Good inner-chest Excerises?

[Limp Wristed]

problem with wide grip bp with elbows flared is that its bad for your shoulders


well i shouldnt say "bad" per se but it does put more stress on your shoulder joints which can possibly lead to shoulder problems

[aliquis]

"A group of Australian scientists examined the effects of different bench angles and grip widths on muscle activity around the shoulder. For example, in comparing two functionally distinct regions of the pectoralis major muscle (i.e., clavicular head and sternocostal head), they found that the clavicular head of the

...

The above results may not be the same for all people, but it shows that diff. angles DO have an effect on some people.

If your IQ was anywhere close to your bench you would see the difference in targeting DIFFERENT HEADS vs different areas of the same head / inner chest.

Upper and lower pec = different heads.
Inner and outer pec = same heads.

You people still fail because you don't understand what you read or hear.


Edit: Btw, yet another "Idiots in the thread." Funny how less intelligent people can only resort to name calling vs actually reasoning.

[TheBroBrah]

If your IQ was anywhere close to your bench you would see the difference in targeting DIFFERENT HEADS vs different areas of the same head / inner chest.

Upper and lower pec = different heads.
Inner and outer pec = same heads.

You people still fail because you don't understand what you read or hear.

This man is smart.

[Ironlife]

If your IQ was anywhere close to your bench you would see the difference in targeting DIFFERENT HEADS vs different areas of the same head / inner chest.

Upper and lower pec = different heads.
Inner and outer pec = same heads.

You people still fail because you don't understand what you read or hear.

[TheBroBrah]

lol'd

[SquatTilYouDrop]

I have nothing against you. But can you please prove to me how it is even anatomically possible to emphasize the "inner pecs"

Through both personal and majority experience, something you don't have.

And there is also evidence to support distal and proximal emphasis. Read the literature that Defiant1 was so good to supply. The evidence supports what Body builders have known for decades.

[ThickAsABrick]

simpler explanation for the dummies (the actual article has the pictures so click on it):

"Level 3: Neuromuscular compartment — This might be the most complex level of the subdivisions, but a lot of research backs it up. Neuromuscular compartmentalization refers to the division of the muscle fibers within a muscle group and their grouping in said muscle. Basically, muscle fibers are "bundled up" regionally into functional sub-units.

I'll get to the more complex scientific stuff later on, but let's start with an analogy which explains this theory. Imagine that one of your muscles (or one head of the muscle) is a city and that the highway leading to that city is the motor nerve (the motor nerve is what sends the motor command from the CNS to the muscle).

Now according to the "old" muscle recruitment theory, the command sent by the motor nerve would activate all portions of the muscle equally. In other words, it would be like the highway only having one exit toward the city. This theory has been proven to be erroneous. It was first postulated because "most studies of human muscle have not taken into account the possibility of partitioning beyond the grossly visible anatomical divisions." (English et al. 1993)

In real life, it's been shown that the motor nerve (highway) branches out into many smaller nerves which actually innervate different "sectors" of a muscle. See the picture below.

As you can see, the city (muscle) is divided into three separate portions. (These aren't "muscle heads." The city should actually be seen as a muscle without separate heads or a specific head. Partitioning means that there's a level of subdivision even beyond heads.) There's one big highway (motor nerve) leading to the city and this highway branches out into three separate exits (secondary motor nerves) each leading to one neighborhood of the city.

So as you can see, it's possible to send more traffic to one part of the city, just like the CNS can send a stronger activation signal to certain regions of a muscle.

Now, we can mix the first level of division (heads) and the third level (neuromuscular compartments) to further illustrate the point. We'll once again use our city as an example.

This map shows a region which has four towns, all in close proximity to each other. As you can see, the highway leads to each of these towns and some of them actually have more than one exit leading to it (not representative of the actual number of neuromuscular compartment of the muscles).

So, more traffic can go to one city or another. Within each city more traffic can also be sent to different neighborhoods, just like when you're performing an exercise for the quads, more stress can be placed on one of the four portions of the muscle as well as on individual sections of each portion of the muscle group.

Another way of explaining this level of division is the electrical current within a house: it all comes from the same source, but once it enters the house it's divided into several directions going to all the rooms. We can thus light up one room without having to light up the whole house. It's also possible to turn on only one electric apparatus in a single room. Same thing holds true with our muscles.

