PDA

View Full Version : Need help with bench press


todtown
July 19th 07, 04:05 AM
I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.

I started a weight lifting routine about 2 months ago to improve my
health and general muscle fitness. I read books and browsed the net
for the different exercises and came up with a pretty good routine
that hits all of major muscle groups. My reps were too low at first. I
was only doing 10 reps per set and it was like a waste of time.
Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.

Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me. It's
supposed to be a chest exercise, right? I'm not feeling it. I've
adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand), raised
and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
notice any kind of response from chest muscles. No soreness the next
day. No visible improvement.

What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
muscle group?

Any advice will be appreciated.

tod

spodosaurus
July 19th 07, 04:57 AM
todtown wrote:
> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.

Yes, it did. And you had responses. Learn to use google groups if your
NNTP server is ****ty.

Cheers,

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/

Prisoner at War
July 19th 07, 06:08 PM
On Jul 18, 11:57 pm, spodosaurus > wrote:
> todtown wrote:
> > I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
> > So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>
> Yes, it did. And you had responses. Learn to use google groups if your
> NNTP server is ****ty.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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/



Actually, googlegroups *IS* the problem. They keep changing ****
around, and every time they tinker with something there are posting
problems.

(Here's hoping this post makes it though....)

Prisoner at War
July 19th 07, 06:25 PM
On Jul 18, 11:05 pm, todtown > wrote:
> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.

Googlegroups suck...google is the death of the internet....

> I started a weight lifting routine about 2 months ago to improve my
> health and general muscle fitness. I read books and browsed the net
> for the different exercises and came up with a pretty good routine
> that hits all of major muscle groups. My reps were too low at first. I
> was only doing 10 reps per set and it was like a waste of time.
> Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.

What kind of a difference?

> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me. It's
> supposed to be a chest exercise, right? I'm not feeling it. I've
> adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand), raised
> and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
> notice any kind of response from chest muscles.

The bench press is considered by some to be just a "vanity" exercise
that doesn't even work the pec majors, really -- not as well as proper
dumbbell flyes, some say (like Bob Cicherillo).

I don't know how you're having biceps problems (though they do help
stabilize things at some point); usually it's the triceps, and then
the delts (some even claim the lats get involved). Me, I only feel my
pecs doing anything 10% of the time. Just how it is.

> No soreness the next
> day. No visible improvement.

Soreness next day doesn't necessarily mean you're growing or
improving. No one is 100% certain why we're sore, actually.

> What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
> muscle group?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> tod

You're not doing anything "wrong." Unless you're in pain or wind up
hurting yourself, there's nothing wrong with anything you do. (For
example, wide and close grips are advised against by many sports
medicine doctors, but I haven't had any problems myself yet -- though
I do feel weird, almost uncomfortable, sensations suddenly in my
shoulder joints at the oddest [that is, non-lifting] times....)

In terms of bang-for-the-buck (efficiency, usually in terms of time
and effort expended), there are better ways to do the bench press,
probably...but then again, there are better exercises than the bench
press for the pectoralis major.

Tod
July 19th 07, 06:52 PM
"Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 18, 11:05 pm, todtown > wrote:
>> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
>> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>
> Googlegroups suck...google is the death of the internet....
>
>> I started a weight lifting routine about 2 months ago to improve my
>> health and general muscle fitness. I read books and browsed the net
>> for the different exercises and came up with a pretty good routine
>> that hits all of major muscle groups. My reps were too low at first. I
>> was only doing 10 reps per set and it was like a waste of time.
>> Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.
>
> What kind of a difference?
>
>> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me. It's
>> supposed to be a chest exercise, right? I'm not feeling it. I've
>> adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand), raised
>> and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
>> notice any kind of response from chest muscles.
>
> The bench press is considered by some to be just a "vanity" exercise
> that doesn't even work the pec majors, really -- not as well as proper
> dumbbell flyes, some say (like Bob Cicherillo).
>
> I don't know how you're having biceps problems (though they do help
> stabilize things at some point); usually it's the triceps, and then
> the delts (some even claim the lats get involved). Me, I only feel my
> pecs doing anything 10% of the time. Just how it is.
>
>> No soreness the next
>> day. No visible improvement.
>
> Soreness next day doesn't necessarily mean you're growing or
> improving. No one is 100% certain why we're sore, actually.
>
>> What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
>> muscle group?
>>
>> Any advice will be appreciated.
>>
>> tod
>
> You're not doing anything "wrong." Unless you're in pain or wind up
> hurting yourself, there's nothing wrong with anything you do. (For
> example, wide and close grips are advised against by many sports
> medicine doctors, but I haven't had any problems myself yet -- though
> I do feel weird, almost uncomfortable, sensations suddenly in my
> shoulder joints at the oddest [that is, non-lifting] times....)
>
> In terms of bang-for-the-buck (efficiency, usually in terms of time
> and effort expended), there are better ways to do the bench press,
> probably...but then again, there are better exercises than the bench
> press for the pectoralis major.
>

Thanx for your reply. The 20 reps gives me more of a 'burn' toward the end
of the set. The 10 reps would do the same if I loaded on a LOT of weight,
but I didn't feel like I was accomplishing anything. My current goal is not
to bulk up, but to condition my muscles. I've lived a very 'couch potato'
existance. Now I ride my bike 10-15 miles per day, eat normal-sized meals
and lift weights 3-4 times per week. I did not start experience noticable
change until I upped to 20 reps. Maybe there is a happy medium, like the
12-14 that some have suggested.

The other pecs exercise I tried is the chest fly. It really worked well with
the outside chest muscles, but nothing really for the larger ones. I think
maybe the arm soreness is because I'm still a fat and flabby weakling. <g>
Maybe my upper arm muscles aren't yet strong enough to easily support the
amount of weight it takes to effectivly work the chest with the bench press.
I know, I sound pathetic. I just want to make sure I'm doing everything
correctly and not find out weeks down the road that I was wasting my time.

tod

Steve Freides
July 19th 07, 07:10 PM
"Tod" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On Jul 18, 11:05 pm, todtown > wrote:
>>> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
>>> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>>
>> Googlegroups suck...google is the death of the internet....
>>
>>> I started a weight lifting routine about 2 months ago to improve my
>>> health and general muscle fitness. I read books and browsed the net
>>> for the different exercises and came up with a pretty good routine
>>> that hits all of major muscle groups. My reps were too low at first.
>>> I
>>> was only doing 10 reps per set and it was like a waste of time.
>>> Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.
>>
>> What kind of a difference?
>>
>>> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me.
>>> It's
>>> supposed to be a chest exercise, right? I'm not feeling it. I've
>>> adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand),
>>> raised
>>> and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
>>> notice any kind of response from chest muscles.
>>
>> The bench press is considered by some to be just a "vanity" exercise
>> that doesn't even work the pec majors, really -- not as well as
>> proper
>> dumbbell flyes, some say (like Bob Cicherillo).
>>
>> I don't know how you're having biceps problems (though they do help
>> stabilize things at some point); usually it's the triceps, and then
>> the delts (some even claim the lats get involved). Me, I only feel
>> my
>> pecs doing anything 10% of the time. Just how it is.
>>
>>> No soreness the next
>>> day. No visible improvement.
>>
>> Soreness next day doesn't necessarily mean you're growing or
>> improving. No one is 100% certain why we're sore, actually.
>>
>>> What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
>>> muscle group?
>>>
>>> Any advice will be appreciated.
>>>
>>> tod
>>
>> You're not doing anything "wrong." Unless you're in pain or wind up
>> hurting yourself, there's nothing wrong with anything you do. (For
>> example, wide and close grips are advised against by many sports
>> medicine doctors, but I haven't had any problems myself yet -- though
>> I do feel weird, almost uncomfortable, sensations suddenly in my
>> shoulder joints at the oddest [that is, non-lifting] times....)
>>
>> In terms of bang-for-the-buck (efficiency, usually in terms of time
>> and effort expended), there are better ways to do the bench press,
>> probably...but then again, there are better exercises than the bench
>> press for the pectoralis major.
>>
>
> Thanx for your reply. The 20 reps gives me more of a 'burn' toward the
> end of the set. The 10 reps would do the same if I loaded on a LOT of
> weight, but I didn't feel like I was accomplishing anything. My
> current goal is not to bulk up, but to condition my muscles. I've
> lived a very 'couch potato' existance. Now I ride my bike 10-15 miles
> per day, eat normal-sized meals and lift weights 3-4 times per week. I
> did not start experience noticable change until I upped to 20 reps.
> Maybe there is a happy medium, like the 12-14 that some have
> suggested.
>
> The other pecs exercise I tried is the chest fly. It really worked
> well with the outside chest muscles, but nothing really for the larger
> ones. I think maybe the arm soreness is because I'm still a fat and
> flabby weakling. <g> Maybe my upper arm muscles aren't yet strong
> enough to easily support the amount of weight it takes to effectivly
> work the chest with the bench press. I know, I sound pathetic. I just
> want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly and not find out
> weeks down the road that I was wasting my time.
>
> tod

Any exercise regularly performed is better than none - keep lifting and
realize that, for your purposes, the specifics aren't that important.
Also realize that we are all telling you the same thing - lift heavier
weights for fewer reps, whether or not you happen to like or expect what
it feels like during or afterwards. 10 reps done twice with more weight
and a rest in the middle will accomplish more for you than 20 at one
time.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Curt
July 19th 07, 11:02 PM
todtown wrote:
> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
[...]

