[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Wow arguably the greatest back in BB history and no mention of pullups in his training hmmmm.
[/quote]
He used to like them (well underhand so chin-ups I suppose!), there’s a very old interview on here with him saying he only stopped after bicep tears.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Wow arguably the greatest back in BB history and no mention of pullups in his training hmmmm.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Yates and Momo…[/quote]
Damn that dude is definitely outclassing Yates in that pic. Never heard of him
[/quote]
Mom was one thick mofo. Unfortunately, he was also the first big name casualty to the extreme use of diuretics during the 90’s.
S
[quote]buzza wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
pullovers first (I use a rope on a cable), pulldowns or chins with close grip parallel grip, rows with back arched, partial deads last… it always made sense if
[/quote]
I’m trying to imagine how those rope pullovers would look like but my mind is not working right now, could you describe how you do those ? Do you lay down on a incline bench or kneel on the ground like Arnold ? I haven’t done any kind of pullovers in a while due to my shoulders but it’s my favorite back exercise. The HS Pullover machine in my gym is too awkward for me to give it a try, and I don’t risk DBs or barbells due to my injuries.
[/quote]
i do it in this way; high cable,feet at shoulders width,legs slightly bent,bodyweight on the center of my balls,trying to hit my waist with ropes.
some months ago i was using way to much weight both on latpulldowns&rope pullover,it was difficult to maintain the position (a dude had to grab my belt to force me in position),using the right load (to allow slow eccentrics and peak contraction) cured this…until I will not use 200lb for pullovers LMAO…
pls MightyStu feel free to correct me on ropePO mechanics.[/quote]
That’s pretty much it. I personally like to angle my torso forward a bit in order to get a deeper stretch in my lower lats. I’m sure it’s on one of the few videos I did last Spring leading up to the Mr. America if anyone wants to see how far I’m standing away from the cable, how I angle my body, and where my hands actually end up at peak contraction.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]buzza wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
pullovers first (I use a rope on a cable), pulldowns or chins with close grip parallel grip, rows with back arched, partial deads last… it always made sense if
[/quote]
I’m trying to imagine how those rope pullovers would look like but my mind is not working right now, could you describe how you do those ? Do you lay down on a incline bench or kneel on the ground like Arnold ? I haven’t done any kind of pullovers in a while due to my shoulders but it’s my favorite back exercise. The HS Pullover machine in my gym is too awkward for me to give it a try, and I don’t risk DBs or barbells due to my injuries.
[/quote]
i do it in this way; high cable,feet at shoulders width,legs slightly bent,bodyweight on the center of my balls,trying to hit my waist with ropes.
some months ago i was using way to much weight both on latpulldowns&rope pullover,it was difficult to maintain the position (a dude had to grab my belt to force me in position),using the right load (to allow slow eccentrics and peak contraction) cured this…until I will not use 200lb for pullovers LMAO…
pls MightyStu feel free to correct me on ropePO mechanics.[/quote]
That’s pretty much it. I personally like to angle my torso forward a bit in order to get a deeper stretch in my lower lats. I’m sure it’s on one of the few videos I did last Spring leading up to the Mr. America if anyone wants to see how far I’m standing away from the cable, how I angle my body, and where my hands actually end up at peak contraction.
S
[/quote]
Is there any youtube video that you could link that would show this? I’m having a tough time picturing the exact ROM.
Yates is a monster, always good to hear his insights.
[quote]kman3b18 wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]buzza wrote:
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
pullovers first (I use a rope on a cable), pulldowns or chins with close grip parallel grip, rows with back arched, partial deads last… it always made sense if
[/quote]
I’m trying to imagine how those rope pullovers would look like but my mind is not working right now, could you describe how you do those ? Do you lay down on a incline bench or kneel on the ground like Arnold ? I haven’t done any kind of pullovers in a while due to my shoulders but it’s my favorite back exercise. The HS Pullover machine in my gym is too awkward for me to give it a try, and I don’t risk DBs or barbells due to my injuries.