Okay, back to our scientific chit-chat! The analogies above give us an overview of the neuromuscular compartmentalization theory of muscle architecture.

So to recap, each muscle is innervated by a single motor nerve. As this nerve enters into the muscle, it branches out (divides itself) and goes to different regions of the muscle. (English et al. 1993) Therefore each of these regions, while synergistic (in most cases), are actually independent of each other. Why is that? Because of the function of the muscle as well as its fiber type distribution.

If you look at the anatomy of a muscle you'll notice that not all fibers are running in the exact same direction. Take the pectoralis major, for example. We can see several different lines of force gradually going from inward and up to inward and down.

This is a good indication that the muscle is divided into different compartments. The muscle is built this way to allow for a better control of movement: "Differential activation of motor units in different compartments may be a means of regulating the direction of the overall force application." (Bonasera et al. 1992)

Our pectoralis major plays an important role in bringing the arm toward the midline of the body. If we're trying to bring our upper arm from a "high and lateral" position (beginning of a crossover exercise for example) to a "low and medial" position (end of a crossover exercise), doesn't it stand to reason that the fibers which are actually oriented in that particular direction will play a larger role in the movement than the fibers going inward but up? I'm not saying that only the lower portion of the pectoralis will contract, but it will play a bigger role in the movement.

If we were to perform an exercise where the "height" of the arm doesn't change but where you're bringing it toward the midline of the body, the line of force will be parallel to the floor. So doesn't it also stand to reason that the fibers oriented along that line will perform more of the work?

Finally, if you were to perform a crossover from the low pulley, starting with the arms "low and lateral" and lifting them "high and medial," the line of force would be angled upwards and inwards. So for one last time, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the fibers oriented along the line of force would be more mechanically advantaged to perform the work and thus would receive more stimulation?

Fiber type is also important in neuromuscular compartmentalization. Understand one important physiological fact: an alpha motoneuron (the secondary motor nerve that's branched out from the main motor nerve) innervates muscle fibers of only one type. (Burke et al. 1973)

In other words, a secondary motor nerve (the exit from our map or the electrical wiring going to one room) will be linked to only one type of muscle fiber (Type I, Type IIa, or Type IIb). This kind of distribution allows the body to better modulate the amount of force to produce. Since we've already seen that the superficial portion of a muscle is predominantly fast twitch dominant and that the deeper portions are the opposite, this once again shows us that each muscle is actually divided into more independent compartments.

In truth, if you forget about the old-time dogma of muscle structure and look at it from a logical standpoint, you'll see that muscle subdivision is not only possible, it's a fact and it's necessary for proper mechanical functioning. However, I know that a lot of guys live to make fun of us writers and are quick to point out the flaws in our articles, so here are some tidbits from the literature on the subject:

1) "Variability in force direction within one and the same muscle has been suggested to be an important function of muscular compartmentalization." (Herring et al. 1979)

"Motor units in complex muscles have different lines of action and may have different functions." (Turkawski et al. 1998)

This means that the subdivision of each muscle into different subunits with varying lines of force allows the muscle the capacity to produce force in more directions.

2) "On the basis of muscle architecture, three regions were identified within the semimembranosus. Semitendinosus comprised two distinct partitions arranged in series. In the biceps femoris long head, two regions were supplied via a primary nerve branch divided into two primary branches. Biceps femoris short head consisted of two distinct regions demarcated by fiber direction with each innervated by a separate muscle nerve." (Woodley and Mercer 2005)

This means that the hamstring muscle group can actually be divided into nine different regions instead of the four originally thought. This is a prime example of subdivision within a certain muscle group.

3) "Electromyographic data indicates that there is a selective recruitment of different regions of a muscle that can be altered, depending on the type of exercise performed. ... muscles adapt in a regional-specific manner." (Antonio 2000)

This explains that not only are the muscles divided into specific regions, but that one can put more growth stimulus on one particular region via a change in exercise selection.

