Need help with bench press

On Jul 23, 8:12 am, "Pete" <phouts....TakeThisOut@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>
> Because i like the idea that everything revolves around me. Oh, and i am a
> control freak, in case you havent noticed...

Eh, I thought that was jmw/bob schuh/bully brink...?

> And there is only rotation, no pulling action.

That's precisely why it works so well -- there is no *conventional*
pulling action with the arms, but insofar as the weight is forced
(pulled) up by the rotating cam actuated by a "push" down with one's
lats, as focused through the elbows, those lats are much better
isolated than with conventional lat exercises like chin-ups and pull-
downs.

> And if you perform narrow
> grip pulldowns, the lat insertion is moved further away from its origin due
> to shoulder girdle elevation, followed by shoulder girdle depression.

What "grip"?? Are you still talking about the Nautilus Super Pullover
here? 'Cause it has no grips as such; only a handlebar to rest one's
hands and assist with sticking points (the foot pedal does as much,
too)....

> You see, despite the fact that the lats originate at the lumbar region, and
> is inserted at the humerus, doesnt mean that the lats do not contract harder
> when the girdle is elevated. For pecs this phenomenon doesnt matter much,
> but they do for the lats.

"Harder" relative to what, the arms, the biceps?

I don't know that a harder contraction equals more work -- I can
contract my toes all I want, I suppose, but it won't help me none on
most exercise I can think of! Somewhat similarly, the biceps do most
of the work on lat exercises, regardless of which muscle contracts
harder (and how would you measure that, anyway: electric signal
strength? Speed of contraction? Do you account for length of muscle,
and type of muscle [like how deltoids have pennate and whachamacallit
heads]?)....

> Yes, pullover machines hit the lats. But they build nowhere near as much
> mass as wide grip pulldowns ans row. Most muscles can be targeted quite
> succesfully by isolating them. The lats are an exception.

Huh, how's it an exception to the rule??

> Dont twist my words. please...

What, how am I twisting your words? I'm just mentioning another myth
of bodybuilding, since we're on the subject of grips, and that's that
wide grips do not build width.

> Of course, wide grip for width is BS... In fact, NG pulldowns are better for
> that, since the lats are highly involved, a bit more so then in wide grips,
> where the upper back becomes dominant.

What's "NG"?

> I am extremely talented and very well practiced.

Well, okay, then. That's some mind-muscle link you have...maybe you
should emigrate and consider public office, too....

> About training? Thats not very likely.
> And yes, most people can learn within a few months how to put emphasis on
> certain muscles.

Seriously doubt it. But it's possible that I am the exception, then.
For example, last week I really felt my rear delts and was working it
really happily. The next time I did delts, I couldn't feel them at
all. Both times I was psyched up and energetic, but for some reason
that one time I really felt the action of my rear delts and I haven't
since then. It happens every now and then with many different
muscles, where it's almost like they suddenly pop up on my radar and
then disappear again.

> It all begins with angle of pull.

That's interesting. How would angle of pull help cultivate the mind-
muscle link?

> Between the ribcage and pelvis lies the abdominals.

Yes, but the abs pull on the hips which are in turn pulling on the
legs. The ribcage and pelvis contract and causes your torso to bend
along with the abdominals, but the hips and legs, given the way are,
inevitably tug, too, as they are being tugged. It's that tension
which provides the stability.

> Yerah, like in curls you cheat on the last reps, bring the traps and lower
> back into play, and Voila, its all of a sudden not a bicep exercise anymore.

Well, again, I wouldn't say that it isn't suddenly a whole other
exercise...but one debate at a time, please! First come first
served....

> Curls for lower back/traps...right.

?

Well, since you bring it up: curls do not work biceps as much as they
do the forearms! Specifically, the brachialis and/or brachialdorialis
(sp?) -- though I'm not so sure about the latter.

And yes, hammer curls really target the brachialis, but even regular
curls will have them doing most of the work most of the way! The
biceps come into play quite close to the end of the movement....

> Than you must limit the ROM.

That's one solution, I agree, for this exercise. Unfortunately, that
raises its own problems, which is that you never work the whole length
of the muscle....

> See?

I've seen hybrid sit-up/crunches before.

Question: which came first, the crunch or the sit-up?? =)

> I know.

There you go.

