Lower Pecs

Degsy

I've noticed my lower pectorals seem to be lagging behind lately,my standard chest excercise is ordinary bench press.Is the position of teh bar important or should i be using other excercises too?

Cravez

My favourite chest exercise for building mass is chest flyes with dumbells on a bench, from personal experience. I usually change the bench to incline,decline and flat.I really do recommend chest flyes, and what would set me apart from the rest of my body is my chest. Weighted push-ups might be a good variant to try also? those should build your chest overall including lower, in fairness i find bench is good for building chest strength and somewhat mass but flyes are the way to go for me anyway.

Good Luck
Cravez

t-ha

Degsy wrote:

I've noticed my lower pectorals seem to be lagging behind lately,my standard chest excercise is ordinary bench press.Is the position of teh bar important or should i be using other excercises too?

That's the sternal head. It should be activated by a standard bench press, but you could try some declines to help it along. Bring the bar to the bottom of your sternum/top of the abs at the bottom of the lift. Try decline cable flies if you have the equipment, or DB flies other wise. Personally my shoulders aren't huge fans of heavy DB flies + you lose the tension in the top portion of the lift.

If you only have one cable machine (like me) then try this;
Get a cable machine and put it in a setting near the bottom so that when the arm has a 90 degree bend at the elbox, forearm facing out front, and the elbow close to (but not touching or resting on) the body, there is tension on the cable. The weight is pulled inwards and upwards so that your hand ends up about the same height as your collar-bone, quite close to the body, and about half-way across the pec muscle that isn't being worked (so it crosses your centre-line). This involves the shoulder moving forward and inward alot and really works the both the clavicular and sternal heads of the pecs over that final 10/15% of their concentric phase, which I find is elusive with presses and other chest exercises. The palms begin the exercise facing upwards at about 30 degrees to the horizontal, and finishs facing the relevant shoulder (right palm to right shoulder, left to left).

corkrob

t-ha wrote:

That's the sternal head. It should be activated by a standard bench press, but you could try some declines to help it along. Bring the bar to the bottom of your sternum/top of the abs at the bottom of the lift. Try decline cable flies if you have the equipment, or DB flies other wise. Personally my shoulders aren't huge fans of heavy DB flies + you lose the tension in the top portion of the lift.
It's hard to explain but give it a go...

What about loss of tension in the top of the bench press ? Depending on your arm position you will have minimal tension on the pecs at best!
Again its not full range training for the pectorals. Isolation work is what is required here most likely working at the point of stretch(basic muscle mechanics:muscles work from end to middle sarcomeres) to inflict more microtrauma therefore enhancing satellite cell activity which is more prolific at the stretch point.

t-ha

corkrob wrote:

What about loss of tension in the top of the bench press ? Depending on your arm position you will have minimal tension on the pecs at best!

True - but I would never recommend someone to drop the bench press entirely from their chest workout. I hope that is not what you're suggesting either? The bench press is a basic compound pressing movement that is still included in virtually every top trainees chest workout. I just don't like heavy flies and think cable flies are a very simple way to get better chest activation over a bigger range.

corkrob wrote:

Again its not full range training for the pectorals. Isolation work is what is required here most likely working at the point of stretch(basic muscle mechanics:muscles work from end to middle sarcomeres) to inflict more microtrauma therefore enhancing satellite cell activity which is more prolific at the stretch point.

Firstly, the point of stretch for the pecs is absolutely achievable in a bench press, particularly dumbell pressing. It's the peak contraction point that's missing. Secondly, I absolutely agree that isolation work will help bring up a lagging muscle head, which is why I stated

t-ha wrote:

Try decline cable flies if you have the equipment

. This is probably the single best way of working the sternal head of the pectorals in isolation. Incidentally, why did you not quote the part of my post where I specifically go through the technique for a supplementary chest isolation exercise - and then suggest chest isolation work? Lastly, the point of the second and third line of my post are to emphasise that he examines his bench pressing technique, since a flat bench press done with correct form should not create an imbalance between the clavicular and sternal heads of the pecs.

corkrob

Just because "top pros" use it doesnt mean its the best. often the top pros copy each others routines and are blessed with good genes which makes sub par training effective for them. I say effective, not optimal.

I never said the bench press didnt provide p.o.s. work. It does but what about the integration of the triceps? Thats why I stated that he should try a single joint exercise, which fullfills at least some of what is required for a normal strength curve. Also depending on the cable machine (if the pulleys arent adjustable) it may not provide sufficient stimulus at the fully contracted position.

retrograde

corkrob wrote:

Just because "top pros" use it doesnt mean its the best. often the top pros copy each others routines and are blessed with good genes which makes sub par training effective for them. I say effective, not optimal.