4) "Motor units may not be randomly distributed throughout the muscle but confined to localized sub-volumes." (Hammond et al. 1989)

5) "Just because something goes against what you personally believe doesn't mean that it's not true." (Christian Thibaudeau, 2006)"
http://www.tmuscle.com/readArticle.do?id=1327855

[aliquis]

Nice post thicky. I was looking for something similar.

Except it doesn't mean **** when it comes to "inner chest."

This has nothing to do with "inner pecs". Everyone already knows you can hit the upper or lower chest.

+1

Question one: "Are you a mouse?"

Question two: "Are you saying maybe that only DB bench presses in equal volume to a range of exersizes using different angles to "target" certain area's, give the same result?"

Do you have a reason to believe that muscle within various mammals would work different in this regard?

No, no-one is. Personally I would believe spending the volume on an exercise which requires the most activity from the muscle (head?) in question would give the best results. You are free to do or believe different. Is that exercise flat bench press? DB presses? Pec-dec? Cable cross? I don't know, I don't care, it doesn't matter. The exercise which requires the most effort from the pecs (say lower head) will most likely give the best growth stimuli in it. Not that weird ..

Plus as I've already said I don't think it's wrong in doing close grip bench press, wide grip, inclines, dips or even flyes but not because I think they will load the inner chest area different vs outer chest but rather because they will load the upper and lower head of the pecs, the shoulders, triceps, antagonists and so on somewhat different. Plus you get good form and mind-muscle connection in the exercises you do often which I could speculate:
a) Either make them even more useful because you can handle more weight which may give better growth.
b) ... or make them less powerful and a different exercise better because you've learned to use lots of other muscles and lift as efficient as possible in that exercise which makes the new movements demand more from your body resulting in more size or neural improvements.

simpler explanation for the dummies (the actual article has the pictures so click on it):
blablabla

TL;DR

In any case I still haven't said NO to possibility of putting more effort and recruit various fibers or parts of fibers more.

Only stating I would be less sure on whatever it would be possible.

I let someone else tell me if it is or not. But I for sure won't take any "experience" or "omg teh bodybuilders does this"-theories as proof for it.

The part I did read seemed to be more about reasoning how the nerves split to various parts of the muscle and how that opened up for the possibility that they could be signaled differently, or something such, just as me myself would reason about it. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily true that it can be done. I doubt it showed proof for one or the other direction. But then I didn't read it all.

[ThickAsABrick]

Except it doesn't mean **** when it comes to "inner chest."

read teh above and then do some research on compartmentalization

i've said enough in this thread.

outty

[TheBroBrah]

Through both personal and majority experience, something you don't have.

And there is also evidence to support distal and proximal emphasis. Read the literature that Defiant1 was so good to supply. The evidence supports what Body builders have known for decades.

Ok so hypothetically speaking, maybe you can "emphasize the inner pecs" that doesn't mean they will grow more than another part of your chest.

[VoxExMachina]

Inner-Chest threads and Smith Machine threads are usually guaranteed to deliver the lulz.

This one is no exception.

[Ironlife]

Inner-Chest threads and Smith Machine threads are usually guaranteed to deliver the lulz.

This one is no exception.

Except on the smith machine threads im usually batting on the other side of the argument to provide the lulz (no homo)

[ProTec]

Ok so hypothetically speaking, maybe you can "emphasize the inner pecs" that doesn't mean they will grow more than another part of your chest.

You are NOT talking about this mouse experiment again huh?

[Limp Wristed]

if there were a lot of previous threads on this topic does anyone know if there was any literature posted that showed which exercises emphasized certain parts of a muscle? it would be really nice to look at

[Defiant1]

In this cornah.....the tag team of "Science (e.g. Antonio)" and "Experience (e.g. basically every bodybuilder who has ever competed)"...


In this cornah....the tag team of "the 18 year old know it all" and "the guy from other sites who just HAPPPENED to show up plus 1 study that goes against basically not only what is ACCEPTED about the muscular function, but also many many other studies".



..WRESTLE!!

[Defiant1]

if there were a lot of previous threads on this topic does anyone know if there was any literature posted that showed which exercises emphasized certain parts of a muscle? it would be really nice to look at

It's right in this f*cking thread.

Jesus.

[SquatTilYouDrop]

Ok so hypothetically speaking, maybe you can "emphasize the inner pecs" that doesn't mean they will grow more than another part of your chest.

