yea i definitely agree to go with what gave people results over the science, and finding out why is secondary. you dont need to be a genius to gain muscle.
the reason i thought that about inner chest is because its not like i ever really witnessed someone building up their inner chest, i’ve just heard bodybuilders talk about it. and with that point you cant trust what all bodybuilders say, for example i’ve heard milos sarcev (a pretty smart bodybuilder) say certain exercises are better near contest for the peak and “bringing out striations” which doesnt make a lot of sense.
[quote] JJ wrote:
you are a little slow aren’t you David?[/quote]
lol what so your saying thats true too? the different parts of the muscle makes some sense but how could an exercise “bring out striations”? that has to do with bodyfat
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
At this point of my life, I would be more worried with what a successful bodybuilder says, particularly one who has brought up a lagging muscle group or part of a muscle group (ie: upper chest, quad sweep, lower lats , etc.)
Agreed 100% I’ll start with results(ie that bodybuilder) and work my way backwards to why he was successful as opposed to trying to figure out what could be successful on paper(anatomy textbook) and trying to get results out of it. That pretty much sums up everything I believe in bodybuilding wise lol. Results first, the whys and hows after if you care. [/quote]
Maybe they ahve the results because they care about putting on a lot of muscle, take AAS (no knock) and eat a ton of food. Not everyone is worried about being as muscular as possible.
Maybe they ahve the results because they care about putting on a lot of muscle, take AAS (no knock) and eat a ton of food. Not everyone is worried about being as muscular as possible.
[/quote]
I’m confused what you mean by this as it relates to mine or the other post quoted.
We were simply stating we look towards practice and move backwards to theory as opposed to theory into practice. Has little to do with personal goals of maximum size.
Has anyone ever seen a well developed inner chest and a lagging outer chest?
I haven’t, not that this means such a person doesn’t exist but I think it’s a blow the training inner chest theory.
But when you look at someone who has a great inner chest, they also tend to have great overall chest development. I think it has more to do with the size of the muscle belly (the length of the tenon and the amount of muscle fiber at the origin of the muscle) vs. some movement that is able to make a certain part along the length of the muscle grow.
If you don’t have a lot of fibers in an area, you are not going to be able to add a lot of size there.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Has anyone ever seen a well developed inner chest and a lagging outer chest?
I haven’t, not that this means such a person doesn’t exist but I think it’s a blow the training inner chest theory.
But when you look at someone who has a great inner chest, they also tend to have great overall chest development. I think it has more to do with the size of the muscle belly (the length of the tenon and the amount of muscle fiber at the origin of the muscle) vs. some movement that is able to make a certain part along the length of the muscle grow.
If you don’t have a lot of fibers in an area, you are not going to be able to add a lot of size there.
[/quote]
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
I wass never stating that the inner chest could be built independantly of the outer.
ALSO the outer is many times thicker than the inner, so there is proportions to consider. You DO see people with poorly developed outer chests, but their inner chests are under develpoed too because of the shape of the muscle.
I also never said that there is a certain movement that will make a part of a muscle grow.
You will see that i said certain exercises can place more stress on the distal or proximal ends of one muscle, while the whole of it is being worked. This can assist to correct imbalances - NOT CREATE THEM. So you wont find an inner chest larger than an outer chest, as it is anatomically incorrect.
[quote] JJ wrote:
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.[/quote]
Possibly, how so?
[quote]
I wass never stating that the inner chest could be built independantly of the outer.
ALSO the outer is many times thicker than the inner, so there is proportions to consider. You DO see people with poorly developed outer chests, but their inner chests are under develpoed too because of the shape of the muscle.
I also never said that there is a certain movement that will make a part of a muscle grow.[/quote]
Take you out of it because I didn’t reference you specifically. I’m trying to determine if there is anything to it and what I’ve experienced and observed is that people with good chest development in general tend to have good inner chest development.
I believe that the pec growth is a result of the amount of fibers a muscle has and the location of these fibers and not a result of the width of grip.
[quote]
You will see that i said certain exercises can place more stress on the distal or proximal ends of one muscle, while the whole of it is being worked. This can assist to correct imbalances - NOT CREATE THEM. So you wont find an inner chest larger than an outer chest, as it is anatomically incorrect.[/quote]
Do you believe that narrow grip presses will help someone add more mass to the inner chest than DB press would add?
If not, I’m not sure of the significance of putting more stress on part of the muscle. What are the real world consequences of this?
I do apologise, but i really cannot be bothered to debate this with you, i feel i have more than explained the theory in this thread, and i have actually addressed the questions in your second post as they seem to be no different to those in the first post.
I am perfectly happy for you to believe something absolutely opposed to what i believe to be true. I am fine with that. Infact, i would prefer that.
Apart from all that, your questions seem particularly pointless and inane…
“Do you believe that narrow grip presses will help someone add more mass to the inner chest than DB press would add?”
erm… OK…
followed by
“If not, I’m not sure of the significance of putting more stress on part of the muscle. What are the real world consequences of this?”
‘real world consequences?’ lmao! i am not sure i can answer that my intellectually challenged friend.
Maybe they ahve the results because they care about putting on a lot of muscle, take AAS (no knock) and eat a ton of food. Not everyone is worried about being as muscular as possible.
I’m confused what you mean by this as it relates to mine or the other post quoted.
We were simply stating we look towards practice and move backwards to theory as opposed to theory into practice. Has little to do with personal goals of maximum size. [/quote]
Well, I do see what Jehovah means though. Not everyone wants to be huge. But I do not see how this relates to bringing up muscle groups. In addition, if someone doesn’t want to get as big as possible, they are sure going to have trouble bringing up a lagging muscle group. It is hard enough alone gaining overall muscle mass, let alone some desired area of a muscle group.
[quote] JJ wrote:
I do apologise, but i really cannot be bothered to debate this with you, i feel i have more than explained the theory in this thread, and i have actually addressed the questions in your second post as they seem to be no different to those in the first post.
I am perfectly happy for you to believe something absolutely opposed to what i believe to be true. I am fine with that. Infact, i would prefer that.
Apart from all that, your questions seem particularly pointless and inane…
“Do you believe that narrow grip presses will help someone add more mass to the inner chest than DB press would add?”
erm… OK…
followed by
“If not, I’m not sure of the significance of putting more stress on part of the muscle. What are the real world consequences of this?”
‘real world consequences?’ lmao! i am not sure i can answer that my intellectually challenged friend.
I cant imagine that anyone who doesnt want to get huge, will even give a toss about bringing up a muscle group…
Not to the extent even i would, let alone a competing bodybuilder.
IME it is hard as fuck to build anything nearly resembling a muscular physique - and there is no need to fix a lagging muscle before that… So those who are doing “1 legged DB Squats w/ unilateral front raise on a wobble board” are not going to be interested in even development as it relates to aesthetics…