> What the hell am I doing wrong?

Not waiting patiently for your posts to finally appear.

For one.

Best wishes with your benching, however. Btw, how much weight are you
using?

--
Curt

Curt
July 19th 07, 11:06 PM
Prisoner at War wrote:
> spodosaurus wrote:
> > todtown wrote:
> > > I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
> > > So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>
> > Yes, it did.

he SAID he was SORRY! ;o)

> > And you had responses. Learn to use google groups if your
> > NNTP server is ****ty.

Ha!

Ari, learn to double check your recommendations. Just sayin'.

> Actually, googlegroups *IS* the problem.

True dat.

> They keep changing **** around, and every time they tinker
> with something there are posting problems.

I did not know that.

Although I was curious about posts dropping.

> (Here's hoping this post makes it though....)

It did!

--
Curt

Curt
July 19th 07, 11:12 PM
Tod wrote:
[...]

re weight training

> I know, I sound pathetic. I just want to make sure I'm doing everything
> correctly and not find out weeks down the road that I was wasting my time.

You don't sound pathetic.

Are you training in a gym? Get a *good* personal trainer and they'll
be able to take you through the different exercises, machines, etc. as
well as answer many of your questions and, hopefully, offer you advice
and information that will be helpful to you in your workouts.

Emphasis on good, too.

There was a woman at one gym wearing a TRAINER t-shirt while taking a
client through his paces. She had rep and set confused and the way she
had this poor guy using the calf machine was effed UP!

--
Curt

spodosaurus
July 20th 07, 06:41 AM
Curt wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> spodosaurus wrote:
>>> todtown wrote:
>>>> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
>>>> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>>> Yes, it did.
>
> he SAID he was SORRY! ;o)
>
>>> And you had responses. Learn to use google groups if your
>>> NNTP server is ****ty.
>
> Ha!
>
> Ari, learn to double check your recommendations. Just sayin'.
>

Quite right. Thunderbird gives me a direct link, so I assumed it was
valid. Turns out it wasn't. My NNTP server is slightly ****ty, so I'm
thinking of using a text only pay service like the German one that used
to be free...can't remember the name right now, and screaming baby means
I'll probably forget to look it up later...must dash---

>> Actually, googlegroups *IS* the problem.
>
> True dat.
>
>> They keep changing **** around, and every time they tinker
>> with something there are posting problems.
>
> I did not know that.
>
> Although I was curious about posts dropping.
>
>> (Here's hoping this post makes it though....)
>
> It did!
>
> --
> Curt
>


--
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/

Pete
July 20th 07, 10:14 AM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

> Any exercise regularly performed is better than none - keep lifting and
> realize that, for your purposes, the specifics aren't that important. Also
> realize that we are all telling you the same thing - lift heavier weights
> for fewer reps, whether or not you happen to like or expect what it feels
> like during or afterwards. 10 reps done twice with more weight and a rest
> in the middle will accomplish more for you than 20 at one time.

Nonsense.

That is enterily goal dependend. Its also possible to do 20 singles with
even more weight.

If you are a 400 meter runner, doing 4 X 100 meters several times will
accomplish nothing...

--
Pete

Pete
July 20th 07, 10:15 AM
"todtown" > schreef:

> Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.

Difference in what exactly?

> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me. It's
> supposed to be a chest exercise, right?

Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.

> I'm not feeling it. I've
> adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand), raised
> and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
> notice any kind of response from chest muscles. No soreness the next
> day. No visible improvement.
>
> What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
> muscle group?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> tod
>

Prisoner at War
July 20th 07, 04:00 PM
On Jul 19, 1:52 pm, "Tod" > wrote:
>
>
> Thanx for your reply. The 20 reps gives me more of a 'burn' toward the end
> of the set. The 10 reps would do the same if I loaded on a LOT of weight,
> but I didn't feel like I was accomplishing anything. My current goal is not
> to bulk up, but to condition my muscles. I've lived a very 'couch potato'
> existance. Now I ride my bike 10-15 miles per day, eat normal-sized meals
> and lift weights 3-4 times per week. I did not start experience noticable
> change until I upped to 20 reps. Maybe there is a happy medium, like the
> 12-14 that some have suggested.

"Burn" and "pump" (and, as mentioned before, soreness or DOMS) aren't
the hallmarks of progress that they're often made out to be. It
certainly feels good to think that we're getting positive feedback
from our bodies, but truth is, there are competing theories about
what's going on, physiologically, because nothing's been
scientifically proven yet.

By one school of thought, since you're not trying to "bulk up" but, it
sounds like, condition your muscles for endurance, you're fine doing
what you're doing, high reps and all.

> The other pecs exercise I tried is the chest fly. It really worked well with
> the outside chest muscles, but nothing really for the larger ones. I think
> maybe the arm soreness is because I'm still a fat and flabby weakling. <g>
> Maybe my upper arm muscles aren't yet strong enough to easily support the
> amount of weight it takes to effectivly work the chest with the bench press.
> I know, I sound pathetic. I just want to make sure I'm doing everything
> correctly and not find out weeks down the road that I was wasting my time.
>
> tod

That's the thing: what are your goals -- exactly? If you just want to
"be in shape" in a general mainstream sense, you're doing fine.
You're not looking to be a bodybuilder, you're not looking to be a
powerlifter, so what kind of problem do you have with your bench
press?

Have patience. Even genetically-endowed steroid-addled champions
train for years for their gains. From what I can tell, you are just
starting out.

Prisoner at War
July 20th 07, 04:12 PM
On Jul 19, 6:12 pm, Curt > wrote:
>
>
> You don't sound pathetic.
>
> Are you training in a gym? Get a *good* personal trainer and they'll
> be able to take you through the different exercises, machines, etc. as
> well as answer many of your questions and, hopefully, offer you advice
> and information that will be helpful to you in your workouts.

It's hard enough getting a good lawyer or doctor, forget about finding
a "good" trainer. Might as well ask him to become rich first so that
he can afford that good trainer once he finds him or her!

I don't think beginners could make good use of trainers so much as
they could of their local public library (or the internet, for that
matter, and MFW). Main topics should be nutrition (and nutrient
timing when it comes to supplementation) and sports injuries (namely,
proper form and prevention).

> Emphasis on good, too.
>
> There was a woman at one gym wearing a TRAINER t-shirt while taking a
> client through his paces. She had rep and set confused and the way she
> had this poor guy using the calf machine was effed UP!

There are people in my gym wearing tee shirts with "STAFF" imprinted
on the back...I had to take a second look before I realized that that
was just a style of dress, like how folks wear "NYPD" or "Army" tee
shirts around....

> --
> Curt

Prisoner at War
July 20th 07, 04:19 PM
On Jul 20, 5:15 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.

Nah, not mainly ("dominantly"). I think the biomechanics are such
that arms and shoulders (delts) kick in much more effort for most of
the movement.

It's the same thing with an exercise like chin-ups. The arms and
shoulders are doing most of the work. Doesn't matter how you change
your grip and whatnot -- just biomechanics. Another example is
abdominal crunches and such -- the legs and hips get much more out of
it. Just the way our bodies are made. I used to think I was doing
something wrong, too, like the OP, but then I read up on how the
muscles connect to the bones and how they work in relation to one
another and I realized that it wasn't my grip or anything, it was just
the way evolution turned out.

Tom Anderson
July 20th 07, 07:11 PM
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Jul 20, 5:15 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>> Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.
>
> Nah, not mainly ("dominantly"). I think the biomechanics are such that
> arms and shoulders (delts) kick in much more effort for most of the
> movement.
>
> It's the same thing with an exercise like chin-ups. The arms and
> shoulders are doing most of the work. Doesn't matter how you change
> your grip and whatnot -- just biomechanics.

I don't think this is true. Have you got any data to back this up, other
than your own uninformed observations?

tom

--
We got our own sense of propaganda. We call it truth. -- Rex Steele,
Nazi Smasher

Prisoner at War
July 20th 07, 07:23 PM
Since when did personal observation become worthless?

Oh, **** that game...if I tell you that under "blowhard" it says "see
'Tom Anderson'" and you don't believe me, *you* go look it up
yourself, I know what I need to know {shrug}. Go look up Arthur Jones
and his Nautilus philosophy, and biomechanics in general. Bob
Cicherillo also says that about the bench press in his
bodybuilding.com DVD. Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms
probably get developed much more easily compared to the lats (by which
remark we may also apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is
more sensitvely wired there since we used our arms more often and in
more ways....

Sit-ups and crunches work mainly legs and hips, relatively little ab
work gets done in comparison.

Same for chin-ups and lat pull-downs: mainly arms and shoulders,
little lat work involved.

Same for bench presses: mostly arms and shoulders, not much pec action
by comparison.

Just the facts. Biomechanics and human anatomy.

Doesn't mean those exercises are worthless...just means that what they
primarily work are the so-called stabilizer muscles. Physically, it
takes more to first stabilize something before you can apply direct
force to it. (No I don't have the Physics 101 equation on this...you
go look it up.)



On Jul 20, 2:11 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>
> I don't think this is true. Have you got any data to back this up, other
> than your own uninformed observations?
>
> tom
>
> --
> We got our own sense of propaganda. We call it truth. -- Rex Steele,
> Nazi Smasher

No Name
July 20th 07, 07:50 PM
The bench press should be the first exercise in your routine. If you
do it later in your routine your arms will give out before your chest.