I never said the bench press didnt provide p.o.s. work. It does but what about the integration of the triceps? Thats why I stated that he should try a single joint exercise, which fullfills at least some of what is required for a normal strength curve. Also depending on the cable machine (if the pulleys arent adjustable) it may not provide sufficient stimulus at the fully contracted position.

I agree with above. Your level of genetics determines the shape of a muscle and whether or not you have the capacity to grow large impressive muscles, in theis case your pecs. No amount of isolation work will compensate for bad genes but decline bench press wont hurt since its a multi joint exercise concentrating on the main mass of the chest shoulders and triceps.

t-ha

corkrob wrote:

Just because "top pros" use it doesnt mean its the best. often the top pros copy each others routines and are blessed with good genes which makes sub par training effective for them. I say effective, not optimal.

So are you advising someone who's looking to build up their chest to ditch pressing movements from their routine on the basis that it incorporates the triceps?

corkrob wrote:

I never said the bench press didnt provide p.o.s. work. It does but what about the integration of the triceps?

What about it?

corkrob wrote:

Thats why I stated that he should try a single joint exercise, which fullfills at least some of what is required for a normal strength curve.

Can I ask which exercise specifically you're suggesting. I'm also interested to know what your definition of a 'normal' strength curve is.

corkrob wrote:

Also depending on the cable machine (if the pulleys arent adjustable) it may not provide sufficient stimulus at the fully contracted position.

Would a trainee not know themselves if they were getting sufficient stimulus or not?

flywheel

Degsy wrote:

I've noticed my lower pectorals seem to be lagging behind lately,my standard chest excercise is ordinary bench press.Is the position of teh bar important or should i be using other excercises too?

the strength training anatomy book shows decline presses and parallel bar dips as exercises that can focus on the lower pectoral muscles

Ag marbh

Michael Cravez wrote:

My favourite chest exercise for building mass is chest flyes with dumbells on a bench, from personal experience. I usually change the bench to incline,decline and flat.I really do recommend chest flyes, and what would set me apart from the rest of my body is my chest. Weighted push-ups might be a good variant to try also? those should build your chest overall including lower, in fairness i find bench is good for building chest strength and somewhat mass but flyes are the way to go for me anyway.

Good Luck
Cravez

Can you explain what this is exactly?

Thanks,
Mark

corkrob

t-ha wrote:

So are you advising someone who's looking to build up their chest to ditch pressing movements from their routine on the basis that it incorporates the triceps?

What about it?

Can I ask which exercise specifically you're suggesting. I'm also interested to know what your definition of a 'normal' strength curve is.

Would a trainee not know themselves if they were getting sufficient stimulus or not?

Actually in some cases it may be necessary to ditch it! and I see no reason to explain muscular function to you. I'll leave you with a thought. why are muscles shaped as they are? Look a physiology in detail, simply having a load on the muscle isnt quite enough. ever hear of levers? torque? gravity?

What about it? see above ^^

Normal strength curve? How do muscles contract? the answers there. If you plot some isometric strength curves through a muscles range of motion you may actually see patterns occuring. I would consider "normal" to be within 'the mean' of the population. Again research yourself, am I giving free grinds here?

t-ha

corkrob wrote:

Actually in some cases it may be necessary to ditch it!

In the OP's case? That is the whole basis for this thread existing remember :rolleyes: . I'll bet your clients must be world class athletes by now - have I heard of any of them?

corkrob wrote:

and I see no reason to explain muscular function to you.

Why thank you! . I do know a fair bit about it - but it's still always nice to get the recognition!

corkrob wrote:

I'll leave you with a thought.

Don't strain yourself...

corkrob wrote:

why are muscles shaped as they are?

To attract hot chicks???

corkrob wrote:

Look a physiology in detail, simply having a load on the muscle isnt quite enough. ever hear of levers? torque? gravity?

LOL, I'm tempted to post up what it is I do for a living, suffice to say that "yes, I'm remotely familiar with those terms"! Incidentally, load is a generic term - I.e. you can have a stress load, a thermal load, a single point load, a field load... get where I'm going? If you're talking about stress field loads (we'll use Von Mises just to keep it simple for ya) then levers, torque and gravity are merely factors affecting the amplitude and distribution of the load so, in fact, load is absolutely enough.

