Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 150

Thread: I made my upper chest grow, relative to my lower chest

  1. #101
    Baby Seal Clubber ElPietro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    12,778
    Ok we are going in circles now, but my point is that a good workout that you ARE used to can also make you sore. So it's a moot measurement.

    Soreness means nothing other than you DID do some work, and ARE now sore. Doesn't mean good or bad workout, as neither does not being sore means you had a good or bad workout.

    Which is why I usually tell people that other than moaning about the pain, as I do, there's nothing you need to pay attention to from it.
    Deadlifts are like women, they'll hurt you everytime, but they'll also make you a man. - Me

    Friends don't let friends do dumbell kickbacks. - Me

    ElP is the smartest man in the world. - Gyno Rhino

    A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. -- Dan Quayle

    If do right, no can defense. -- Mr. Miyagi

    Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

    I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

    Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.

    Current FFFA Enforcer

  2. #102
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Point taken
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    okay, i don't care how stupid you think i am, but can someone please explain to me, like you would to a child, why it IS possible to emphasize the damage that causes soreness on a particular part of a muscle, but it IS NOT possible to emphasize the damage that causes hypertrophy?
    Last edited by jazer80; 03-30-2006 at 08:46 PM.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    and extreme anabolic, i'm still waiting for your elaboration, that really doesn't make sense either

  5. #105
    Baby Seal Clubber ElPietro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    12,778
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    okay, i don't care how stupid you think i am, but can someone please explain to me, like you would to a child, why it IS possible to emphasize the damage that causes soreness on a particular part of a muscle, but it IS NOT possible to emphasize the damage that causes hypertrophy?
    If it worked that way, then all sorts of people with different routines would have completely different shapes in muscle all over. You don't see guys with huge upper pecs and no lower pecs.

    Just like you don't see guys with one bulging part of the deltoids, or whatever. Muscle shape is genetics, that's it. You can grow the entire muscle, which may change it's shape over time depending on genetics. Heck, even going to inclines may fill out your upper chest, but there is a good chance that some other excercise might as well. But it's not a matter of isolating part of a muscle, or an individual muscle in a group that perform the same function. It's simply a matter of the muscle growing in a shape that has been genetically determined.

    I can go months off of flat bench and only do incline but this makes no impact on upper chest size.

    As I said before in your case, if you think your chest grew, my best theory would be it was from the flyes more than anything else. This is an isolation exercise on your chest, so direct work. With your flat bench or even inclines, your chest may not be working hard because you are doing more work with tris or delts. So the direct isolation work may have triggered hypertropy, however, from the pics it's hard to tell if there was that much gain or not.
    Deadlifts are like women, they'll hurt you everytime, but they'll also make you a man. - Me

    Friends don't let friends do dumbell kickbacks. - Me

    ElP is the smartest man in the world. - Gyno Rhino

    A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. -- Dan Quayle

    If do right, no can defense. -- Mr. Miyagi

    Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

    I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

    Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.

    Current FFFA Enforcer

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ElPietro
    If it worked that way, then all sorts of people with different routines would have completely different shapes in muscle all over. You don't see guys with huge upper pecs and no lower pecs.

    Just like you don't see guys with one bulging part of the deltoids, or whatever. Muscle shape is genetics, that's it. You can grow the entire muscle, which may change it's shape over time depending on genetics. Heck, even going to inclines may fill out your upper chest, but there is a good chance that some other excercise might as well. But it's not a matter of isolating part of a muscle, or an individual muscle in a group that perform the same function. It's simply a matter of the muscle growing in a shape that has been genetically determined.

    I can go months off of flat bench and only do incline but this makes no impact on upper chest size.

    As I said before in your case, if you think your chest grew, my best theory would be it was from the flyes more than anything else. This is an isolation exercise on your chest, so direct work. With your flat bench or even inclines, your chest may not be working hard because you are doing more work with tris or delts. So the direct isolation work may have triggered hypertropy, however, from the pics it's hard to tell if there was that much gain or not.
    your response proves to me that you cannot make drastic changes to a particular part. i agree with that. i am not asserting that you can just do waht you like with your muscles and make them whatever shape ya like. i am suggesting that emphasis on a particular part can make it grow a little mroe than the rest. not a major thing, but that you can affect shape.

    can you tell me scientifically why
    why it IS possible to emphasize the damage that causes soreness on a particular part of a muscle, but it IS NOT possible to emphasize the damage that causes hypertrophy?