Hobbes
July 20th 07, 08:02 PM
In article om>,
Prisoner at War > wrote:

> Since when did personal observation become worthless?
>
> Oh, **** that game...if I tell you that under "blowhard" it says "see
> 'Tom Anderson'" and you don't believe me, *you* go look it up
> yourself, I know what I need to know {shrug}. Go look up Arthur Jones
> and his Nautilus philosophy, and biomechanics in general. Bob
> Cicherillo also says that about the bench press in his
> bodybuilding.com DVD. Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms
> probably get developed much more easily compared to the lats (by which
> remark we may also apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is
> more sensitvely wired there since we used our arms more often and in
> more ways....

SAY WHAT?

If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
Fine motor skills have little to do with strength development, in spite
of what Arnold thinks. His Austrian high school education and
aknowledged business smarts aren't doing him any good here...

>
> Sit-ups and crunches work mainly legs and hips, relatively little ab
> work gets done in comparison.
>
> Same for chin-ups and lat pull-downs: mainly arms and shoulders,
> little lat work involved.
>
> Same for bench presses: mostly arms and shoulders, not much pec action
> by comparison.
>
> Just the facts. Biomechanics and human anatomy.

you are confusing range of motion with force development.
>
> Doesn't mean those exercises are worthless...just means that what they
> primarily work are the so-called stabilizer muscles. Physically, it
> takes more to first stabilize something before you can apply direct
> force to it. (No I don't have the Physics 101 equation on this...you
> go look it up.)

Stabilizing arm movement requires the scapula to be stabilized. What
does that? (From http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Scapula.html)

Abduction (Protraction)
* Serratus anterior
* Pectoralis minor
* Levator scapulae
* Pectoralis major (sternal head)

Adduction (Retraction)
* Trapezius (middle fibers)
* Trapezius (lower fibers)
* Rhomboids
* Latissimus dorsi

Depression
* Pectoralis minor
* Latissimus dorsi
* Pectoralis major
* Trapezius (lower fibers)

Elevation
* Trapezius (upper fibers)
* Trapezius (middle fibers)
* Levator scapulae
* Serratus anterior (upper fibers)

Upward Rotation (Superior Rotation)
* Trapezius (middle fibers)
* Trapezius (lower fibers)
* Serratus anterior (lower fibers)

Downward Rotation (Inferior Rotation)
* Levator scapulae
* Rhomboids
* Pectoralis minor
* Pectoralis major
* Latissimus dorsi

By your own argument (primarily work the stabilizers) it is hard to say
the back muscles aren't strongly involved in the bench and especially
the pull-up.

--
Keith

Tom Anderson
July 20th 07, 09:27 PM
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Jul 20, 2:11 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is true. Have you got any data to back this up,
>> other than your own uninformed observations?
>
> Since when did personal observation become worthless?

Since people started pulling them out of the arses without much in the way
of critical examination. Which was shortly after we started to walk on two
legs.

> Oh, **** that game...if I tell you that under "blowhard" it says "see
> 'Tom Anderson'" and you don't believe me, *you* go look it up yourself,

Might do, since actually, i have no idea what 'blowhard' means; i think
it's an exclusively american word. According to:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm

"Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the
fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion."

Have i brought my credentials up? No. Also, the picture doesn't look like
me. I wear glasses.

Wait! This says something different:

http://www.answers.com/blowhard&r=67

"A boaster or braggart", "one given to boasting", "a very boastful and
talkative person", "braniemaker".

I'm not boasting. I'm not saying i'm amazing, just that you're talking
crap.

> I know what I need to know {shrug}.

Funny, sounds to me like you don't.

> Go look up Arthur Jones and his Nautilus philosophy, and biomechanics in
> general. Bob Cicherillo also says that about the bench press in his
> bodybuilding.com DVD. Even Arnold

Wow, if all these guys with expertise in biomechanics, and who've done
proper controlled studies on the matter, say that, then ...

No, wait.

tom

--
.... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands
of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt

Tom Anderson
July 20th 07, 09:27 PM
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:

> In article om>,
> Prisoner at War > wrote:
>
>> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
>> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
>> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
>> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
>
> SAY WHAT?
>
> If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.

Or the tongue.

tom

--
.... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands
of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt

Hobbes
July 20th 07, 10:21 PM
In article >,
Tom Anderson > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>
> > In article om>,
> > Prisoner at War > wrote:
> >
> >> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
> >> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
> >> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
> >> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
> >
> > SAY WHAT?
> >
> > If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
>
> Or the tongue.
>
> tom

Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?

It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
due to taste and touch.

The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
human tissue in the anatomy labs. The only real suprise to me was the
size of the tongue. That and how different organs and muscles look in
different people.

--
Keith

Hobbes
July 20th 07, 10:31 PM
In article
>,
Hobbes > wrote:

> In article >,
> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >
> > > In article om>,
> > > Prisoner at War > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
> > >> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
> > >> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
> > >> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
> > >
> > > SAY WHAT?
> > >
> > > If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
> >
> > Or the tongue.
> >
> > tom
>
> Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
>
> It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
> due to taste and touch.
>
> The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
> human tissue in the anatomy labs. The only real suprise to me was the
> size of the tongue. That and how different organs and muscles look in
> different people.

Further to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sensory_and_motor_homunculi.jpg

Sorry Tom. The hands still got the tongue beat.

:^)

--
Keith

Tom Anderson
July 21st 07, 01:05 AM
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Hobbes > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article om>,
>>>> Prisoner at War > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
>>>>> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
>>>>> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
>>>>> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
>>>>
>>>> SAY WHAT?
>>>>
>>>> If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
>>>
>>> Or the tongue.
>>
>> Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
>>
>> It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
>> due to taste and touch.

I have this vague recollection of seeing a detatched human tongue
somewhere, but i can't imagine where.

Oh yeah, i was dating that girl with leprosy in secondary school.

> Further to this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sensory_and_motor_homunculi.jpg
>
> Sorry Tom. The hands still got the tongue beat.

Mumble ratio of actual to nomunculid size mumble ...

tom

--
You have to give up

spodosaurus
July 21st 07, 03:18 AM
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:15 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>
>> Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.
>
> Nah, not mainly ("dominantly"). I think the biomechanics are such
> that arms and shoulders (delts) kick in much more effort for most of
> the movement.
>

and you base this on what?

> It's the same thing with an exercise like chin-ups. The arms and
> shoulders are doing most of the work. Doesn't matter how you change
> your grip and whatnot -- just biomechanics.

So give us a reference for this please. Did you get this from an article
or textbook?

> Another example is
> abdominal crunches and such -- the legs and hips get much more out of
> it. Just the way our bodies are made.

So with no movement at the hips, somehow they're getting most of the
work with crunches?

> I used to think I was doing
> something wrong, too, like the OP, but then I read up on how the
> muscles connect to the bones

You didn't know about tendons? And you're trying to use big words like
biomechanics to sound like an authority here...uh huh

> and how they work in relation to one
> another and I realized that it wasn't my grip or anything, it was just
> the way evolution turned out.

No, it was you.

Cheers,

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/

spodosaurus
July 21st 07, 03:22 AM
Prisoner at War wrote:
> Since when did personal observation become worthless?
>

Since most of them come from ignorant ****wits who don't know the basics
of the big words they try and use, like "biomechanics". Not saying
you're certainly ignorant nor a ****wit, but probabilities come into
play when we're reading posts in this newsgorup.

> Oh, **** that game...if I tell you that under "blowhard" it says "see
> 'Tom Anderson'" and you don't believe me, *you* go look it up
> yourself, I know what I need to know {shrug}. Go look up Arthur Jones
> and his Nautilus philosophy, and biomechanics in general.

Yeah, that forms the basis of most current scientific research on
biomechanics...bwahahahahaha

> Bob
> Cicherillo also says that about the bench press in his
> bodybuilding.com DVD.

Ohh! He must be the guy in the lab getting ready to publish in a peer
reviewed journal!

> Even Arnold makes mention

You're kidding here, right? Oh my, okay, I shouldn't have given you the
benefit of the doubt.

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/

spodosaurus
July 21st 07, 03:26 AM
Hobbes wrote:
> In article >,
> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>>> In article om>,
>>> Prisoner at War > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
>>>> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
>>>> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
>>>> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
>>> SAY WHAT?
>>>
>>> If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
>> Or the tongue.
>>
>> tom
>
> Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
>
> It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
> due to taste and touch.
>
> The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
> human tissue in the anatomy labs.

Really? I find that hard to believe. You just can't learn this stuff
through models and drawings. Maybe that's why so many new doctors don't
do well with anatomy questions. Here you have to get an anatomy license
as a first year student so you can do your human biology labs (if you
take those classes, or if you're in medical school - medical school here
is a six year program without prior undergraduate work).

Ari

> The only real suprise to me was the
> size of the tongue. That and how different organs and muscles look in
> different people.
>


--
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/

Lucas Buck
July 21st 07, 04:46 AM
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:21:13 -0600, Hobbes > wrote:

>In article >,
> Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>> > In article om>,
>> > Prisoner at War > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
>> >> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
>> >> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
>> >> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
>> >
>> > SAY WHAT?
>> >
>> > If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
>>
>> Or the tongue.
>>
>> tom
>
>Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?

No, but I bet Anna Nicole did.


OR


>Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?

No, I usually limit my souvenir-taking to fingers and ears.

Prisoner at War
July 21st 07, 07:49 AM
On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, > wrote:
> The bench press should be the first exercise in your routine. If you
> do it later in your routine your arms will give out before your chest.