Why don't I leave you with a thought? How about you step back from in-detail physiology and go lift something heavy

corkrob wrote:

What about it? see above ^^

Ah yes, the integration of the triceps... well, simply put "who cares?!?". Lets build our chests and our triceps at the same time! In fact let's throw in the deltoids and lats, and all those other fiddly little muscles that are all developed through compound exercises based around natural body movements. If you don't think the leverage/torque/gravity is enough to challenge you, here's a tip that's been developed through centuries of indepth field research, carefully examining each cell of skeletal muscle through it's entire range of motion... "use something heavier!"

corkrob wrote:

Normal strength curve? How do muscles contract? the answers there. If you plot some isometric strength curves through a muscles range of motion you may actually see patterns occuring. I would consider "normal" to be within 'the mean' of the population. Again research yourself,

I know what a strength curve is. I asked that question to try and see where you're coming from. I just wanted to make sure that you're not one of those idiots who thinks that free weights are bad because the load on individual muscles changes during the lift & isn't neccessarily maximal at peak contraction, and because the rates of contraction also increase and decrease at different points in the lift. You're not though right? 'Cos those guys have a habit of being small and weak and staying that way.

corkrob wrote:

am I giving free grinds here?

To be honest, I have absolutely no clue what you are doing here. It doesn't seem to be to get, or to give, any help anyway...

It's been great having this talk,

t-ha

P.S. Cork is not the real capital

corkrob

"argumentum ad hominem"

just keep thinking your right. and reduce arguments to typical personal attacks. You seem to be the type of person who cannot hold an intelligent argument, perhaps because of ego or otherwise. You then feel the need to attack anyone who might actually be correct. Whats wrong? The fact that your whole basis for training may be incorrect?
What any client I train(or have not trained) have to do with the discussion I dont know.
You wont even consider the question I asked why are muscles shaped as they are. You are wholly ignorant to anything outside of your own frame of reference, which is fine. As for Cork, who cares, I dont lose any sleep over where I come from- you seem very concerned.
When you do finally want to discuss something with proper reasoning and logical arguments(which is unlikely) , come back with something worthwhile, instead of your cheesy comments and egotistical repulsive personality.

Dragan

No offence Corkrob, but from having been unfortunate enough to see you post on other boards i can see a pretty clear pattern in your posting style.

You just come on, find a post, tell everyone they are wrong and then accuse everyone of calling you names, not accepting your reality or the fact that you know better than them, telling them to stay living in there narrow world and then thats it.

As already pointed out though, you don't actually do ANYTHING to help the "original poster" with their query.

Now i'm sure if you have a way the will completely revolutionise the way we all train, then surely you can just point us in the direction of the book you must have published and then we can all play catch up???

Until you can, to be honest, what you or your clients may have acheived is all that is important! The reason people listen to Jak, or humble mod here is because he is a beast, the reason people listen to Transform, or resident Trainer expert is because he walks the walk, it at a great level of fitness himself and can do the same for his clients and has shown ( me at least ) the proof of this.

As for "egotistical" i find it funny that the same man who stomps across any message board he can find in the manner you do calling someone else egotistical to be so funny that i may have just wet myself a tiny little bit upon reading that statement.

Let me just go check.

t-ha

corkrob wrote:

"argumentum ad hominem"

"Notus a Problemus"

corkrob wrote:

just keep thinking your right. and reduce arguments to typical personal attacks.

I'm right... and your father smells of alderberries.

corkrob wrote:

You seem to be the type of person who cannot hold an intelligent argument, perhaps because of ego or otherwise.

No you seem to be unable to hold an intelligent argument. So there.

corkrob wrote:

You then feel the need to attack anyone who might actually be correct. Whats wrong? The fact that your whole basis for training may be incorrect?

Bored now...

corkrob wrote:

What any client I train(or have not trained) have to do with the discussion I dont know.

If your methods are so superior and radically different then your clients abilities should reflect this no?

corkrob wrote:

You wont even consider the question I asked why are muscles shaped as they are.

Aw jeez come on!! You ask like a zillion questions in every post! I thought they were just rhetorical anyway?!

Ah rhetorical questions... where would we be without them?

corkrob wrote:

You are wholly ignorant to anything outside of your own frame of reference, which is fine.

You shouldn't judge people you don't know. That's what they do in Russia.

corkrob wrote:

As for Cork, who cares boy, I dont lose any sleep over where I come from boy- you seem very concerned boy.

Yes, you've got me. In fact it occupies my mind so much that I even included it in my online username, oh wait... no I didn't

corkrob wrote:

When you do finally want to discuss something with proper reasoning and logical arguments(which is unlikely) , come back with something worthwhile,

can't I just come back and tell you you're wrong and ask 6 or 7 rhetorical questions instead?

corkrob wrote:

instead of your cheesy comments and egotistical repulsive personality.

wait... y-y-your not upset with me are you? :rolleyes:

Ah seriously though corkrob, don't mind me - I'm just yankin' yo' chain! I figured out quite a while ago that intelligent debate wasn't going to be part of our future together

Jak

I think we've lost the chance of additional useful information for the OP so just restrict posts to the OP or stop posting on this thread - I don't think any of you will lose any sleep over the matter in any case and there will be endless future threads to discuss things on regardless guys.