> Okay. Which are "machine sit-ups", right?

No, they're definitely ab crunches. A lot of them have you start out
in an upright seated position already!

> Ahhhh...

Shhhh -- lest they stone us.

> Talented and practiced.

Okay. It's possible.

> Talented and practiced. Because i am not mistaken. See how this works?

That's the charm of Aristotelian Logic.

> Yes.
>
> And there are ways to correct it.

There's nothing to correct. It's inevitable that the arms dominate.

His only hope for feeling the burn and pump in the pecs is to -- I
almost guarantee this -- do high reps with fairly low-weight. Then
he'll get the kind of burn and pump that accompanies most caridio or
cardio-like (endurance) activities.

> Yes.

If you agree, then repent your error and sin no more!

> What facts? So far, i havent seen any aurguments from you.

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean I haven't
answered you.

> All you do is saying "benches work the triceps" without saying how and why.

I've said how and why a million times over now. Let's not play that
tired old MFW/usenet game, please...you have bullybrink and company
for that.

> Okay.

Just the facts.

> Yes.

Where's your "argument"?

> --
> Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Jul 23, 7:27 am, "Pete" <phouts....RemoveThis@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>
> If you repeat that long enough you start to believe it...

Just the facts. I think you're likely using very light weights. And
with such light weights, your body doesn't need to utilize the arms as
much, and thus you can actually feel your lats, and feeling your lats,
you think they do most of the work.

> --
> Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

Pete wrote:
> Prisoner at War schreef:

-=snip the bench press debate=-

May I suggest a time-out?

Kinesisieieisiseology aside (ah, YOU spell it), perhaps this is simply
a misunderstanding of

a) semantics
b) longer arms vs. shorter arms
c) deeper chest vs. wider chest
d) other

Regardless, as *not much* progress is being made maybe it would be
wiser to identify the clown and then start with the kill filing!

Why are you both looking at me?

Bastards.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> Yes, and when doing rows, the barbell goes up and down. With most
>> exercises,
>> if not all, the bar or the weight goes up and down, not side to side.

> And guess what's making the weight go up and down? The arms!
> Primarily the arms.

If you repeat that long enough you start to believe it...

--
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:06 am, "Pete" <phouts....TakeThisOut@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>> "spodosaurus" <spodosaurus.TakeThisOut@_yahoo_.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>> He should just take a quick look into what direction the fibers of the
>> pectoralis major travel, and then take a close look at wich direction the
>> upper arms travel during a wide grip bench press. Its really not that hard
>> to figure out.
>
> Um...the pecs go lateral, the arms go vertical...guess what, the
> barbell's going up and down -- vertical....
>

You're a moron with no concept of biomechanics.

>> The action at the hip is completey ignored during crunches, so that doesnt
>> even make any sense.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "completely ignored," but the fact
> remains that hips and legs get a big ol' workout from most any ab
> exercise you can think of.

You're a moron with no concept of biomechanics.

Regards,

Ari


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Curt wrote:

> Pete wrote:
>
>> Prisoner at War schreef:
>
> -=snip the bench press debate=-
>
> May I suggest a time-out?
>
> Kinesisieieisiseology aside (ah, YOU spell it), perhaps this is simply
> a misunderstanding of
>
> a) semantics
> b) longer arms vs. shorter arms
> c) deeper chest vs. wider chest
> d) other

e) trolling
f) RIOD RAGE!!!

tom

--
The exact mechanics are unknown, but a recent sound file revealed the
process to go something like this: WONKA WONKA WONKA WONKA DEOO DEOO
DEOO DEOO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW WONKA WONKA WONKA...
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Jul 23, 9:40 am, Curt <curtja....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> May I suggest a time-out?

Only if there are young nubile dancing cheerleaders in mini-skirts and
thongs.

> Kinesisieieisiseology aside (ah, YOU spell it), perhaps this is simply
> a misunderstanding of
>
> a) semantics

Actually, most all semanticists would say that all disagreements are
actually only over semantics.

> b) longer arms vs. shorter arms

I've heard of that theory in passing, but haven't thought about it
much. Don't see how it applies here, at first glance.

> c) deeper chest vs. wider chest

???

> d) other

Explain: _________________________________________.

> Regardless, as *not much* progress is being made maybe it would be
> wiser to identify the clown and then start with the kill filing!