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by mrelwooddowd
    No matter how much more ehphasis you can put on an area of a muscle in relation to another area of a muscle, it's not enugh for the brain to decide that the higher-stressed area needs more protein.
    still looking for clarification on this statement, and on this one

    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Just because you may be able to place more emphasis on a part of a muscle, that does not make that part grow faster. The muscle grows as a whole. Due to the angle, you may feel more sore in a certain part, but soreness does not equal growth. Soreness only means that the muscle is sore.

    both of these statements seem to assert that you can put emphasis on a part of a muscle, but if i am understanding correctly the majority debating against me believe that the muscle is firing all or nothing, with no emphasis anywhere

  8. #108
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    I think you got em dude

    I'd like clarification too...
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  9. #109
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    still looking for clarification on this statement, and on this one




    both of these statements seem to assert that you can put emphasis on a part of a muscle, but if i am understanding correctly the majority debating against me believe that the muscle is firing all or nothing, with no emphasis anywhere
    First off, I said MAY, not CAN. Secondly any extra emphasis is very slight, not enough to cause meaningful hypertrophy if any. Thirdly what the majority is saying is that you can not grow one area of the chest faster than another, only a few are giving reasons why.

    Mr. PowermanDL said it best in a old link. I'll try to find it.

  10. #110
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Ahh, here it is.

    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/show...hlight=sternal

    Also on page 4 (post 93) there is a bit of history on the origin of the incline press. It was NOT intended as an exercise for the chest, but as an aid in overhead pressing.
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 03-31-2006 at 04:55 AM.

  11. #111
    Cardio bunny Alex.V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Duke
    Posts
    41
    That's the same damn thing I just said. Only it was two and a half years ago. lol.

    "why it IS possible to emphasize the damage that causes soreness on a particular part of a muscle, but it IS NOT possible to emphasize the damage that causes hypertrophy?"

    I answered this! You can cause a little more ain to a particular part of a muscle, but that is not sufficient for growth! Damage =/= growth. You are taking an assertion made by somebody else and asking us to justify it. The damage that is causing pain is simply that: more muscle damage. This does NOT imply further hypertrophy. This simply implies that more muscle fibers have been torn. Period. Again, otherwise you could do some bench presses, then stretch your pecs in such a way to cause trauma to one region, and suddenly find that part compensating more than the other. Not true. There are far more factors than just muscle tears that cause the body to produce additional contractile proteins etc., and to maintain that trauma alone is enough is spurious.
    "Except Belial. He knows everything. This isn't a sarcastic attack, either. He really knows everything." -----Organichu
    "Alex is all knowing and perfect"-----Jane (loosely paraphrased)
    -515/745/700 bench/deadlift/squat
    Current mile time: 4:23
    Marathons: 3
    Century races: 3
    Ironmans: 1
    Ultramarathons: 1
    Current supps: http://www.atlargenutrition.com/prod...covery/results

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Belial
    That's the same damn thing I just said. Only it was two and a half years ago. lol.

    "why it IS possible to emphasize the damage that causes soreness on a particular part of a muscle, but it IS NOT possible to emphasize the damage that causes hypertrophy?"

    I answered this! You can cause a little more ain to a particular part of a muscle, but that is not sufficient for growth! Damage =/= growth. You are taking an assertion made by somebody else and asking us to justify it. The damage that is causing pain is simply that: more muscle damage. This does NOT imply further hypertrophy. This simply implies that more muscle fibers have been torn. Period. Again, otherwise you could do some bench presses, then stretch your pecs in such a way to cause trauma to one region, and suddenly find that part compensating more than the other. Not true. There are far more factors than just muscle tears that cause the body to produce additional contractile proteins etc., and to maintain that trauma alone is enough is spurious.
    belial, i can tell i'm starting to piss you off, and that really is not my intention, but i still don't see what hte concrete reason is. the only explanation being given is soreness does not equal damage. i'm not saying it does. what i am saying is that pushing the weights causes both damage, and causes hypertrophy. if it is impossible to move the weight in a manner that would emphasize the kind of damage for hypertrophy, why is it possible to emphasize the kidn of damage that makes you sore?

    i'm seriously not trying to be annoying. i honestly do not understand this, and HAVE been rereading your posts.

  13. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Ahh, here it is.