To add to some of the tips posted though, this is not an uncommon problem, and for a while I felt this to be the case with my training also - though I always tend to have something at the top of my list to target.

Anyhow a few things to consider...

1. Many chest programs (mine included) put huge early focus on Olympic Flat bench - leaving you somewhat fatigued on other auxillary or alternate chest movements. Whilst I would keep OBP as the mainstay - occasionally put decline, widegrip in a slightly higher priority and incline in a lower priority.

2. Lack of a decline in many gyms leave people to focus on OBP and incline which can be an issue for lower pecs comparative development. I find that incline work should be offset with decline work with most focus on flat to be a balanced approach. Most benches will allow you to go to a slight decline and with dumbells you can then do decline bench and flyes as mentioned.

3. Try to search for some chest ex's and keep a few options in mind for chest sessions - I kind of split my chest into barbell benching for all the heavy lifts, then secondly auxillary movements like flyes, supinated dbell etc, and then bodyweight finishers dips and push ups.

Gluck

JAK

corkrob

dragon and T-ha

Havent you both just proved my point? I proposed some thoughts on the bench press and facts about muscle loading. If you look back I also posted an answer to the original post. which would be an isolation move to give adequate tension to the pectorals. To elaborate, Direct isolated resistance which is found only on a machine. dumbell flyes dont provide it, bench press doesnt provide it, cable flyes only moderately so depending on the angle of pull.
I've tested my pectoral fatigue with a force guage on a cable fly, bench press and dumbell fly. with a 10 degree machine flye(with force guage attachment) as the reference. The machine fly produced at a minimum 15% more fatigue relative to the others, worst was the dumbell fly on any incline. I had a 52 %reduction in force after the bench press, a 40 % after the cable fly, only 33 % after the dumbell fly, while the machine produced almost 70% reduction in force. This was tested at 6 points along the range of motion. All after a single set to failure. It is also of not that after benching for a number of weeks (purposely) i had a reduction in force at the fully contracted position probably due to fibre atrophy, lack of stimulus. Two sessions on the fly machine had this corrected. The reason being, as I have said over and over, it is (depending on manufacturer) the only way to fully work the pecs with a correct strength curve and proper load(yes load as in one of the principles of exercise science-LOAD). This being performed from point of stretch to full contraction. Is it achievable with various exercises/combinations? most definitely, but depending on exercise tolerance this may not be to an individuals benefit. likewise, thats why I stated it may be necessary to drop the bench and perhaps perform other exercises instead, at least for a while.
Consider another aspect, an individual with a weaker upper chest due to genetics. I've trained at least two individuals recently with this(these guys had nothing at all on upper chest due to their muscles shape and wont ever have). They may fatigue primarily on this area with any exercise regardless of angle. However the machine fly was the only area they could get a pump in the lower chest equally. And that should indicate its effectiveness in that area. The weakest link in the chain fatigues first, even on a fan shaped muscle such as the pecs. The innervation points are fixed, regardless of what force is present at any area.

I'm certainly not accusing anyone of picking on me, im stating facts. When people cant hold an argument they reduce it to ridicule, oldest trick in the book. I couldn't care less what you think. I'm not here to convince ye otherwise, I'm here(or at least was) to discuss some aspects of training. All you come back with is either 'look at you blah blah' , or 'lift heavy'. Real intelligent guys c'mon!

If you keep relying on image so much why not try the ronnie coleman juiced up sultana nuts workout? sure hes huge! he must be right lol

At no stage did I equate your clients, own circumstances etc with what you stated. I deal with facts, not hearsay or what some guy supposedly did with clients. But neither of ye want a proper discussion.

well done JAK on a good post. about time someone had something productive to say!

Oh and the reason im on any board is to pose questions which funnily enough your 'experts' cannot seem to answer. So are we all to shut up an listen to what t-ha and dragon have to say and not question anything?

Jak

I encourage everyone to discuss training and debate issues - as per the charter weight training and development is not an unquestionable science (though some things are less questionable than others in my view). Genetics, bodyshape, differences in gym equipment, training history, intensity, varied perception etc. etc. all lead to it being difficult to resolve an issue for an individual over a message board.

I can never give advice to someone or help them as easily as I can if I do a few sessions with them.

In any case I think there is some decent info here but I'll lock up the thread as a couple of 'tone' misunderstandings (perhaps) led this one astray. I'm sure you all can have some interesting debates if you step back and start over. Thanks all for posting and welcome to the board Corkrob.

JAK.