View Full Version : Is this even an exercise for chest?
12-20-2004, 09:48 PM
I call it under cable. Not sure what the actual name is or even if it exists. It's like crossover cables, except the handles are on the bottom. You hold the handles to the sides and about a foot ahead of the pulleys. In a fly motion with slightly bent arms, you raise the weight towards your face. Anyone know what exercise I am talking about. I haven't seen this in exrx.net or anywhere else. As a matter of fact, I haven't even heard of anyone talk about this exercise in this forum. I've seen people doing it at the gym. I used to do them and liked them very much, just haven't done them since I found this forum. I concentrate mostly on compound movements, but am just curious as to what your guys' take is on it
I think i know what you mean. No idea what its called though. Seems pretty useless to me.
12-20-2004, 09:58 PM
It's another variation of a cable crossover.
12-20-2004, 10:01 PM
How effective is it?
12-20-2004, 10:08 PM
Not very, if your goal is hypertrophy or strength. Cable crossovers are more of a stabilizer/assistance exercise, in general, or, more often used incorrectly to develop a pump.
12-20-2004, 10:28 PM
my goal is hypertrophy (size). What do you mean by used incorrectly to develop a pump? I don't understand that comment
12-20-2004, 10:48 PM
I mean that I typically see it being done by guys who have already benched and done flies and now want to "fry" their pecs, using high reps and light weight and more often than not, very odd form.
Heck, today, Mr. "Jeans and weightbelt who only does chest exercises" was doing them as his 25th or so set for chest.
I think it is difficult to perform crossovers with appropriate form and load to really work the chest, versus all of the other stabilizers involved, to produce hypertrophy, as the pecs will almost never be the weakest link in the exercise.
12-20-2004, 10:58 PM
it seems to me that for hypertrophy, most chest exercises are going to be the strongest, even with compound movements. The only thing that I would see being a plus would be to possibly doing tris and shoulders before chest.
What exercises do you think are optimal for hypertrophy?
12-20-2004, 11:08 PM
DB and barbell bench pressing, various grip and inclinations to change the relative proportions of tri/pec/delt. I'm not a fan of flies at all. If i had to choose one, flat barbell bench.
12-20-2004, 11:18 PM
i'm actually thinking about doing chest twice a week. My chest is lagging considerably, and when a long time ago, when i used to do chest twice a week, i had great results. i was thinking of doing something like 3 sets BB BP, 3 sets DB incline @ 8-10 reps to near failure on mondays, then on thursday do 2 sets machine flys, 2 sets cable crossovers, and 2 sets incline db fly @ 12-15 reps again to near failure.
How does that look?
12-20-2004, 11:38 PM
I've seen this exercise, and I'm hard pressed to figure out what muscle group it's supposed to be targeting
12-20-2004, 11:53 PM
Even if you do it without weights, you can feel your chest flexing. This motion with some resistance I think works out the chest. Stabilizers could include the bis and forearms
12-21-2004, 07:04 AM
Sure it is. Try using a flat bench, incline & even a decline bench & experiment to see which you like or can feel it the most. It can be a good finisher or optional/something different exercise. Just get a good squeeze at the top or 'hands close' position.
12-21-2004, 08:01 AM
9 times out of 10 I see people trying to do these and end up with some sort of weird curl thing with a little flye at the end of it. And then they say, "It's great for the lower-middle pec, man." It's a highly overrated exercise IMO.
have you not got the option of pec deck?
12-21-2004, 08:59 AM
I can do cable crossovers from the top and feel a pump...but when I try from below, I feel like I'm doing it wrong, and I feel more stress (and sometimes pain!) in my shoulders than my pecs.
With perfect form, I could see pro-bodybuilders using this move to keep their pecs growing. But for 'normal' people I think it's kinda pointless.
12-21-2004, 09:33 AM
You don't need to be a pro-bodybuilder to have perfect form. All you need is common sense with the weight selection, and to actually know how to do it right.
12-21-2004, 03:54 PM
Do any of you guys incorporate them in your routine?
12-21-2004, 04:31 PM
Ya, I do. I use variations of a cable crossover as a way to really hit my chest.
12-21-2004, 04:59 PM
I dont, i'd rather stick to the meat and potatoes... ill worry about flys when im 220+ and ripped.
12-21-2004, 07:24 PM
If you have correct form (and long arms help) flyes hit the pecs real hard when they're prefatigued from bench.
12-22-2004, 09:34 AM
Remember the original question was LOW pulley cable crossovers, what do they target, etc.
I think everyone will agree that HIGH pulley crossovers definitely hit the chest. Low pulley's, however, just don't seem to do much for me. I'll stick to decline bench press.
12-22-2004, 12:24 PM
I usually superset them following high cable crossovers. I disagree, I think that the two are good for a chest building isolation exercise but a movement like this needs to be done strictly and just as intensely as the rest of your exercises. The problem with me is that I'm getting too strong for them and I have problems standing in the right position because I'm being pulled backwards (186lbs vs 240lbs). No, I'm not bragging. I've actually stopped doing them because form has suffered too much during worksets because of the weights required because I can hardly stand. I've replaced them with OG DB flyes.
I know, Nash, I see dudes doing crossovers for sets of 30 reps all the time. Usually its the Russian immigrant mobsters who are all over this part of CA who go into the gym wearing leather and loafers and just pump up and never, ever progress. Ever. I guess when they're done chopping cars or laundering money for the day they like to go get a good pump before going out to the clubs 25 deep.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.