That's like steroids...simpler to go natural: ignore.

> Why are you both looking at me?

It's your big red nose.

> Bastards.

Nah, just MFW regulars.

> --
> Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Jul 23, 10:11 am, Tom Anderson <t... DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Curt wrote:
> > Pete wrote:
>
> >> Prisoner at War schreef:
>
> > -=snip the bench press debate=-
>
> > May I suggest a time-out?
>
> > Kinesisieieisiseology aside (ah, YOU spell it), perhaps this is simply
> > a misunderstanding of
>
> > a) semantics
> > b) longer arms vs. shorter arms
> > c) deeper chest vs. wider chest
> > d) other
>
> e) trolling
> f) RIOD RAGE!!!

Actually, I used to think I didn't need no testosterone...now, at 35,
I'm wondering if something like Gaspari Nutrition's Novedex can help
some at all???

I think I know that there's no evidence any testosterone boosters out
there actually boost testosterone much, and for long, much less that
heightened levels automatically translate into muscle gain, etc. --
but, heck, since I'm doing research, might as well not leave any stone
unturned.

MFW is full of iron vets...so has anything boosted testosterone and
muscle growth better than young nubile cheerleaders in miniskirts and
thongs??

> tom
>
> --
> The exact mechanics are unknown, but a recent sound file revealed the
> process to go something like this: WONKA WONKA WONKA WONKA DEOO DEOO
> DEOO DEOO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW WONKA WONKA WONKA...
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

Prisoner at War wrote:
[...]

> Well, to accuse someone of doing something wrong naturally raises the
> possibility that the accuser is the one who's in error....

See that right there? That's an ice cream headache without the ice
cream.

Ow.

--
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war RemoveThis @yahoo.com> schreef:

> Eh, I thought that was jmw/bob schuh/bully brink...?

I am sneaky. I pretend to be a nice, and before you know it, i contol your
thoughts.

>> And there is only rotation, no pulling action.

> That's precisely why it works so well -- there is no *conventional*
> pulling action with the arms, but insofar as the weight is forced
> (pulled) up by the rotating cam actuated by a "push" down with one's
> lats, as focused through the elbows, those lats are much better
> isolated than with conventional lat exercises like chin-ups and pull-
> downs.

I allready said that the lats were better isolated, so thats not the point.
The point is, that you cannnot "mimic" the elevation of the shoulder girdle,
followed by depression, and a lot of back muscles contract very hard to do
that.

Same as the depression/retraction (adduction) of the scapulae in wide grip
chins or the retraction in rows. Pullovers are fine, but because of the fact
that the arms travel backwards overhead, the pecs come into play, at least
the first 1/3 of the movement, and the serratus. Fine exercise, but not a
good back builder. Sometimes i do them as an add-on.

I would never advice them if someone wants to build mass in the back area..

But you seem to a different point of view, i guess...

>> And if you perform narrow
>> grip pulldowns, the lat insertion is moved further away from its origin
>> due
>> to shoulder girdle elevation, followed by shoulder girdle depression.

> What "grip"??

Narrow grip.

> Are you still talking about the Nautilus Super Pullover
> here? 'Cause it has no grips as such; only a handlebar to rest one's
> hands and assist with sticking points (the foot pedal does as much,
> too)....

I was reffering to narrow grip pull-downs. I consider them the best exercise
to hit the lats. Not the best for overall back mass, but specificcilly for
the lattissimi. Sure, the bis are involved, but there ways to take some
stess of the biceps and transfer more to the lats.

I allready have written this several times in the past. Try to figure it out
yourself.

>> You see, despite the fact that the lats originate at the lumbar region,
>> and
>> is inserted at the humerus, doesnt mean that the lats do not contract
>> harder
>> when the girdle is elevated. For pecs this phenomenon doesnt matter much,
>> but they do for the lats.

> "Harder" relative to what, the arms, the biceps?

Harder relative to pullovers. The elevation followed by depression. The
girdle doesnt depress all it by itself.

> I don't know that a harder contraction equals more work --

More or less work is not relevant. Pullovers require hard work, but not so
much from the back.
Pulldowns and rows are perhaps just as hard as pullovers. Or not. Or more.
But they stimilate the back better, and i allready explained several times
why.