    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/show...hlight=sternal

    Also on page 4 (post 93) there is a bit of history on the origin of the incline press. It was NOT intended as an exercise for the chest, but as an aid in overhead pressing.
    (is the history of the incline relevant here? if it is, say so and i'll go read it, but i am absurdly pressed today, sholdn't even be here in teh first place)

    i read the post in that thread you linked. it was too scientific for me to understand enough of it ot make a valid opinion. again, i have a long history in this area, but i never really learned a damn thing till i came here, so my real background is just from these pages, no classes or textbooks.

    taht being said, the end of his post read

    "Any difference noted between incline and flat pressing movements is sheerly a result of the pectoralis minor, which as I noted earlier, is responsible for scapular abduction.



    Now, STFU!!!

    THANK you."


    so, he appears to be saying a difference can possilby be noted between incline and decline. am i wrong or is that post in disagreement with what you are arguing? i feel like a dumbbass that we can't understand each other here.


    ON A SIDE NOTE, MODS, PLEASE PLEASE DON'T CLOSE THIS THREAD. I INTEND TO REVIVE IT IN A COUPLE MONTHS WITH NEW PICTURES, SO PLEASE DON'T CLOSE THIS! (in the meantime i am going to take much more close ups of the upper/inner of my chest so we have a good comparison shot of my current state)
    Last edited by jazer80; 03-31-2006 at 09:11 AM.

  14. #114
    HomeYield WillKuenzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    i read the post in that thread you linked. it was too scientific for me to understand enough of it ot make a valid opinion. again, i have a long history in this area, but i never really learned a damn thing till i came here, so my real background is just from these pages, no classes or textbooks.
    For you to understand more about what's going on you'll have to understand more scientific terms. Especially if you are wanting to learn more about your posts quoted below.

    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    if it is impossible to move the weight in a manner that would emphasize the kind of damage for hypertrophy, why is it possible to emphasize the kidn of damage that makes you sore?

    There's several different theories on what causes soreness, what causes growth but nothing is certain.

    I will tell you that if you had somebody do the exact routine you did to get your upper chest bigger, it probably wouldn't work for them. I did almost excuslively upper chest related exercises for years when I was a pole vaulter. My incline press was almost as much as my flat bench (within 15lbs.). I could incline db press more than I could flat db press. I pole vaulted for years, which is in its own right a bit of an "upper" chest workout. Did my upper chest grow? No. I still have a pathetic upper chest. I have great shoulders. Genetic shape of the muscle is going to have a lot more to do with it than anything.


    For you to change anybody's mind, you'll need to be a lot more specific and find a few studies that you can understand. I can find a few studies and repeat a lot of what's been said but I'm not going to waste my time until you understand what we're trying to say. Continuing to argue is a waste until we're own the same level.
    What is elite?
    "Those who work the hardest often complain the least." -anonymous
    Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by HomeYield
    Continuing to argue is a waste until we're own the same level.
    for us to be on the same level i could spend tons of hours learning chest physiology, or someone could just write a detailed paragraph explaining it to someone who is anatomically naive. i can't imagine that it is impossible for you guys to get a point across without scientific terminology.

    i am an econ major, and i could explain the most complicated stuff to people who have never taken an econ class. it's really not very hard to take complicated stuff and explain it to clueless people man

  16. #116
    HomeYield WillKuenzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    7,769
    LOL, that's what we've tried to do but at a low level it doesn't really come across. Saying that soreness and growth aren't really related but then you want to know why. You have to understand a bit more physiology before you really understand why.

    Explaining why the muscle operates as a whole and not certain fibers. A group of fibers contract when the signal is sent to the muscle. Essentially, when the brain sends the signal the whole muscle contracts. Kind of like wanting to bend your knee. The quad contracts. The whole quad.

    A very rough simile: imagine your muscle as a door. The whole door has to swing to open and close. Now typically the door has three hinges. You might pull down hard on the top corner of the door and you might see the top hinge get a bit more stress but the whole door still has to swing to open or close. But it goes back to creating enough stress to isolate certain fiber groups in the muscle. It generally won't happen but under extreme circumstances after all else have failed. The muscle contracts as a whole. The chest brings the elbow across the front of the body. The angle is dependent upon serratus or shoulder involvement to change the angle. The whole chest will contract and will only involve enough muscle fibers to do the job.

    Your overall goal is to get the chest bigger. Are you going to try to do something extreme to see 1% of the chest change or are you going to do more to see 10% growth in the whole chest. You tell me what will look better. The whole muscle growing (weak spots are generally diminished as overall growth occurs) will add more to the overall physique.

    Is doing 225 with incline press equivalent to doing 315 on flat bench? What's going to do more? More weight. You can take the time to try and change 1% of the muscle or can work harder and get the benefit of the entire muscle growing.
    What is elite?
    "Those who work the hardest often complain the least." -anonymous
    Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.