[/quote]
i do it in this way; high cable,feet at shoulders width,legs slightly bent,bodyweight on the center of my balls,trying to hit my waist with ropes.
some months ago i was using way to much weight both on latpulldowns&rope pullover,it was difficult to maintain the position (a dude had to grab my belt to force me in position),using the right load (to allow slow eccentrics and peak contraction) cured this…until I will not use 200lb for pullovers LMAO…
pls MightyStu feel free to correct me on ropePO mechanics.[/quote]
That’s pretty much it. I personally like to angle my torso forward a bit in order to get a deeper stretch in my lower lats. I’m sure it’s on one of the few videos I did last Spring leading up to the Mr. America if anyone wants to see how far I’m standing away from the cable, how I angle my body, and where my hands actually end up at peak contraction.
S
[/quote]
Is there any youtube video that you could link that would show this? I’m having a tough time picturing the exact ROM.[/quote]
Thanks Stu and everyone for explaining the Rope Pullover, gonna give those a try
yates is the f*%kin man…will definitely incorperate trying the deads like that and also focusing on the negative portions of my exercises.
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)
This thread makes me look forward to Back day even more now
[quote]Hitkiller wrote:
Dorian actually came runner up to Momo Benaziza in the 1990 Night of Champions. (New York Pro)
The main reason was the thickness and detail of Momo’s back blew everyone away, even Dorian.
It was actually Momo who was a big influence on Dorians superior back development which he used to defeat Momo the following year in the Night of Champions.[/quote]
did you even read the article? or decide to fill the internet with more useless crap?
he stated that.
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinkered when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
Thanks Stu and everyone for explaining the Rope Pullover, gonna give those a try
[/quote]
MagicStu in action on rope PO’s
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinkered when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Yeah I’ve heard of that too. It definitely made sense in theory from the point of view of pre-fatiguing the chest rather then the shoulders/tris… but for those who aren’t shoulder dominant it sort of loses its importance and the real world evidence definitely suggests many huge chests are built just fine without ever using decline movements…
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinkered when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinker when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…[/quote]
Yes, i am.
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinker when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…[/quote]
Yes, i am. [/quote]
jesus man…there are not “multiple heads” to the pec. Yates is correct you cannot truly target the heads hehehehe. major minor of the pec involves where they insert regarding angle and depth of the muscle, e.g. sitting under the surface of the skin…meaning…can i touch it?
feel my biceps, they are really pumped vs feel my subscapularis muscles (rotator cuff). see the difference?
Yates saying you cannot specificaly target the dual functioning muscles of the pecs is true, during pressing or fly movements the entire muscle is “in use.”
he’s simply saying the pecs are not like the triceps, or better yet, the individually target(able) heads of the deltoids.
Yates likes the bang for your buck you get from decline press.
BY ALL FUCKING MEANS THOUGH, training inclines does help the upper chest, think of an electromagnetic “Back to the Future” type gaget hooked up to your chest and a fancy computer monitor, add lights and beep beep beep things in your mind if it helps. the upper chest would/will likely light up and beep w/ more vigor during upper chest work…but the whole muscle is activated.
Silly, silly, silly…this is a good thread.
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinker when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…[/quote]
Yes, i am. [/quote]
jesus man…there are not “multiple heads” to the pec. Yates is correct you cannot truly target the heads hehehehe. major minor of the pec involves where they insert regarding angle and depth of the muscle, e.g. sitting under the surface of the skin…meaning…can i touch it?
feel my biceps, they are really pumped vs feel my subscapularis muscles (rotator cuff). see the difference?
Yates saying you cannot specificaly target the dual functioning muscles of the pecs is true, during pressing or fly movements the entire muscle is “in use.”
he’s simply saying the pecs are not like the triceps, or better yet, the individually target(able) heads of the deltoids.
