! Bodyfat is definitely playing a role, but a lack of lean muscle is another factor. I am looking into leaning out and continuing my routine. It seems to be working. Noticable improvements already. Thanks for the input. Maybe someday the whole “inner/outer/upper/lower pec” thing can be put to rest once and for all. Until then keep benching to an incline!!