  17. #117
    3:16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by HomeYield

    Is doing 225 with incline press equivalent to doing 315 on flat bench? What's going to do more? More weight. You can take the time to try and change 1% of the muscle or can work harder and get the benefit of the entire muscle growing.
    i think this is one of the most important points.

    when you do a incline, you use less weight. thus less work is done for the chest.
    my exprience - joined gym 10 years ago, 6 1/2 years hard weight training exprience.

  18. #118
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    (1) (is the history of the incline relevant here? if it is, say so and i'll go read it, but i am absurdly pressed today, sholdn't even be here in teh first place)

    i read the post in that thread you linked. it was too scientific for me to understand enough of it ot make a valid opinion. again, i have a long history in this area, but i never really learned a damn thing till i came here, so my real background is just from these pages, no classes or textbooks.

    taht being said, the end of his post read

    "Any difference noted between incline and flat pressing movements is sheerly a result of the pectoralis minor, which as I noted earlier, is responsible for scapular abduction.



    Now, STFU!!!

    THANK you."


    (2) so, he appears to be saying a difference can possilby be noted between incline and decline. am i wrong or is that post in disagreement with what you are arguing? i feel like a dumbbass that we can't understand each other here.


    ON A SIDE NOTE, MODS, PLEASE PLEASE DON'T CLOSE THIS THREAD. I INTEND TO REVIVE IT IN A COUPLE MONTHS WITH NEW PICTURES, SO PLEASE DON'T CLOSE THIS! (in the meantime i am going to take much more close ups of the upper/inner of my chest so we have a good comparison shot of my current state)

    (numbers are mine)

    1. The history is relevant, since it shows that the incline press was not DESIGNED for chest exercises. Why would you use an exercise that was orginally developed for another bodypart? Yes nowadays a lot of people use the incline press for chest, but how many people do you see with huge "upper pecs"? That's 'cause it wasn't intended to grow muscle in that area in the first place.

    2. And in the sentence IMMEDIATELY ABOVE the one you quote he also says that ANY involvement will be minimal, meaning not enough of a difference to cause extra growth. Yes a difference can be noted, but it's too small to matter

    I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Yes, you may be able to stress one area more. No, the extra stress is not enough to cause growth because the difference is too small.

    Get your whole chest bigger, and your upper chest will get bigger too. Honestly Mr. jazer80, I don't know what you are worrying about so much. You have a solid physique to judge from your pics. So you are on the right track exercise and diet wise. Don't sweat the small stuff and focus overall on the big picture.
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 03-31-2006 at 07:02 PM.

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by HomeYield
    LOL, that's what we've tried to do but at a low level it doesn't really come across. Saying that soreness and growth aren't really related but then you want to know why. You have to understand a bit more physiology before you really understand why.

    Explaining why the muscle operates as a whole and not certain fibers. A group of fibers contract when the signal is sent to the muscle. Essentially, when the brain sends the signal the whole muscle contracts. Kind of like wanting to bend your knee. The quad contracts. The whole quad.

    A very rough simile: imagine your muscle as a door. The whole door has to swing to open and close. Now typically the door has three hinges. You might pull down hard on the top corner of the door and you might see the top hinge get a bit more stress but the whole door still has to swing to open or close. But it goes back to creating enough stress to isolate certain fiber groups in the muscle. It generally won't happen but under extreme circumstances after all else have failed. The muscle contracts as a whole. The chest brings the elbow across the front of the body. The angle is dependent upon serratus or shoulder involvement to change the angle. The whole chest will contract and will only involve enough muscle fibers to do the job.

    Your overall goal is to get the chest bigger. Are you going to try to do something extreme to see 1% of the chest change or are you going to do more to see 10% growth in the whole chest. You tell me what will look better. The whole muscle growing (weak spots are generally diminished as overall growth occurs) will add more to the overall physique.