Yates likes the bang for your buck you get from decline press.
BY ALL FUCKING MEANS THOUGH, training inclines does help the upper chest, think of an electromagnetic “Back to the Future” type gaget hooked up to your chest and a fancy computer monitor, add lights and beep beep beep things in your mind if it helps. the upper chest would/will likely light up and beep w/ more vigor during upper chest work…but the whole muscle is activated.
Silly, silly, silly…this is a good thread.[/quote]
many EMG studies stated that incline bench doesn’t involve the clavicular portion of pec (upper pec) more than flat/decline but with a narrow grip.
incline bench involves more the anterior part of delts (compared to flat/decline bench),
decline bench involves more tris than front delts (compared to incline).
EMG -after all- shows that decline bench recruits more pec fibers than incline/flat bench.
on the other hand ,IF was possible to target just one part of pec WHY top pros sometimes gets a weak upper chest (Cutler,Yates and Centopani)???
Haven’t they tried (during the years) to develop that area?
yes ,they did but it’s not possible to target just upper-medium-low pec…
end of story; add load (discks LOL) to the bar,use the head and have fun.
[quote]buzza wrote:
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinker when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…[/quote]
Yes, i am. [/quote]
jesus man…there are not “multiple heads” to the pec. Yates is correct you cannot truly target the heads hehehehe. major minor of the pec involves where they insert regarding angle and depth of the muscle, e.g. sitting under the surface of the skin…meaning…can i touch it?
feel my biceps, they are really pumped vs feel my subscapularis muscles (rotator cuff). see the difference?
Yates saying you cannot specificaly target the dual functioning muscles of the pecs is true, during pressing or fly movements the entire muscle is “in use.”
he’s simply saying the pecs are not like the triceps, or better yet, the individually target(able) heads of the deltoids.
Yates likes the bang for your buck you get from decline press.
BY ALL FUCKING MEANS THOUGH, training inclines does help the upper chest, think of an electromagnetic “Back to the Future” type gaget hooked up to your chest and a fancy computer monitor, add lights and beep beep beep things in your mind if it helps. the upper chest would/will likely light up and beep w/ more vigor during upper chest work…but the whole muscle is activated.
Silly, silly, silly…this is a good thread.[/quote]
many EMG studies stated that incline bench doesn’t involve the clavicular portion of pec (upper pec) more than flat/decline but with a narrow grip.
incline bench involves more the anterior part of delts (compared to flat/decline bench),
decline bench involves more tris than front delts (compared to incline).
EMG -after all- shows that decline bench recruits more pec fibers than incline/flat bench.
on the other hand ,IF was possible to target just one part of pec WHY top pros sometimes gets a weak upper chest (Cutler,Yates and Centopani)???
Haven’t they tried (during the years) to develop that area?
yes ,they did but it’s not possible to target just upper-medium-low pec…
end of story; add load (discks LOL) to the bar,use the head and have fun.[/quote]
That is fair enough and thoughtful. EMG stuff seems to be proof enough but likely we will all go on and train upper chest, likely because we “like” that motor pattern of movement, becoming proficient at a movement allows us to add more weight and perform the given movement with better control, thusly taxing the muscle w/ greater preciseness.
My reply was centered on the other guy first agreeing w/ yates and then stating T-Nation set him straight, my claim is that yates is correct about the inability to selectively target upper vs lower, explaining that the major minor of the pec aren’t motor movement exclusive like the heads of the triceps can be during isolation work. the human body is crazy though, no doubt that even during say a strict side lateral raise, based on everyone’s individual movement variables, other heads and synergy w/in the shoulder occurs.
thanks for that thought buzza, i knew and believe as you stated, but it will make me look at chest movements a bit differently.
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
[quote]buzza wrote:
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]dre1986 wrote:
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Thanks a ton for this article. Always love what Yates has to say. In fact, come to think of it, is there anything Yates has said which has even been disproved? Seems like he seems on point with pretty much everything exercise selection/form wise (not really talking about HIT etc.)[/quote]
First off let me say Yates is a legend.
