The Great "Inner" Chest Debate

[GreenWave1]

Whassup Ballys. Long time no see

[palumboism]

people mistake bankruptcy and ****ty credit for "not enough money"

some compulsively mistake analogies for logic.

[Orlando1234977]

some compulsively mistake analogies for logic.

Ahh, so bodybuilders don't follow 'logic' too, is that the route you're goin? This was a classic thread if people would actually read through it.

[I dont work at Ballys]

U will pay dearly for this outrage..





















Naw - Good to see your name again.

You too my friend! How goes it?

[Dr. Horse]

Oh dear.

[I dont work at Ballys]

Oh dear.

good times.

[ThickAsABrick]

ah, the good old days.

[Tyciol]

The fact that you are saying this means you likely disagree with what you were taught wherever you learned your philosophy. I can assure you you were likely taught "contiguous innervation" in humans. Which is why I post GENERALLY about compartmentalization-it GOES AGAINST what is commonly taught. At least the last time I checked, and from the crap people say, it seems to still be spat out. FYI, "contiguous innervation" would say that the Lats are ONE MUSCLE FUNCTIONALLY. Do you actually believe that? It has basically been disproven.

So, in order to even CONSIDER what I am describing, one has to at LEAST believe in compartmentalization. Whether you know it or not, compartmentalization is a "radical" concept. And "upper/lower" chest is NOT compartmentalization. That is actually part of "contiguous innervation". But the catch is...so is "upper/lower abs"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No one except the most lab isolated monkey believes that one cannot emphasize parts of the abs.

Pec/Lat/Delt "sections"..
http://www.worldscinet.com/131/08/08...704001211.html

task dependency with lats:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Citation

The thing about lats is we could divide the innervation based on the spread out points of origin it has along the back. But unlike abs, it lacks tendinous intersections and separate innervations for proximal/distal portions as far as I'm aware.

Do you have evidence that you can work the part of the lat which is closer to its insertion on the arm? Why would this happen? That would be the equivalent to being able to work outer chest (the part of the pec that is closer to the humerus).

That different origin sites of the lats could be emphasized is irrelevant compared to the concept that you could emphasize the proximal portions of the fibers that connect the lats' origins on the back in favour of neglecting the parts closer to the arm.

Seriously, does ANYONE that has ever done a crunch thinks it works your lower rectus? Please.

This might depend on which kind of crunch. I believe doing it where the lower back is unsupported (like an inverted crunch) would, or when people do a double-crunch (posteriorly tilting the pelvis in addition to anteriorly tilting the rib cage) would.

The lower rectus should be hit, but again it may be isometrically because we may pre-shorten it while we pre-stretch the upper segment.

The rectus abdominis has MULTIPLE INNERVATIONS, MULTIPLE INSERTION POINTS, AND MULTIPLE ORIGIN POINTS. Using the rectus to illustrate your position is idiotic.

The problem here Defiant is that the multiple origin/insertion points of the abs are spread out horizantally. That relates to claims that you can emphasize medial or lateral abs (closer to the belly button vs closer to the obliques). That's because it's a vertical-running muscle.

Claims about upper/lower abs are claims that you can emphasize the superior (closer to head) vs. inferior (closer to pelvis) portions of the muscle. That has zip all to do with where the origins and insertions are.

As for the innervations, I think you have a point there. But I question: if the lower ab contracts to pull the pelvis, for the pelvis to be mobile the superior tendon of the lower ab must be stabilized.

How is it stabilized without requiring that upper ab to be contracting to resist lengthening? But I guess the upper abs could be contracting isometrically versus the lower abs contracting dynamically, and maybe that could be the difference in innervation's affect on hypertrophy?

But I stand by: that really has nothing to do with origin/insertion points. That'd be more about emphasizing the left side versus the right or whatever.

[ThickAsABrick]

The thing about lats is we could divide the innervation based on the spread out points of origin it has along the back. But unlike abs, it lacks tendinous intersections and separate innervations for proximal/distal portions as far as I'm aware.

Do you have evidence that you can work the part of the lat which is closer to its insertion on the arm? Why would this happen? That would be the equivalent to being able to work outer chest (the part of the pec that is closer to the humerus).

That different origin sites of the lats could be emphasized is irrelevant compared to the concept that you could emphasize the proximal portions of the fibers that connect the lats' origins on the back in favour of neglecting the parts closer to the arm.

This might depend on which kind of crunch. I believe doing it where the lower back is unsupported (like an inverted crunch) would, or when people do a double-crunch (posteriorly tilting the pelvis in addition to anteriorly tilting the rib cage) would.

The lower rectus should be hit, but again it may be isometrically because we may pre-shorten it while we pre-stretch the upper segment.

The problem here Defiant is that the multiple origin/insertion points of the abs are spread out horizantally. That relates to claims that you can emphasize medial or lateral abs (closer to the belly button vs closer to the obliques). That's because it's a vertical-running muscle.

Claims about upper/lower abs are claims that you can emphasize the superior (closer to head) vs. inferior (closer to pelvis) portions of the muscle. That has zip all to do with where the origins and insertions are.

As for the innervations, I think you have a point there. But I question: if the lower ab contracts to pull the pelvis, for the pelvis to be mobile the superior tendon of the lower ab must be stabilized.

How is it stabilized without requiring that upper ab to be contracting to resist lengthening? But I guess the upper abs could be contracting isometrically versus the lower abs contracting dynamically, and maybe that could be the difference in innervation's affect on hypertrophy?

But I stand by: that really has nothing to do with origin/insertion points. That'd be more about emphasizing the left side versus the right or whatever.

stop bumping the thread, you ridiculous asshat

[Tyciol]

This thread seems cooler than the new inner chest thread though.

[Tyrbolift]

This thread seems cooler than the new inner chest thread though.

Except Defiant is unlikely to re-engage in this discussion.

[XADO]

This thread seems cooler than the new inner chest thread though.

Why is that? :P

[redclayz]

This may be late but I'm new and just read this Debate,
What I'm about to tell you, you guys might not believe and probably think I'm a troll, but to support the fact that we can focus more on certain part of a muscle, I can actually flex my outer chest ONLY, without the inner chest flexing at all. Please don't just go on and saying "It's a troll"
Maybe you can try it out, try concentrating on the outer chest only, and slowly flex it really soft, you can actually see the outer chest flex only

-edit below-
I can actually move my outer chest, without the inner chest moving at all. I associate moving the muscle with flexing, not sure if it is or not, so decided to edit it.
By being able to only move/pop/dance my outer chest, it also means that I should be able to focus on the outer/inner part of my chest.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm still quite new to bodybuilding.

[I dont work at Ballys]

This may be late but I'm new and just read this Debate,
What I'm about to tell you, you guys might not believe and probably think I'm a troll, but to support the fact that we can focus more on certain part of a muscle, I can actually flex my outer chest ONLY, without the inner chest flexing at all. Please don't just go on and saying "It's a troll"
Maybe you can try it out, try concentrating on the outer chest only, and slowly flex it really soft, you can actually see the outer chest flex only

-edit below-
I can actually move my outer chest, without the inner chest moving at all. I associate moving the muscle with flexing, not sure if it is or not, so decided to edit it.
By being able to only move/pop/dance my outer chest, it also means that I should be able to focus on the outer/inner part of my chest.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm still quite new to bodybuilding.

Best first post ever.

[starinthesky]

What is the latest thinking on this?

Have there been more studies to confirm a position or is it just as polarised?