    Is doing 225 with incline press equivalent to doing 315 on flat bench? What's going to do more? More weight. You can take the time to try and change 1% of the muscle or can work harder and get the benefit of the entire muscle growing.
    wow. thanks, that really did shed light on this scenario for me. i was very hung up on the fact that it seemed that it is possible to emphasize. your example really clarified things, i appreciate it.

    let me go a little further on this. not everybody's door is the same, depending on how tight the hinges are, different people can make the door open differently. you definitely can't flex a single hinge without moving any of the others. some people's doors would be tight enough so that you can't really move a single hinge without a completely equal movement on the other 2 hinges. but maybe some people's hinges are not so tight, and they can acutally move the top one a little bit more than the rest? could this be why some people see a result (nobody, well nobody you'd take seriously, is claiming a major change, just a very minor tweak) doing inclines specifically and others don't? i mean i just can't imagine that i'm going crazy enough to be seeing thickness that wasn't there, and i can't see having been delusionally obsessive in the first place about absence of muscle if it were really there.

    that really helped me understnad it, and now i guess i'm of the opinion that it can make a MINOR difference for some, but not for others. maybe only a minor difference for a few, who knows how the tightness of hinges range through us all.

    i do want to say something to you, and to body. i don't buy the whole 'less weight equals less growth'. if you are talking about the same movement, and the only variable is weight, then yes, i agree with you. however, how you use the weight can make a huge difference. for instance, if i were stuck with 20lbs db's i could still get a decent flye workout by just straightening my elbows more. yes, i'm using less weight, but i'm leveraging it harder. it's the degree of stress on the muscle that correlates to hypertrophy, not the specific weight used to create that stress (did that make sense or am i way off base?)


    again, thanks for relating it that way,i was afraid this was gonna end with 'go take an exercise science course before you are qualified to debate this further'.

  20. #120
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    . (1) what i am saying is that pushing the weights causes both damage, and causes hypertrophy.

    (2) if it is impossible to move the weight in a manner that would emphasize the kind of damage for hypertrophy, why is it possible to emphasize the kidn of damage that makes you sore?

    i'm seriously not trying to be annoying. i honestly do not understand this, and HAVE been rereading your posts.
    (numbers are mine)

    1. No, not always. Sometimes pushing the weights just causes damage or neither.

    2. Mr. HomeYield already used this simile above so I will run with it. Think of your muscle as a door. Now you want to open the door. Pulling down on the top hinge will create greater stress there (soreness), but it will not likely open the door (creating hypertrophy)

    Of course this is a VERY rough analogy, but impossible to explain it better without being quite scientific.

    And you are NOT emphasizing damage, but rather parts of the chest. Damage does not always equal hypertrophy. It is impossible to cause hypertrophy in one part of the chest without causing it in another. That has NOTHING to do with any specific type of damage. That is the way the chest muscle is constructed. Soreness comes from damage. But soreness/damage does not equal hypertrophy.

    So to sum up. It is impossible to "emphasize the kind of damage needed for hypertrophy" in the upper chest, because the chest muscle does simply NOT work that way. It grows as a whole. Any extra emphasis will simply make it sore, not grow.

    You can't say "I will damage my muscle in this part and make it grow." Nope, muscle only grows the way it was genetically designed to. You can not make one specific part of a specific muscle bigger. What you have to do is make the entire thing bigger. Because that is how muscles work.

  21. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    (numbers are mine)

    1. The history is relevant, since it shows that the incline press was not DESIGNED for chest exercises. Why would you use an exercise that was orginally developed for another bodypart? Yes nowadays a lot of people use the incline press for chest, but how many people do you see with huge "upper pecs"? That's 'cause it wasn't intended to grow muscle in that area in the first place.

    2. And in the sentence IMMEDIATELY ABOVE the one you quote he also says that ANY involvement will be minimal, meaning not enough of a difference to cause extra growth. Yes a difference can be noted, but it's too small to matter

    I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Yes, you may be able to stress one area more. No, the extra stress is not enough to cause growth because the difference is too small.

    Get your whole chest bigger, and your upper chest will get bigger too. Honestly Mr. jazer80, I don't know what you are worrying about so much. You have a solid physique to judge from your pics. So you are on the right track exercise and diet wise. Don't sweat the small stuff and focus overall on the big picture.
    i guess i just disagree that it matters why someone made up an exercise. they coudl have been right or wrong in designing it for the reasons they did. that doesn't really prove much, unless the people who designed it were infallible (sp?) bodybuilding deities.

    you don't need to make it any clearer now. the confusion stems from people saying 'you cannot emphasize part of your chest' when they mean 'in most cases the emphasis that can be put on a particular part of the chest is irrelevant'. i guess i still don't think i'm experiencing a placebo effect, but rather that i'm just building up my chest with a slighter emphasis on the upper part, which i am sure i can see in the mirror, and must be because of how my chest functions, which was determined by my genetics. is that reasonable? can we agree that *some* people could see MINOR growth in the upper relative to the lower?