With DB flyes, the action of the humerus is mimiced pretty good wrt bench
presses. Because therer isnt that much action at the girdle. Laterals hit
the delts pretty damn good. I tried to explain to you why its so difficult
to reach the back with isolation exercises.

One last example;

DB rows.

There is elbow joint flexion, caused by the biceps. But because the biceps
do that, the DB travels in a certain line, and that line causes a massive
contraction by the back muscles.

Repeat it, but than with a straight arm. Yes, the bicep is taken out of the
equation, but the vector is also quite different. You no longer pull the
weight up, it is swinged backwards. The girdle is depressed (forward) and it
more or less stays that way. It doesnt come up the same way as in rows. Not
only the muscles that move the scapulae work less, but also the lats, since
the joint is not pulled into the direction of its origin.

Either you understood what i wrote, or you dont. Simple as that.

> I can contract my toes all I want, I suppose, but it won't help me none on
> most exercise I can think of! Somewhat similarly, the biceps do most
> of the work on lat exercises...

And for the last time, you do them wrong, and need to make adjustments. You
really should focus on rows and wide grip pull-downs for a while. Narrow
grips are a bit harder. To take away some stress from the biceps, that is.

Its all about grip and position of the torso wrt the humerus and weight. Try
to figure it out.

> regardless of which muscle contracts
> harder (and how would you measure that, anyway: electric signal
> strength?

That will work fine.

>> Yes, pullover machines hit the lats. But they build nowhere near as much
>> mass as wide grip pulldowns ans row. Most muscles can be targeted quite
>> succesfully by isolating them. The lats are an exception.

> Huh, how's it an exception to the rule??

Allready explained several times.

>> Dont twist my words. please...

> What, how am I twisting your words? I'm just mentioning another myth
> of bodybuilding, since we're on the subject of grips, and that's that
> wide grips do not build width.

In fact, narrow grip pulldowns build more "width" (relative to WIDE GRIP
that is!) and i tied to explain that to you.

>> Of course, wide grip for width is BS... In fact, NG pulldowns are better
>> for
>> that, since the lats are highly involved, a bit more so then in wide
>> grips,
>> where the upper back becomes dominant.

> What's "NG"?

NewsGroup.

>> About training? Thats not very likely.
>> And yes, most people can learn within a few months how to put emphasis on
>> certain muscles.

>> It all begins with angle of pull.

> That's interesting. How would angle of pull help cultivate the mind-
> muscle link?

Explained several times.

>> Between the ribcage and pelvis lies the abdominals.

> Yes, but the abs pull on the hips which are in turn pulling on the
> legs.

The hips dont pull anything, its just a bone.

> The ribcage and pelvis contract and causes your torso to bend
> along with the abdominals, but the hips and legs, given the way are,
> inevitably tug, too, as they are being tugged. It's that tension
> which provides the stability.

I never said therte wasnt some static contraction in the hip flexors while
you curls.

You stated that the flexors and quads get the most out of crunches, and that
is just wrong.

>> Yerah, like in curls you cheat on the last reps, bring the traps and
>> lower
>> back into play, and Voila, its all of a sudden not a bicep exercise
>> anymore.

> Well, again, I wouldn't say that it isn't suddenly a whole other
> exercise...but one debate at a time, please! First come first
> served....

I used it as an analogy to YOUR logic, or way of thinking, but you didnt get
it.

>> Curls for lower back/traps...right.

> ?

You know, crunches for quads/hip flexors. You dont get it, do you?

> Well, since you bring it up: curls do not work biceps as much as they
> do the forearms! Specifically, the brachialis and/or brachialdorialis
> (sp?) -- though I'm not so sure about the latter.

You are clueless. Yes, the forearms contract VERY hard during curls, but for
reasons i suspect you dont understand. Lets make it clear that the biceps
are the dominant muscle that cross the elbow joint, and thay are responsible
for flexing it. Some lower arm muscles cross too, and they assist.

But you have any idea why the forearm flexors contract so damn hard during
heavy curls. Do you have ANY idea what would happen to your wrists if they
didnt ?!?!?!

You figure it out.

> And yes, hammer curls really target the brachialis, but even regular
> curls will have them doing most of the work most of the way! The
> biceps come into play quite close to the end of the movement....

Really?

The bis dont contract hard the first portion of the movement?