Indeed! And that's because the bench press works arms and shoulders
more than it does the chest (pecs)!

If the bench press worked the chest primarily, and not so much your
arms, then you should be able to do it later on in your workout
(assuming a total body workout, say). The reason you must do bench
first is 'cause it uses the arms and shoulders more than anything else!

Prisoner at War
July 21st 07, 08:03 AM
On Jul 20, 3:02 pm, Hobbes > wrote:
>
>
> SAY WHAT?
>
> If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.

No, because there is very little muscle in the hands. This is why
legs will always be bigger than arms, even if, say, you'd been walking
upside on your hands since birth for some reason -- the legs have more
muscles, and bigger muscles at that. Similarly, the arms have more
muscles, and bigger muscles, than the hands, which are like full of
tendons, mainly (the actual muscles are in the forearms, mostly).

> Fine motor skills have little to do with strength development, in spite
> of what Arnold thinks. His Austrian high school education and
> aknowledged business smarts aren't doing him any good here...

He didn't mean "fine" motor skills, exactly...just that our central
nervous system is infinitely more familiar with the neural pathways of
the arms compared to those in the pecs or the lats because we have
been using arms much more often in many more ways for a longer time.

> you are confusing range of motion with force development.

Actually, ROM is a somewhat controversial topic in itself to begin
with...but no, I'm not mixing up ROM with "force development,"
whatever that is -- most people get more of a workout in the hips and
legs from most abs exercises due to the way our muscles are attached.
Ditto bench press and chin-ups.

Now, someone like a professional kayaker may be an exception because
kayaking invovles using the core (torso) muscles, mostly; it only
looks like they're flailing away with their arms (rather like, come to
think of it, how something like the bench press looks like it's about
the core when it's really about the arms -- just the opposite
situation of a kayaker!)...but most people doing exercises that
supposed target core muscles actually work out their stabilizer
muscles much more. Just the facts. You need a really fine mind-body
link in order to will your lats to do most of the work on a chin-up,
because instinct is to pull with arms and shoulders.

Etc.

> Stabilizing arm movement requires the scapula to be stabilized. What
> does that? (Fromhttp://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Scapula.html)
>
> Abduction (Protraction)
> * Serratus anterior
> * Pectoralis minor
> * Levator scapulae
> * Pectoralis major (sternal head)
>
> Adduction (Retraction)
> * Trapezius (middle fibers)
> * Trapezius (lower fibers)
> * Rhomboids
> * Latissimus dorsi
>
> Depression
> * Pectoralis minor
> * Latissimus dorsi
> * Pectoralis major
> * Trapezius (lower fibers)
>
> Elevation
> * Trapezius (upper fibers)
> * Trapezius (middle fibers)
> * Levator scapulae
> * Serratus anterior (upper fibers)
>
> Upward Rotation (Superior Rotation)
> * Trapezius (middle fibers)
> * Trapezius (lower fibers)
> * Serratus anterior (lower fibers)
>
> Downward Rotation (Inferior Rotation)
> * Levator scapulae
> * Rhomboids
> * Pectoralis minor
> * Pectoralis major
> * Latissimus dorsi
>
> By your own argument (primarily work the stabilizers) it is hard to say
> the back muscles aren't strongly involved in the bench and especially
> the pull-up.

I'm not saying they're not involed -- nor am I saying that they aren't
"stronly" involved...I am saying that they are not, actually,
*primarily* invovled (for the vast majority of people)...you really
need a good mind-muscle link to will the pecs to do most of the work
on the bench press, because bodily, physical instinct is to recruit
arms and shoulders...and, again, biomechanics are such that most of
the motion of the bench press involves primarily the arms and
shoulders, such that the pecs are actually playing the stabilizer
role!

BTW, I'm just regurgitating what I've read on biomechanics and
kinesiology...it's a lot more clearer (and much more technical) than
the colloquial account I'm giving...I apologize for perhaps confusing
people with my own terms (like "stabilizer muscles")....

> --
> Keith

Prisoner at War
July 21st 07, 08:08 AM
On Jul 20, 5:21 pm, Hobbes > wrote:
>
>
> Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
>
> It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
> due to taste and touch.
>
> The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
> human tissue in the anatomy labs. The only real suprise to me was the
> size of the tongue. That and how different organs and muscles look in
> different people.
>
> --
> Keith



Ever heard of a Columbian Necktie?

The tongue is so large that narco-assasins in '80s NYC would slit
their victims' throats and pull out their tongues through the
opening....

What university is one of the few that uses human tissue in anatomy
labs? You mean undergrad, Bio 101 courses? I'm pretty sure all
reputable biology departments keep tissue around. In my dorm they had
cadavers in the basement for the Physical and Occupational Therapy
students to study outside of class!

Prisoner at War
July 21st 07, 08:17 AM
On Jul 20, 4:27 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>
> Since people started pulling them out of the arses without much in the way
> of critical examination. Which was shortly after we started to walk on two
> legs.

Right. So I say "A" and instead of examing "A" you claim it's B and
S.

> Might do, since actually, i have no idea what 'blowhard' means; i think
> it's an exclusively american word. According to:
>
> http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
>
> "Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the
> fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion."
>
> Have i brought my credentials up? No. Also, the picture doesn't look like
> me. I wear glasses.
>
> Wait! This says something different:
>
> http://www.answers.com/blowhard&r=67
>
> "A boaster or braggart", "one given to boasting", "a very boastful and
> talkative person", "braniemaker".
>
> I'm not boasting. I'm not saying i'm amazing, just that you're talking
> crap.

Yeah, so much for "critically examining" things, eh, blowhard?

> Funny, sounds to me like you don't.

But you don't even know the first thing about conducting a critical
examination, so why should you count?

> Wow, if all these guys with expertise in biomechanics, and who've done
> proper controlled studies on the matter, say that, then ...

Like I said, **** that game. You believe what you want to believe.

> No, wait.

Don't move.

> tom
>
> --
> ... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands
> of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt

Prisoner at War
July 21st 07, 08:22 AM
On Jul 20, 10:22 pm, spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>
> Since most of them come from ignorant ****wits who don't know the basics
> of the big words they try and use, like "biomechanics". Not saying
> you're certainly ignorant nor a ****wit, but probabilities come into
> play when we're reading posts in this newsgorup.

Including yours, of course. So what's your ****ing point, conehead?

> Yeah, that forms the basis of most current scientific research on
> biomechanics...bwahahahahaha

No, it just forms the definition of "blowhard."

Do you read at all or do you just like to practice your typing here?

> Ohh! He must be the guy in the lab getting ready to publish in a peer
> reviewed journal!

And of course, if I cite someone in a lab like the Head of Kinesiology
at Texas University you'll have other objections, naturally.

Just **** off while you're still in a good mood, okay? Don't want you
to have a heart attack here.

> You're kidding here, right? Oh my, okay, I shouldn't have given you the
> benefit of the doubt.

Hey, you believe what you want to believe. It's MFW. Keep telling
yourself steroids is not dangerous, too.

> 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/

Pete
July 21st 07, 03:39 PM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.

> Nah, not mainly ("dominantly"). I think the biomechanics are such
> that arms and shoulders (delts) kick in much more effort for most of
> the movement.

Than you do them wrong.

> It's the same thing with an exercise like chin-ups. The arms and
> shoulders are doing most of the work.

Than you do them wrong.

> Doesn't matter how you change
> your grip...

It matters, trust me.

> and whatnot -- just biomechanics.

Angle of pull is also very important.

> Another example is
> abdominal crunches and such -- the legs and hips get much more out of
> it.

Than you do them wrong.

> Just the way our bodies are made. I used to think I was doing
> something wrong, too...

See?

> like the OP, but then I read up on how the
> muscles connect to the bones and how they work in relation to one
> another and I realized that it wasn't my grip or anything, it was just
> the way evolution turned out.

Are you saying that you are incapable of manipulating the angle of pull in
such a way that a certain muscle becom,es dominant over others?

It can be manipulated, you know.

Do a pull-up with a narrow grip, palms facing towards you.

Then do a pull-up a la Arnold, very wide, palms facing away. Are you telling
me you dont notice any difference?

--
Pete

Pete
July 21st 07, 03:55 PM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

> Since when did personal observation become worthless?

They are not. Have you ever see me pulling studies out my sleeve?

What i post here are mainly personal observations, based on logic. And a
little "science." With the help of a video camera, and a computer.

> Oh, **** that game...if I tell you that under "blowhard" it says "see
> 'Tom Anderson'" and you don't believe me, *you* go look it up
> yourself, I know what I need to know {shrug}. Go look up Arthur Jones
> and his Nautilus philosophy, and biomechanics in general.

I read most of AJs books. His insights are really worth the effort to read,
but he is wrong sometimes too.

He failed to understand that pull-overs with heavy resistance dont build
nowhere near as much mass in the back as any forms of rows did, and this
"phenomenon" can be explained quite easily.

> Bob Cicherillo also says that about the bench press in his
> bodybuilding.com DVD. Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms
> probably get developed much more easily compared to the lats...

Which is why Arnie choose to do a lot of wide grip pull-ups and rows. He
loved rows.

> (by which
> remark we may also apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is
> more sensitvely wired there since we used our arms more often and in
> more ways....

I can manipulate just about any movement to put emphasis on certain muscles.
Its not that hard, really.

> Sit-ups...