  22. #122
    HomeYield WillKuenzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    7,769
    But the fact that is that you would have seen that upper chest growth regardless of the angle because your genetics determined how the muscle is shaped.


    ...and about the more weight equals more growth. Granted form remains paramount, will the body respond better to more weight, yes. 20lb flyes will work but would 200lbs bench press. Better. You're body grows as a whole. Its rare to see big guys with little legs or vice versa. (Sure they exist but that's just pretty much steriods gone wrong.) If I want bigger arms, will curling 20lbs get me bigger arms than doing chin ups with my body weight, nope. You want a bigger chest, the fact of the matter remains that you are hindering your gains by limiting what you can do through biomechanics.
    What is elite?
    "Those who work the hardest often complain the least." -anonymous
    Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.

  23. #123
    TJW Keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pickering, Ontario
    Posts
    3,238
    Great debate boys. I find this really interesting.

  24. #124
    Senior Member betastas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    951
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    ... the confusion stems from people saying 'you cannot emphasize part of your chest' when they mean 'in most cases the emphasis that can be put on a particular part of the chest is irrelevant'. i guess i still don't think i'm experiencing a placebo effect, but rather that i'm just building up my chest with a slighter emphasis on the upper part, which i am sure i can see in the mirror, and must be because of how my chest functions, which was determined by my genetics. is that reasonable? can we agree that *some* people could see MINOR growth in the upper relative to the lower?

    No. This cannot be agreed.

    I have been following this debate. You still have not accepted the basic fact that a muscle can only grow based on its genetic shaping. You cannot morph, warp or distort a muscle in any way other than physical mutilation (think surgery or severe injury). When stimulated, in any form by any exercise, the body evaluates the stress imparted on the muscle based on the load demanded from it. In the chest specifically, the upper muscle will not not grow larger than any other part. Why?

    What would happen if the upper portion did grow out of proportion? The larger upper area of muscle would be useful when in an inclined position, provided that the remaining portions of the chest were not required to suport and hold in place the upper portion. However, this is not true. if you had highly developed upper chest, but poorly developed lower chest, your chest would not be functional for your body - entirely against evolution and human genetic structure.

    With inclines in the real world, the load imparted on your chest is focused on the upper portion. However, this is an incomplete muscular stimulation, as the lower portion of the chest is not in an ideal mechanical position to impart its full muscular contraction. The portions of the chest in an unfavorable position do not have a full demand placed upon them. The load imparted by the weights is then interpreted by the body.

    This is where it gets a little fuzzy. Essentially, the body evaluates the stress on the muscle due to the load imparted. It realizes that the upper portion of the muscle was used to full force. However the remainder was not utilized in an ideal fashion. The body then needs to decide how to repair and grow the muscle. Since a body will never develop a muscle in a way that will be disadvantageous to the host body (being bound by genetics and basic human physiology), your chest will grow in unison. The lower portion will grow just as much as the top.

    The above is how I understand the mechanics of hypertrophy in basic layman terms. It may not be all correct. I do know that it is basic human function not to develop the body in ways that can prove to be a problem to the host. I think that you really need to realize that you are looking for the science to back up what you believe. This science does not exist. What has happened is that you wanted to see your upper chest grow every day that you were doing inclines.

    In the end, it did grow. You don't realize that your chest grew just the way it was genetically inclined to. To me, looking at your pictures, your shoulders grew, and your whole chest grew, and the relation between the muscles changed. This is why it may look different to you. In the end though, you have a very well developed chest, but it isn't proportioned differently now than it was before. It's just bigger.

  25. #125
    Senior Member Anthony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,020
    Quote Originally Posted by jazer80
    i guess i still don't think i'm experiencing a placebo effect, but rather that i'm just building up my chest with a slighter emphasis on the upper part, which i am sure i can see in the mirror
    Yes you are. Am I arguing that your upper chest looks bigger? Nope. Am I arguing that your lower chest looks equally bigger? Yep. I know you said you are lighter, but that doesn't mean you lost the weight in your chest. Also, I think you mentioned you were pumped in the pics. And maybe you're leaner. I'm 20lbs lighter and look bigger than I did at a higher bf%. And I certainly look bigger after a workout. Hell, *I* even have an upper chest after a workout!

    Either way, your "upper" chest did NOT grow any more than your lower chest. That's the part that you keep missing and is stopping you from understanding their argument. When you realize your entire chest grew, you'll be like, "awwwwwww, ****, they were right."
    Facebook - BW166 SQ585 BP405 DL660 CL310

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •