drooping chest

[kimchee411]

I thought one muscle develops the same way no matter how you try to hit a specific region of it and its shape is genetically predetermined, i.e. incline/decline/flat you're still just working the entire pec, except that other small peripheral muscles are involved in different exercises, just like you can't "develop an 8 pack" by trying to aggressively target the "lower abs".

Anybody have anything to say to that?

 

[Lonsdale]

Anybody have anything to say to that?

I don't agree with the above statement at all. Actually, i did read something like that a few months ago - it was in a Peter(?) Sisco ebook, where he was basically advocating working out once every two weeks or so, doing one exercise for each bodypart, using the argument that the muscle will grow the same whatever way you hit it.

I don't agree with this. For decades different exercises have been used to hit different areas of the same muscle. For example, barbell curls for overall biceps mass, and concentration curls for increased peak. This hasn't been backed up by significant research, but i, along with many others, take it as a given.

this is why people traditionally use three or four exercises per body part. it's also the reason why people wouldn't be advised to do barbell curls followed by dumbel curls followed by alternating dumbell curls - because they're all targeting pretty much the same area. people would instead do curls, followed by hammer curls, followed perhaps by preacher curls, which all target different regions.

So in short, it is my belief that saying such exercises affect the muscle in the same way is plain wrong. genetics always play a major part in your ability to develop a muscle in a certain way, but the WAY in which you train is also a very significant factor. just because your dad had long biceps doesn't mean you can't get a thick biceps belly and decent peak - you might have to work at it harder than some other people, but if you use the right exercises, you will see significant results.

 

[skacorica]

I thought one muscle develops the same way no matter how you try to hit a specific region of it and its shape is genetically predetermined, i.e. incline/decline/flat you're still just working the entire pec, except that other small peripheral muscles are involved in different exercises, just like you can't "develop an 8 pack" by trying to aggressively target the "lower abs".

To some degree it is true, for example, inner pecs vs outer pecs are generally considered to be the same ie, genetically regulated. But as far as upper and lower, take a look at how the muscle fibers run:

http://virtualastronaut.jsc.nasa.gov/textonly/act20/images/pectoral.gif

its easy to see how you could activate different portions of it.

 

[kimchee411]

I can understanding being able to hit the pecs from different angles, but I'm talking about development and shape. So you're telling me if I did nothing but sharp inclines I'd have balloons up top and nothing at the nips? (ok, that's extreme, but you know what i mean)

Here's an old Q&A from IronMagazine.com

Question:
I want to build up my upper and inner chest, should I do incline presses and cable crossovers for this?

Answer:
YES! As well as flat barbell presses, decline barbell presses & dumbbell flyes.

I do not say this because any of those exercises will actually target any specific region of your pectorial, cause they will not. I say this because to obtain "complete" chest development to your maximum genetic potential you will need a variety of exercises.

A common mistake people make is the "I feel it" syndrome. They think because an exercise makes a certain part of a muscle sore it must target that area of the muscle. This is true in some cases such as the deltoids where there are more than one head with different tendon attachments. The pectorial major is a single muscle with one tendon attachment to the humerous (arm) that fans accross the rib cage. However, it is still a single muscle and muscles grow as a whole, not in parts. Think about it this way, if you could cause growth in one area of a single muscle that would inply that it's possible to shape a muscle, right? Well, we all know (at least I hope we do) that you cannot shape a muscle. The shape of your muscles are genetically predetermined.

Now, it's still important to use multiple angles to hit the pectorial muscles (and any muscle for that matter), not because it will cause growth in one area, but because using different angles to hit a muscle is necessary for maximum stimulation and to continue progress and development.

Not citing this as primary authority, but somebody want to explain why it's wrong?

 

[skacorica]

I can understanding being able to hit the pecs from different angles, but I'm talking about development and shape. So you're telling me if I did nothing but sharp inclines I'd have balloons up top and nothing at the nips? (ok, that's extreme, but you know what i mean)

No, because you are going to activate the muscle fibers for the entire muscle no matter what chest exercises you do. That said:


"The general shape of the pectoralis major is that of a "fan", meaning it has a wide origin on the clavicle, ribs 2 through 6 and sternum and tapers into a narrow insertion on the humerus. In addition, the pectoralis major is a cruciate muscle.

This means that the fibers originating from the upper half of the muscle cross over those originating from the lower half on their way to the humerus, forming an anatomical "twist" in the muscle. Due to these characteristics, the muscle fiber angles fluctuate by as much as seventy degrees from the most superior to the most inferior portions of the muscle....

The result of this unique shape and varying fiber angles of the pectoralis major is the superior and inferior portions of the muscle have somewhat different actions on the arm. Hence, certain exercises involve the upper "head" of this muscle more than the lower and vice versa"

Francis, P., Applied anatomy and kinesiology, supplemental materials. KB Books., p 19,1999.
2. Rasch, P.J., Kinesiology and applied anatomy. 7th ed. Lea and Febiger, p 123, 1989.

 

[kimchee411]

To some degree it is true, for example, inner pecs vs outer pecs are generally considered to be the same ie, genetically regulated. But as far as upper and lower, take a look at how the muscle fibers run:

http://virtualastronaut.jsc.nasa.gov/textonly/act20/images/pectoral.gif

its easy to see how you could activate different portions of it.

No, because you are going to activate the muscle fibers for the entire muscle no matter what chest exercises you do.

Seems a little contradictory to me. I can see your second point, and that's what I was led to believe before. Muscle cells have gap junctions that propagate action potentials throughout the entire muscle, no?

But how does the way muscle fibers run determine how they grow? Isn't the way out fibers run, i.e. the shape of our muscles, determined by genetics?

 

[skacorica]

Seems a little contradictory to me. I can see your second point, and that's what I was led to believe before. Muscle cells have gap junctions that propagate action potentials throughout the entire muscle, no?

But how does the way muscle fibers run determine how they grow? Isn't the way out fibers run, i.e. the shape of our muscles, determined by genetics?

What I meant was 'different portions more than others'....but as far as getting down to the specifics you are talkin about, you'll have to ask someone much more versed in anatomy/phys than myself

 

[HERPECIN]

i do not recommend taking kim chee's advice

 

[kimchee411]

i do not recommend taking kim chee's advice

Hey excellent point you have there, God of Bodybuilding. I'm sold.

If you're going to make a recommendation at least give a reason for it.

I didn't even give any advice; I'm just searching for answers.

 

[karachi183]

declines?

^what he said!