Yes, they use the flexors in the hip. And one of the heads in the quad
crosses the hip as well.

> and crunches work mainly legs and hips...

Man, you are so wrong. There is no hip joint flexion in crunches. Static
contractions, sure, they probably help to stabilize the body, but the pull
comes from the abs.

> relatively little ab
> work gets done in comparison.

Than you never did a real crunch. When i work abs, i do something in beteeen
a crunch and situp.

> Same for chin-ups and lat pull-downs: mainly arms and shoulders,
> little lat work involved.

Man, that is really ****ed up.

Even with narrow grip pull-downs with a triangle, i manipulate my body in
such a wat that some stress from the biceps is transferred to the lats. The
shoulders and traps dont do much in this movement anyway.

My lats are just fried when i am finished.

> Same for bench presses: mostly arms and shoulders, not much pec action
> by comparison.

You have some weird ideas about training.

> Just the facts.

Nope.

> Biomechanics and human anatomy.

Angle of pull.

> Doesn't mean those exercises are worthless...just means that what they
> primarily work are the so-called stabilizer muscles. Physically, it
> takes more to first stabilize something before you can apply direct
> force to it. (No I don't have the Physics 101 equation on this...you
> go look it up.)

This is wrong.

--
Pete

Pete
July 21st 07, 04:06 PM
"spodosaurus" > schreef:

>>> Well, chest/delt/tris, but dominantly pecs, yes.

>> Nah, not mainly ("dominantly"). I think the biomechanics are such
>> that arms and shoulders (delts) kick in much more effort for most of
>> the movement.

> and you base this on what?

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.

>> Another example is
>> abdominal crunches and such -- the legs and hips get much more out of
>> it. Just the way our bodies are made.

> So with no movement at the hips, somehow they're getting most of the work
> with crunches?

The action at the hip is completey ignored during crunches, so that doesnt
even make any sense.

--
Pete

Hobbes
July 21st 07, 05:33 PM
In article >,
spodosaurus > wrote:

> Hobbes wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Tom Anderson > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Hobbes wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article om>,
> >>> Prisoner at War > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Even Arnold makes mention of the fact that arms probably get developed
> >>>> much more easily compared to the lats (by which remark we may also
> >>>> apply to the pecs) because our nervous system is more sensitvely wired
> >>>> there since we used our arms more often and in more ways....
> >>> SAY WHAT?
> >>>
> >>> If that was the case the hands would be the most developed muscle wise.
> >> Or the tongue.
> >>
> >> tom
> >
> > Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
> >
> > It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
> > due to taste and touch.
> >
> > The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
> > human tissue in the anatomy labs.
>
> Really? I find that hard to believe. You just can't learn this stuff
> through models and drawings. Maybe that's why so many new doctors don't
> do well with anatomy questions. Here you have to get an anatomy license
> as a first year student so you can do your human biology labs (if you
> take those classes, or if you're in medical school - medical school here
> is a six year program without prior undergraduate work).

I suspect this is at an undergraduate level. What I see is cats in a lot
of universities. I happen to agree with you - you need to see the real
thing.

--
Keith

Hobbes
July 21st 07, 05:35 PM
In article m>,
Prisoner at War > wrote:

> On Jul 20, 5:21 pm, Hobbes > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Funny that - have you ever actually seen the tongue in a cadaver?
> >
> > It is one huge, honkin' big muscle. I think the ennervation is primarily
> > due to taste and touch.
> >
> > The university here is one of the few left in North America that uses
> > human tissue in the anatomy labs. The only real suprise to me was the
> > size of the tongue. That and how different organs and muscles look in
> > different people.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
>
>
> Ever heard of a Columbian Necktie?
>
> The tongue is so large that narco-assasins in '80s NYC would slit
> their victims' throats and pull out their tongues through the
> opening....
>
> What university is one of the few that uses human tissue in anatomy
> labs? You mean undergrad, Bio 101 courses? I'm pretty sure all
> reputable biology departments keep tissue around. In my dorm they had
> cadavers in the basement for the Physical and Occupational Therapy
> students to study outside of class!
>
>

Yeah, undergrad 101 level. University of Saskatchewan.

--
Keith

Sid Bonfire[_2_]
July 21st 07, 06:42 PM
On Jul 18, 11:05 pm, todtown > wrote:
> I posted this message a couple of days ago but it never showed up.
> So.. sorry if this is a duplicate.
>
> I started a weight lifting routine about 2 months ago to improve my
> health and general muscle fitness. I read books and browsed the net
> for the different exercises and came up with a pretty good routine
> that hits all of major muscle groups. My reps were too low at first. I
> was only doing 10 reps per set and it was like a waste of time.
> Increasing them to 20 really made a difference.
>
> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me. It's
> supposed to be a chest exercise, right? I'm not feeling it. I've
> adjusted my grip (wide grip, narrow grip, underhand, overhand), raised
> and lowered weights, etc.My arms get tired before I even begin to
> notice any kind of response from chest muscles. No soreness the next
> day. No visible improvement.
>
> What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to work this
> muscle group?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> tod

The bench press is one of the exercises that you should use a machine
or have spotters if you are using free weights. The fear factor
(rightfully) will kick in when you are struggling to lift a near limit
weight over your throat lying down.
I use a universal machine with a 275 lb bench limit. I am now up to 2
sets of 20 reps at 275 lbs. This really pumps the chest.

Prisoner at War
July 22nd 07, 07:06 PM
On Jul 21, 11:06 am, "Pete" > wrote:
> "spodosaurus" > 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....

> 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.

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 22nd 07, 07:22 PM
On Jul 21, 10:39 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> Than you do them wrong.

Nope. Maybe y'all aren't using heavy enough weights. When I warm up
with 21 reps of 135-lbs., sure I feel my pecs "burning"...but when I'm
doing 5 reps of 275-lbs., if I feel anything it's the arms.

I know Testosterone Nation doesn't seem to have a good reputation on
MFW, but their powerlifter coach David Tate at Westside Barbell
agrees: the bench press is about triceps!

> Than you do them wrong.

Not at all. Probably using more weight than most of y'all, then.
That's the only explanation possible. These exercises, for all their
possible nuances, aren't hard to perform, exactly. I mean, we're not
talking ballet here or something that intricate.

> It matters, trust me.

It matters in terms of injury (wide-grip chins open up the opportunity
for rotator cuff injury more than regular, shoulder-width grips), but
almost never in terms of muscle development.

> Angle of pull is also very important.

Depends on for what (actual muscle development or just getting it up?)
and to what degree....

> Than you do them wrong.

Not at all. It's like a ham-and-cheese sandwich: you can't do it
wrong (except in terms of injuring yourself).

> See?

I do, and, like I was saying, it's not that I did anything wrong, but
people are mistaken.

> Are you saying that you are incapable of manipulating the angle of pull in
> such a way that a certain muscle becom,es dominant over others?

I've been saying that the bench press is a triceps exercise, with the
pecs thrown in. Has nothing to do with whether your elbows are flared
or tucked, whether your grip is wide or narrow, whether you lower the
bar towards your collar or your solarplexus...angles matter, but not
that much, and angles do not change the exercise, what's being
exercised.

> It can be manipulated, you know.

We're getting into three-blind-men-and-an-elephant territory...what is
the "it"?

Angles matter in terms of muscle recruitment (more pec, less pec,
etc.), but they do not change the exercise such that what's a leg
exercise suddenly works your abs, or what works your triceps suddenly
turns out into a pec routine.

You see, just 'cause the bench press is great for developing the chest
does not mean that it is primarily the chest that is being worked!
Your legs would be sore from a good run, but it's your heart that's
getting most of the action! Likewise for abs, etc. -- there's a
difference between what an exercise is good for and which muscles are
being worked the most.

> Do a pull-up with a narrow grip, palms facing towards you.
>
> Then do a pull-up a la Arnold, very wide, palms facing away. Are you telling
> me you dont notice any difference?

I notice the difference, but it's not in the lats. It's in the
biceps. Chin-ups are classified as a lats exercise, but they work
mainly the arms.

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 22nd 07, 07:28 PM
On Jul 21, 1:42 pm, Sid Bonfire > wrote:
>
>
> The bench press is one of the exercises that you should use a machine
> or have spotters if you are using free weights. The fear factor
> (rightfully) will kick in when you are struggling to lift a near limit
> weight over your throat lying down.
> I use a universal machine with a 275 lb bench limit. I am now up to 2
> sets of 20 reps at 275 lbs. This really pumps the chest.


I've always rolled the weight off when I "get caught"...carefully
rolled it up to my thighs, and then I'd sit up and heave it like a
deadlift.

I use a power cage now, so I can just bail out when at failure.

The main thing a spotter is good for, I believe, is helping with
forced reps. I've been stuck at 275-lbs. for my two-rep max until
recently because I don't have anyone to help with sticking points.
I'm sure I would have made 50% faster progress with a spotter to help
with forced reps.

Use a power cage if alone. You can't do forced reps, which really
sucks, but at least you don't have to worry about being stuck
underneath the weight (which you can slowly roll off, actually).

Prisoner at War
July 22nd 07, 08:49 PM
On Jul 22, 2:06 pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> 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.

Correction: I had in mind machine crunches, where the hips and legs do
come into play, but on regular crunches, especially where the legs are
raised on a chair or platform, the abs are much better isolated, it's
true, such that legs and hips barely contribute anything except,
possibly, on the last rep or two.