>> Than you must limit the ROM.

> That's one solution, I agree, for this exercise. Unfortunately, that
> raises its own problems, which is that you never work the whole length
> of the muscle....

Sorry man, but you really ARE clueless. Even static contractions work the
entire "lenght" of a muscle.

Do you really believe just because you select a certain ROM, that the
begging, or end, of a muscle contract harder than the rest?

>> Okay. Which are "machine sit-ups", right?
>
> No, they're definitely ab crunches. A lot of them have you start out
> in an upright seated position already!

Okay. Crunches with hip joint flexion. A new exercise...

>> And there are ways to correct it.

> There's nothing to correct. It's inevitable that the arms dominate.

I start to wonder who has put that idea intoyour head.

I guess we are not on the same page, wavelength if you wish, concerning the
use of logic and how how that logic can be applied to training.

> His only hope for feeling the burn and pump in the pecs is to -- I
> almost guarantee this -- do high reps with fairly low-weight. Then
> he'll get the kind of burn and pump that accompanies most caridio or
> cardio-like (endurance) activities.

>> What facts? So far, i havent seen any aurguments from you.

> Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean I haven't
> answered you.

You keep saying that arms are dominant over torso muscles, but without
explaing why.

>> All you do is saying "benches work the triceps" without saying how and
>> why.

> I've said how and why a million times over now.

Ehhh... no. Youi just keep saying "arms are dominant, no matter what."

You still didnt came up with any logical explanation. I didnt ask for ant
cites, just ab logical explanation.

> Let's not play that
> tired old MFW/usenet game, please...

I am not playng games, i am discussing training

>you have bullybrink and company for that.

Who are probably lauging very hard right now...

>> Okay.

> Just the facts.

>> Yes.

> Where's your "argument"?

I allready gave enough examples, and i am waithing for yours.

--
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war DeleteThis @yahoo.com> schreef:

> MFW is full of iron vets...so has anything boosted testosterone and
> muscle growth better than young nubile cheerleaders in miniskirts and
> thongs??

Profasi is an *excellent* testosterone booster. Second to none.

--
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>>> I was reffering to narrow grip pull-downs. I consider them the best
>>> exercise to hit the lats. Not the best for overall back mass, but
>>> specificcilly for the lattissimi. Sure, the bis are involved, but
>>> there ways to take some stess of the biceps and transfer more to the
>>> lats.
>>
>> I remember we discussed this in the past, but i'm not sure you're right.
>> There was a little study:
>
> I think that both wide grip and narrow grip pulldown were performed with
> an upright torso. For the wide grip it doesnt matter much, but it does
> for ther narrow grip.
>
> If you start with a 15 degree declination, and pull the handle under
> control, and simultanuously decline the torso another 30-45 degrees, as
> in a row, the stress of the biceps is somewhat trandferred to the lats.

Ah, but then we're not talking close-grip pulldowns, we're talking
Houtstra pulldowns! They didn't study those!

Funnily enough, i do something a bit like this. I start vertical, but lean
backwards during the lift. But then i straighten up again at the end, once
the handle is past roughly eye level (i pull it all the way down to the
top of my sternum). I try to avoid doing it, since i have no idea what
it's doing to the effectiveness of the lift, but it does often creep in at
the end of the set.

tom

--
Few technologies will ever stand up to the will of adolescents trying
to do things they're told they're not allowed to do. -- Scott Berkun
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press 

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war RemoveThis @yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> And if you perform narrow grip pulldowns, the lat insertion is moved
>>> further away from its origin due to shoulder girdle elevation,
>>> followed by shoulder girdle depression.
>>
>> Are you still talking
>
> I was reffering to narrow grip pull-downs. I consider them the best exercise
> to hit the lats. Not the best for overall back mass, but specificcilly for
> the lattissimi. Sure, the bis are involved, but there ways to take some
> stess of the biceps and transfer more to the lats.

I remember we discussed this in the past, but i'm not sure you're right.
There was a little study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&...mToSear

I don't have the PDF to hand, but the abstract says that a wide grip gives
strongest activation of the lats. This paper, which is online:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&...mToSear

Says the same.

Neither has good data on how they affect the other muscles of the upper
back, though.

tom

--
Gin for the mind, kebabs for the body, sushi for the soul
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with bench press