Right, now the patriotic bits been done, to answer your questions, yes.
He ran a small seminar a while back whereby he was discussing chest training. In the seminar he proceeded to advice everyone that when training the chest it was impossible, anatomically, to target a single portion of the chest with any sort of effectivness. Ie, if you want to hit upper chest and you’re doing incline bench to do this, it wont work. He firmly believes that you cannot target a particular portion of the chest. He also claims that doing decline bench presses are the best exercise for chest, as they offer the most ROM.
I got caught hook, line and sinker when i saw the seminar until i got put straight by a couple of guys on here and looked a bit more into the anatomy and the fact that there are multiple heads to the pec blah blah etc…[/quote]
Not sure if serious…[/quote]
Yes, i am. [/quote]
jesus man…there are not “multiple heads” to the pec. Yates is correct you cannot truly target the heads hehehehe. major minor of the pec involves where they insert regarding angle and depth of the muscle, e.g. sitting under the surface of the skin…meaning…can i touch it?
feel my biceps, they are really pumped vs feel my subscapularis muscles (rotator cuff). see the difference?
Yates saying you cannot specificaly target the dual functioning muscles of the pecs is true, during pressing or fly movements the entire muscle is “in use.”
he’s simply saying the pecs are not like the triceps, or better yet, the individually target(able) heads of the deltoids.
Yates likes the bang for your buck you get from decline press.
BY ALL FUCKING MEANS THOUGH, training inclines does help the upper chest, think of an electromagnetic “Back to the Future” type gaget hooked up to your chest and a fancy computer monitor, add lights and beep beep beep things in your mind if it helps. the upper chest would/will likely light up and beep w/ more vigor during upper chest work…but the whole muscle is activated.
Silly, silly, silly…this is a good thread.[/quote]
many EMG studies stated that incline bench doesn’t involve the clavicular portion of pec (upper pec) more than flat/decline but with a narrow grip.
incline bench involves more the anterior part of delts (compared to flat/decline bench),
decline bench involves more tris than front delts (compared to incline).
EMG -after all- shows that decline bench recruits more pec fibers than incline/flat bench.
on the other hand ,IF was possible to target just one part of pec WHY top pros sometimes gets a weak upper chest (Cutler,Yates and Centopani)???
Haven’t they tried (during the years) to develop that area?
yes ,they did but it’s not possible to target just upper-medium-low pec…
end of story; add load (discks LOL) to the bar,use the head and have fun.[/quote]
That is fair enough and thoughtful. EMG stuff seems to be proof enough but likely we will all go on and train upper chest, likely because we “like” that motor pattern of movement, becoming proficient at a movement allows us to add more weight and perform the given movement with better control, thusly taxing the muscle w/ greater preciseness.
this is the point!! well said.
all the debates/flames about incline/flat/decline bench for different stimulus/i on a certain part of the pec are based just on “how I feel confortable with the excercise”.
if I feel unconfortable with flat bench I use incline and my chest grows the same.
for some months I did just decline bench and -you know?- even my upper pec (my worst area ever) become (a little) bigger,my medium pec has become bigger but because it is my muscle shape,NOT because decline bench hits low chest LOL
My reply was centered on the other guy first agreeing w/ yates and then stating T-Nation set him straight, my claim is that yates is correct about the inability to selectively target upper vs lower, explaining that the major minor of the pec aren’t motor movement exclusive like the heads of the triceps can be during isolation work. the human body is crazy though, no doubt that even during say a strict side lateral raise, based on everyone’s individual movement variables, other heads and synergy w/in the shoulder occurs.
thanks for that thought buzza, i knew and believe as you stated, but it will make me look at chest movements a bit differently.[/quote]
all we are here to know more and to use the knowledge to become bigger,m8 