> > --
> > Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

spodosaurus
July 23rd 07, 03:42 AM
Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:06 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>> "spodosaurus" > 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/

Pete
July 23rd 07, 08:26 AM
"Prisoner at War" > 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....

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.

>> 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,"...

The action at the hip is "completely ignored." There is no hip joint
flexion.

> but the fact
> remains that hips and legs get a big ol' workout from most any ab
> exercise you can think of.

If there is hip joint flexion, the hip flexors and a small part of the quads
get some out of it.

--
Pete

Pete
July 23rd 07, 09:03 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> Than you do them wrong.

> Not at all.

Yes you do.

> I know Testosterone Nation doesn't seem to have a good reputation on
> MFW, but their powerlifter coach David Tate at Westside Barbell
> agrees: the bench press is about triceps!

Ehhh... powerlifters HAVE to lockout to make the lift count, so strong
tricep are a nessecity. Makes sense, right?
And if you throw in a power suit, the stress at the lower part of the lift
is transferred from the pecs to the suit, which turns it into a tri dominant
exercise. The grip isnt that wide either.

I will say it one last time.

A wide grip bench press going 2/3 of the way up is circumfering most of the
tricep action.
The PM is contracting, HARD, to move that weight up.

> Probably using more weight than most of y'all, then.

I guess so...

> That's the only explanation possible. These exercises, for all their
> possible nuances, aren't hard to perform, exactly. I mean, we're not
> talking ballet here or something that intricate.

Ah, i see. We are talking about hard, grueling workouts with lots of weights
and lots of sets.

>> It matters, trust me.

> It matters in terms of injury (wide-grip chins open up the opportunity
> for rotator cuff injury more than regular, shoulder-width grips), but
> almost never in terms of muscle development.

When the grip is wide, the humeres is out to the side. And you dont need en
excessive wide grip to accomplish this.
When the humerus is out to the side, the pectoralis major has to contract
very hard to get the humerus upwards.

>> Angle of pull is also very important.

> Depends on for what (actual muscle development or just getting it up?)

Getting it up = muscle development = the same thing.

The point is, which muscles are stressed hardest to get it up...

> and to what degree....

>> Than you do them wrong.

> Not at all. It's like a ham-and-cheese sandwich: you can't do it
> wrong (except in terms of injuring yourself).

If YOU are doing crunches and your legs and hip flexors are working, you do
them wrong!

>> See?

> I do, and, like I was saying, it's not that I did anything wrong, but
> people are mistaken.

Yes.

>> Are you saying that you are incapable of manipulating the angle of pull
>> in
>> such a way that a certain muscle becom,es dominant over others?

> I've been saying that the bench press is a triceps exercise, with the
> pecs thrown in.

Using your logic, pull-ups are a bicep exercise with the back thrown in.

> Has nothing to do with whether your elbows are flared
> or tucked, whether your grip is wide or narrow, whether you lower the
> bar towards your collar or your solarplexus...angles matter, but not
> that much, and angles do not change the exercise, what's being
> exercised.

You are failing to grasp this concept.

You can do a bench press with a foot wide grip, and that will work the
tricep hardest. And if the elbows are also tucked in, and travel alongside
the torso, the delts will do even more than the pecs, so its tri/delt/pec
exercise.

with a 2 1/2 feet wide grip, pressing the bar 2/3 up, it becomes a pec
dominantly exercise, with deltoids second and triceps last.

Do them around shoulder wide, or slightly wider, makes it a very good
all-round exercise.

Same for pullups. Narrow grip with palms facing towards is just different
than a 3 feet wide grip where the retraction of the shoulder blades is a lot
more important than the flexion of the elbows.

>> It can be manipulated, you know.

> We're getting into three-blind-men-and-an-elephant territory...what is
> the "it"?

It meaning the muscles that are stressed the hardest during some compound
exercises.

Like squats. You always use glutes/hams/quads, but how it is divided can be
manipulated.

> Angles matter in terms of muscle recruitment (more pec, less pec,
> etc.),

Thats what i have been saying throughout this thread...

> but they do not change the exercise such that what's a leg
> exercise suddenly works your abs, or what works your triceps suddenly
> turns out into a pec routine.

I never said they will.

> You see, just 'cause the bench press is great for developing the chest
> does not mean that it is primarily the chest that is being worked!

Which was my point from the beginning. Its a pec/delt/tri exercise, but i
said that you can change the way the load is divided onto those muscles.

> Your legs would be sore from a good run, but it's your heart that's
> getting most of the action!

That doesnt even makes sense...

> Likewise for abs, etc. -- there's a
> difference between what an exercise is good for and which muscles are
> being worked the most.

Yes.

Which was my point all along.

>> Do a pull-up with a narrow grip, palms facing towards you.

>> Then do a pull-up a la Arnold, very wide, palms facing away. Are you
>> telling
>> me you dont notice any difference?

> I notice the difference, but it's not in the lats.

Where do you notice the difference?

>It's in the biceps.

So both narrow and wide grips are biceps dominant?

How about retraction/adduction of the shoulder blades and the humerus?

>Chin-ups are classified as a lats exercise, but they work
> mainly the arms.

Because you do them wrong. And they also hit the teres, rhomboids, infra,
supra and traps. Thats a lot of muscle mass.

--
Pete

Tom Anderson
July 23rd 07, 09:16 AM
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Sid Bonfire wrote:

> On Jul 18, 11:05 pm, todtown > wrote:
>
>> Here's the problem. I can not get the bench press to work for me.
>
> The bench press is one of the exercises that you should use a machine
> or have spotters if you are using free weights.

Or dumbbells!

tom

--
Only the bagel has the correct aspect ratio.

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 10:58 AM
On Jul 23, 4:03 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> Yes you do.

Of course, you've now put the idea in my mind that you've been doing
it wrong all this time!

> Ehhh... powerlifters HAVE to lockout to make the lift count, so strong
> tricep are a nessecity. Makes sense, right?

It's still the same exercise. Your triceps do most of the work.
That's the point. Competition form isn't the point.

> And if you throw in a power suit, the stress at the lower part of the lift
> is transferred from the pecs to the suit, which turns it into a tri dominant
> exercise. The grip isnt that wide either.

I don't know about that -- what I do know is what I'm talking about:
the exercise is the same, regardless of why someone performs it. The
bench press mainly works the triceps. It's a chest exercise because
the pecs do get worked, but the real workhorse are the triceps.

> I will say it one last time.
>
> A wide grip bench press going 2/3 of the way up is circumfering most of the
> tricep action.
> The PM is contracting, HARD, to move that weight up.

No, it's contracting hard to help the triceps move the weight up.
It's pulling on the shoulders which are pulling on the arms. The pecs
and shoulders help hold things in place as the arms go through its
range of motion putting up the weight. I really don't know what there
is to deny here.

> I guess so...
>
>
> Ah, i see. We are talking about hard, grueling workouts with lots of weights
> and lots of sets.

The action is still basically the same, I should think, and I can
concede that training in different "styles" (high-weight many sets and
reps versus low-weight many sets and reps) may make you perceive
things differently -- but the physical action is the same, though
likely the "burn" you feel colors your perceptions.

> >> It matters, trust me.
> > It matters in terms of injury (wide-grip chins open up the opportunity
> > for rotator cuff injury more than regular, shoulder-width grips), but
> > almost never in terms of muscle development.
>
> When the grip is wide, the humeres is out to the side.

The closer the shoulder and elbows are to the side the safer you are.
The more away from the side (of the torso) the greater the likelihood
of injury (with a heavy enough weight and/or frequent enough [sets and/
or reps] stress). That's just a basic chiropractic/orthopedic fact,
man!

> And you dont need en
> excessive wide grip to accomplish this.
> When the humerus is out to the side, the pectoralis major has to contract
> very hard to get the humerus upwards.

Yes, but in terms of this issue, I am saying that it doesn't change
the exercise such that suddenly pecs are doing most of the work. Pecs
may be recruited more, but the real Servant of the Bench Press are the
triceps!

> Getting it up = muscle development = the same thing.

Well, I had in mind "getting it up" in the sense of doing whatever it
takes, including cheating and bad form, which are generally not
conducive to muscular development.

> The point is, which muscles are stressed hardest to get it up...

Indeed, and I'm saying it's the triceps. This is why most people feel
their arms more than their pecs. This is why it's recommended to do
the bench press first before doing something for your arms --
particularly your triceps -- because once your arms go, you can't do
the bench press anymore, and that's 'cause they're the ones actually
doing the lift, not the pecs as much!

> If YOU are doing crunches and your legs and hip flexors are working, you do
> them wrong!

Well, like I said in my other post, I was thinking about machine
crunches, where the hips and legs come into play farily soon.

But even with regular, calisthenic crunches I say that there is an
inevitable degree of hip and leg action, only on the very last few
reps.

Biomechanically, you're just not working out hard enough if you are
able to perfectly isolate your muscles like how you're saying is
regularly the case for you. That, or you are very talented in the
mind-muscle link, where you can will past your physiological instincts
which normally recruits all available muscle groups when extremely
stressed.

> Yes.

It's like how we say "push it up" though in actuality muscles only
ever contract, or pull, and never push. Likewise, we call the bench
press a chest exercise even though in reality it is the arms which do
the real work. The pecs are just along for the ride by comparison.

> Using your logic, pull-ups are a bicep exercise with the back thrown in.

And that's what I've been saying from the get-go!

> You are failing to grasp this concept.

You're talking concepts, but I'm talking reality.

Again, the "concept" of running is that you're working out your legs,
right? But it's your heart that's actually responsible for your
performance! Likewise, the "concept" of a bench press is that it's a
chest exercise -- and indeed, it does exercise the chest -- but what's
really doing the work are the arms!

> You can do a bench press with a foot wide grip, and that will work the
> tricep hardest. And if the elbows are also tucked in, and travel alongside
> the torso, the delts will do even more than the pecs, so its tri/delt/pec
> exercise.
>
> with a 2 1/2 feet wide grip, pressing the bar 2/3 up, it becomes a pec
> dominantly exercise, with deltoids second and triceps last.
>
> Do them around shoulder wide, or slightly wider, makes it a very good
> all-round exercise.

Triceps, delts, and pecs are all involved, always. You can tinker
with form to adjust the percentages of their contributions, but it
doesn't change things so much that one or the other is suddenly
dominant, such that it's a chest exercise this way but a deltoid
exercise that way, for instance.

Triceps are the main factor. Pecs are secondary -- always. It could
be 60/40, or 70/30, perhaps, depending on your form and such, but
triceps are always the main factor.

> Same for pullups. Narrow grip with palms facing towards is just different
> than a 3 feet wide grip where the retraction of the shoulder blades is a lot
> more important than the flexion of the elbows.

I am not saying there is no "difference." But the difference is of a
fundamentally different nature that what you're supposing here.

> It meaning the muscles that are stressed the hardest during some compound
> exercises.
>
> Like squats. You always use glutes/hams/quads, but how it is divided can be
> manipulated.

Again, I never said that there is no difference or that things can't
be manipulated -- my thesis has been that the difference is only one
of degree, and not one of kind.

> Thats what i have been saying throughout this thread...

And what I've been saying is that the difference is not so great as to
turn a lead factor (triceps in the bench press) into a secondary
factor.

> I never said they will.

You are implying as much. Recall that I'm saying that triceps are the
main muscle being worked by the bench press. You then point out that
various differences in form make my statement false. You are saying,
thereby, that what's a triceps exercise becomes a chest exercise.

Now, of course, it is your contention that the bench press is a chest
exercise in the first place -- in which case, bringing up different
effects of different form is, you see, a red herring, a digression,
most tangential to what we're discussing.

IOW, cut the crap about form (grip, feet, etc.): we're not contending
that form matters or doesn't matter; we're contending on the
fundamental nature of the exercise.

> Which was my point from the beginning. Its a pec/delt/tri exercise, but i
> said that you can change the way the load is divided onto those muscles.

But not such that what's fundamentally an exercise that mostly works
the triceps becomes an exercise that now primarily works the pecs!

> That doesnt even makes sense...

What don't you understand? One commonly thinks of the legs when it
comes to running, but in fact it's the heart that's driving
everything! Similarly, then, the bench press is commonly thought of
in terms of the pecs, when in reality it's the triceps that are doing
most of the work! What don't you get about that analogy?

> Yes.
>
> Which was my point all along.

No it wasn't. You've confused yourself by having brought up the
tangential point about form and distribution. It's all there, in
black and white.

> Where do you notice the difference?

Like I said, the biceps.

I think you may also be confusing yourself because instead of reading
my statements in their entirety first -- never mind pondering them and
their implications -- you rush to make a response, like you do here,
asking me where do I notice the difference when in the very next
sentence I tell you where. IOW, you're not really reading....

> So both narrow and wide grips are biceps dominant?

Yes. That's the implications of all my remarks. I'm certain I've
even straight-out stated so somewhere in this sub-thread.

> How about retraction/adduction of the shoulder blades and the humerus?

Again, like I said, if you really have that great of a mind-muscle
link, such that you can override physiological instinct (which is to
pull with whatever's around, especially more developed muscles like
the biceps, which are usually the case for the vast majority of
people), it's biceps that do most of the work here.

> Because you do them wrong. And they also hit the teres, rhomboids, infra,
> supra and traps. Thats a lot of muscle mass.

You're confusing yourself again: what they hit (which you keep
bringing up) isn't the same as what they hit most (which is my point,
presumably that under discussion).

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 11:01 AM
That's it: unless you cut out this impotent name-calling and come out
with something macho worthy of MFW's seasonsed cynics, I'll have the
moderator put you in the dark janitorial closet with jmw, bob schuh,
and willy the brink. I know enough about biomechanics to warn you
that it won't be pleasant crammed in there with them and their cats!



On Jul 22, 10:42 pm, spodosaurus > wrote:
>
>
> 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/

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 11:16 AM
On Jul 21, 10:55 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> They are not. Have you ever see me pulling studies out my sleeve?
>
> What i post here are mainly personal observations, based on logic. And a
> little "science." With the help of a video camera, and a computer.

But I was addressing Tom Anderson. Why do you respond as if I'm
wondering about you?

> I read most of AJs books. His insights are really worth the effort to read,
> but he is wrong sometimes too.
>
> He failed to understand that pull-overs with heavy resistance dont build
> nowhere near as much mass in the back as any forms of rows did, and this
> "phenomenon" can be explained quite easily.

I really like his Super Pullover machine because it targets my lats
like nothing else. Without my much stronger arms in the way, as it
were, my lats can finally take the stage and get in on the main
action!

> Which is why Arnie choose to do a lot of wide grip pull-ups and rows. He
> loved rows.

And Muscle Mag International's own book on shoulder injuries says that
wide-grips for width is just a myth.

> I can manipulate just about any movement to put emphasis on certain muscles.
> Its not that hard, really.

You are either extremely talented or very well practiced or badly
mistaken.

But if by "it's not that hard, really," you mean to say that that's
the case for most everyone, then you are definitely badly mistaken.

The mind-muscle link is extremely difficult to cultivate, not just in
bodybuilding, but in any physical activity requiring skill, for most
enthusiasts.

> Yes, they use the flexors in the hip. And one of the heads in the quad
> crosses the hip as well.

And I'm saying that it's mainly about hip and legs, not just
incidentally.

> Man, you are so wrong. There is no hip joint flexion in crunches. Static
> contractions, sure, they probably help to stabilize the body, but the pull
> comes from the abs.

Like I said in two other posts now, I have in mind machine crunches.
But I still think my remarks apply to calisthenic crunches, too, only
towards the last few reps when one really tries to go the extra mile.
But for machine crunches, at least all the ones I've tried (I can
think of four variants right off the top of my head), the hips and
legs jump into play pretty quickly and usually threaten to take over
the effort.

> Than you never did a real crunch. When i work abs, i do something in beteeen
> a crunch and situp.

Heck, that ain't a "real" crunch, either. It's a hybrid, not pure.

But, like I said above and elsewhere, I was thinking about machine
crunches....

> Man, that is really ****ed up.

What's ****ed up is that the emperor has no clothes but everyone nods
along like they see what they don't!

> Even with narrow grip pull-downs with a triangle, i manipulate my body in
> such a wat that some stress from the biceps is transferred to the lats. The
> shoulders and traps dont do much in this movement anyway.

Again, you're either extremely talented, well practiced, or badly
mistaken.

> My lats are just fried when i am finished.

Well, I guess it'd be hard to be mistaken about that -- so, at least
in this case, you are extremely talented or well practiced.

> You have some weird ideas about training.

I don't know why it's weird. Why, the OP, for instance, has
experienced with his bench press exactly what I'm talking about.

He may start parroting the bodybuilding party line later on and also
claim that, yeah, bench presses are really about chests, but right
now, in his beginner's innocence, he perceives clearly that it is his
arms getting the work.

> Nope.

Just the facts.

> Angle of pull.

Sure, but angle of pull cannot change basic physics: no matter how you
pull on your fishing rod, it's still what it is, and can only do so
many things.

> This is wrong.

Um, no....

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 11:32 AM
On Jul 23, 3:26 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
> 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.

> <SNIP>
>
>
> --
> Pete

Pete
July 23rd 07, 12:11 PM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> Yes you do.

> Of course, you've now put the idea in my mind that you've been doing
> it wrong all this time!

No i didnt.

>> Ehhh... powerlifters HAVE to lockout to make the lift count, so strong
>> tricep are a nessecity. Makes sense, right?

> It's still the same exercise.

Ehhh... NO!

Its NOT the same exercise with a shirt. Ask the tech dudes like Keith or JMW
if you dont take my word for it.
It shifts the load to the tris by taking it of the pecs. I am quite sure
about this.

>Your triceps do most of the work.

Not with a wide grip. And certainly NOT without a shirt and skipping the
last 1/3 of the ROM!

>That's the point. Competition form isn't the point.

You came up with WestSide, not me.

>> And if you throw in a power suit, the stress at the lower part of the
>> lift
>> is transferred from the pecs to the suit, which turns it into a tri
>> dominant
>> exercise. The grip isnt that wide either.

> I don't know about that -- what I do know is what I'm talking about:
> the exercise is the same, regardless of why someone performs it.

No.

Doing a bench with shirt, in PL is different from a bench without a shirt,
WITH a wide grip, and without locking out.

Sure, its still a bench press, but the load has been shifted.

> The bench press mainly works the triceps. It's a chest exercise because
> the pecs do get worked, but the real workhorse are the triceps.

Man, where did you get that idea that compounds work mainly the arms ?!?!?!

You said the same thing about pull-ups.

And i will say again that YOU are performing them wrong, and that you also
fail to grasp this whole concept!

>> I will say it one last time.