And attending a university doesn't guarantee one more wisdom, but the odds are improved.

[Alex2010]

so who wins? u can or u cant?

[ThickAsABrick]

In this cornah.....the tag team of "Science (e.g. Antonio)" and "Experience (e.g. basically every bodybuilder who has ever competed)"...


In this cornah....the tag team of "the 18 year old know it all" and "the guy from other sites who just HAPPPENED to show up plus 1 study that goes against basically not only what is ACCEPTED about the muscular function, but also many many other studies".



..WRESTLE!!

lol

[Defiant1]

Bullsh*t aside, anyone who has trained for bodybuilding for any length of time knows that one can emphasize "parts" of muscles.

Any "arguing" done is simply to point out to the ignorant what the truth is.

Without any scientific evidence, it would still be true.

But now you have evidence of it a. occurring and b. the possible mechanisms.

As stated before, what's great about the internet is that posting is forever, so some people are REALLY going to look stupid down the road as the evidence continues to mount..

Period.

[TheBroBrah]

And attending a university doesn't guarantee one more wisdom, but the odds are improved.

I've been studying and researching this stuff since i was 10 years old, and am now taking an anatomy class. It's not like i have no experience, I'm not some angry teenager (though it make seem like it) coming here to bug the **** out of you. I have my beliefs and experiences as well.

[Ironlife]

[Limp Wristed]

It's right in this f*cking thread.

Jesus.

whoa no need to be a dick im just wondering if there were articles that encompassed a greater array of muscle groups the articles in this thread that ive read so far only listed a few

[Defiant1]

so who wins? u can or u cant?

All it takes is about a month of intelligent training to discover the truth.

Or, simply acknowledging that if people could win contests doing 1 exercise per bodypart, then don't you think they would be doing it?


Choice 1: Doing 3 or more exercises per bodypart

Choice 2: Doing 1. Getting same results.

Most people are lazy.

Do the math.

[TheBroBrah]

Bullsh*t aside, anyone who has trained for bodybuilding for any length of time knows that one can emphasize "parts" of muscles.

Any "arguing" done is simply to point out to the ignorant what the truth is.

Without any scientific evidence, it would still be true.

But now you have evidence of it a. occurring and b. the possible mechanisms.

As stated before, what's great about the internet is that posting is forever, so some people are REALLY going to look stupid down the road as the evidence continues to mount..

Period.

But saying you can emphasize the inner pecs is like saying you can work your lower biceps. You can emphasize different muscles. But not different regions of a muscle.

[SquatTilYouDrop]

I've been studying and researching this stuff since i was 10 years old,

And you mastered the art shouting out big letters over the Interwebz with conviction.

Outstanding!

[TheBroBrah]

And you mastered the art shouting out big letters over the Interwebz with conviction.

Outstanding!

I'm not trying to brag, I'm making a point sonnnn. And you think just because I'm young that i don't know anything. So stop acting like older are always wiser because 50% of the time that's not the case.

[Defiant1]

whoa no need to be a dick im just wondering if there were articles that encompassed a greater array of muscle groups the articles in this thread that ive read so far only listed a few

I like being a dick. It gets the point across much more succinctly.

[Defiant1]

But saying you can emphasize the inner pecs is like saying you can work your lower biceps. You can emphasize different muscles. But not different regions of a muscle.

I was cutting you some slack because you claim to be 18, but now I conclude you are either a troll, an idiot, a bull****ter, or some combination.

Researching this since you were 10, huh?

I call bull****. No one can have "researched" this and made the claims you are making. Especially in the last 8 years. There is WAY too much evidence "for" to not acknowledge an inductive argument. You would also have a ****-load of evidence, not a vague reference to a mouse study that doesn't exist, or does not exist in the context you are stating.

I see you are now "raising the goalpost" "oh well maybe you can emphasize parts but this doesn't prove anything" blah blah blah blah.

One minute you are posting in caps of the impossibility, the next acknowledging it might be true.

Read the links.

[Limp Wristed]

I like being a dick. It gets the point across much more succinctly.

heh i wasnt disagreeing with you or people claiming you can emphasis different regions of a muscle ive understood this to be true from my own experience (especially with DB flys vs cgbp)