>> A wide grip bench press going 2/3 of the way up is circumfering most of
>> the
>> tricep action.
>> The PM is contracting, HARD, to move that weight up.

> No, it's contracting hard to help the triceps move the weight up.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The pectoralis MAJOR as an assistor to the *SMALLER* triceps !?!?!?

> It's pulling on the shoulders which are pulling on the arms.

No. Its pulling dirctly at the humerus. Do you have any idea about
origin/insertion?

The delts, in the wide grip version, help pushing the weight up, but also
help stabilize/balance the bar. The tris are doing what they were supposed
to designed for ion the first place, extending the arm and locking it.

The chest cant do that. And you know what?

The humerus travels all the way up, doesnt it?

You see, the tris CANT do that! In fact, because on the tris heads
originates at the shouldef blades, it helps to bring the humeras
backwards/downwards, NOT forwards!

The pectorals *PRIMARY* function is to bring the humerus forwards/inwards.

> The pecs and shoulders help hold things in place as the arms go through
> its
> range of motion putting up the weight. I really don't know what there
> is to deny here.

Stubborn fella, arent you?

If you look at the bench, moderate/ wide grip, what happens to the humerus?
You are completely fixed at the elbow joint extension, which is only part of
the movement.

I can make the same analogy to squats. According to your logic, the work the
quads and NOT the glutes.
Extension at the knee-joint, right?

>> I guess so...

>> Ah, i see. We are talking about hard, grueling workouts with lots of
>> weights
>> and lots of sets.

> The action is still basically the same, I should think, and I can
> concede that training in different "styles" (high-weight many sets and
> reps versus low-weight many sets and reps) may make you perceive
> things differently -- but the physical action is the same, though
> likely the "burn" you feel colors your perceptions.

That has NOTHING to do with angle of pull. Weights and % are not relevant.

>> > It matters in terms of injury (wide-grip chins open up the opportunity
>> > for rotator cuff injury more than regular, shoulder-width grips), but
>> > almost never in terms of muscle development.

>> When the grip is wide, the humeres is out to the side.

> The closer the shoulder and elbows are to the side the safer you are.
> The more away from the side (of the torso) the greater the likelihood
> of injury (with a heavy enough weight and/or frequent enough [sets and/
> or reps] stress). That's just a basic chiropractic/orthopedic fact,
> man!

We were not talink about injuries. YOU claimed that the bench is a tricep
exercise!
And injuries can be avoided by a narrow and curved bench.

>> And you dont need en
>> excessive wide grip to accomplish this.
>> When the humerus is out to the side, the pectoralis major has to contract
>> very hard to get the humerus upwards.

> Yes, but in terms of this issue, I am saying that it doesn't change
> the exercise such that suddenly pecs are doing most of the work.

You are failing to grasp the entire concept.

> Pecs may be recruited more...

You are slowly getting there...

> but the real Servant of the Bench Press are the
> triceps!

How do you explain the upward travel of the humerus !?!?!?

>> Getting it up = muscle development = the same thing.

> Well, I had in mind "getting it up" in the sense of doing whatever it
> takes, including cheating and bad form, which are generally not
> conducive to muscular development.

I was reffering to getting an X amount of weight up in good style, of
course...

>> The point is, which muscles are stressed hardest to get it up...

> Indeed, and I'm saying it's the triceps. This is why most people feel
> their arms more than their pecs. This is why it's recommended to do
> the bench press first before doing something for your arms --...

No.

The recommandation is based on the fact that compound exercises drain more
energy, and if you exhaust the tris before you start benching you have to
use less weight and pectoral stimulation is limited!

Just like exhausting the bis before wide grip pull-ups!

> particularly your triceps -- because once your arms go, you can't do
> the bench press anymore, and that's 'cause they're the ones actually
> doing the lift, not the pecs as much!

NO!

They are part of the lift, like a chain! If one fails, the lift fails!

At which point during the lift do the tris usually fail? In which part of
the lift does the power suit helps?
If you can answer both, you may have find the secret of benching.

>> If YOU are doing crunches and your legs and hip flexors are working, you
>> do
>> them wrong!

> Well, like I said in my other post, I was thinking about machine
> crunches, where the hips and legs come into play farily soon.

THAN IT IS NO LONGER A CRUNCH, WE CALL IT A SIT UP !!!!!!!!!!!!

Or sit crunch. My favorite for ab/flexor stimulation.

> But even with regular, calisthenic crunches I say that there is an
> inevitable degree of hip and leg action, only on the very last few
> reps.

When you are cheating, and turn it into a sit-up!

> Biomechanically, you're just not working out hard enough if you are
> able to perfectly isolate your muscles like how you're saying is
> regularly the case for you.

We were NOT talking about perfect isolation!

We were talking about compound movements, and how they can can be performed
differently to put emphasis on some muscles.

> That, or you are very talented in the
> mind-muscle link, where you can will past your physiological instincts
> which normally recruits all available muscle groups when extremely
> stressed.

Which is called bodybuilding. You see, when you are out there with just
spears and stones, you are not thinking about targetting muscles, its all
about survival.

Bodybuilding has several compound movements. And isolation movements.
There are also variations on most compound movements, and they are there for
a reason.

>> Yes.

> It's like how we say "push it up" though in actuality muscles only
> ever contract, or pull, and never push.

Yeah, muscles pull. Like the pectorals who pull at the humerus. See?

> Likewise, we call the bench
> press a chest...

No.

Its a compound for pec/delt/tris, or tri/delt/pecs. Or delt/pec/tri.

> exercise even though in reality it is the arms which do
> the real work. The pecs are just along for the ride by comparison.

The pecs bring the humerus forward.upward. The tris cant do that.

>> Using your logic, pull-ups are a bicep exercise with the back thrown in.

> And that's what I've been saying from the get-go!

I noticed.

>> You are failing to grasp this concept.

> You're talking concepts, but I'm talking reality.

No, i am talking hamburgers, with cheese and tomatoes.

> Again, the "concept" of running is that you're working out your legs,
> right? But it's your heart that's actually responsible for your
> performance!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then in the future, run with your heart and ignore the legs.

> Likewise, the "concept" of a bench press is that it's a
> chest exercise -- and indeed, it does exercise the chest -- but what's
> really doing the work are the arms!

I need a tranquilizer...

>> You can do a bench press with a foot wide grip, and that will work the
>> tricep hardest. And if the elbows are also tucked in, and travel
>> alongside
>> the torso, the delts will do even more than the pecs, so its tri/delt/pec
>> exercise.

>> with a 2 1/2 feet wide grip, pressing the bar 2/3 up, it becomes a pec
>> dominantly exercise, with deltoids second and triceps last.

>> Do them around shoulder wide, or slightly wider, makes it a very good
>> all-round exercise.

> Triceps, delts, and pecs are all involved, always.

Yes.

>You can tinker with form to adjust the percentages of their
>contributions...

YES !!!

> but it doesn't change things so much that one or the other is suddenly
> dominant, such that it's a chest exercise this way but a deltoid
> exercise that way, for instance.

Weird that wide grip rows doesnt do much for the lattissimus, isnt it? How
weird...

> Triceps are the main factor. Pecs are secondary -- always.

And the humerus is pulled by?

> It could be 60/40, or 70/30, perhaps, depending on your form and such, but
> triceps are always the main factor.

Not if you do them wide grip.

>> Same for pullups. Narrow grip with palms facing towards is just different
>> than a 3 feet wide grip where the retraction of the shoulder blades is a
>> lot
>> more important than the flexion of the elbows.

> I am not saying there is no "difference." But the difference is of a
> fundamentally different nature that what you're supposing here.

What nature?

>> It meaning the muscles that are stressed the hardest during some compound
>> exercises.

>> Like squats. You always use glutes/hams/quads, but how it is divided can
>> be
>> manipulated.

> Again, I never said that there is no difference or that things can't
> be manipulated -- my thesis has been that the difference is only one
> of degree, and not one of kind.

Yes.

>> Thats what i have been saying throughout this thread...

> And what I've been saying is that the difference is not so great as to
> turn a lead factor (triceps in the bench press) into a secondary
> factor.

Your thesis is wrong.

>> I never said they will.

> You are implying as much. Recall that I'm saying that triceps are the
> main muscle being worked by the bench press.

That depends how they are performed.

> You then point out that
> various differences in form make my statement false.

Yes.

>You are saying, thereby, that what's a triceps exercise becomes a chest
>exercise.

Dominantly pecs. The arms still extend by elbow joint flexion.

Is it so hard to understand that if you have 2 1/2 feet wide grip, and press
2/3 of the way up, the tris are circumvented in some ways?

Again... why do PLers need amazingly strong triceps?

What does a power suit do, why and where?

> Now, of course, it is your contention that the bench press is a chest
> exercise in the first place...

You are twising my words. Its an all-round exercise for pec/delts tris.

Smaller grips will involve the tris more. Wider the pecs.
Circumventing the lockout leave the tris out even more.

> -- in which case, bringing up different
> effects of different form is, you see, a red herring, a digression,
> most tangential to what we're discussing.

Okay.

> IOW, cut the crap about form (grip, feet, etc.): we're not contending
> that form matters or doesn't matter; we're contending on the
> fundamental nature of the exercise.

Okay.

Keep in mind that exercises were made up by humans.

>> Which was my point from the beginning. Its a pec/delt/tri exercise, but i
>> said that you can change the way the load is divided onto those muscles.

> But not such that what's fundamentally an exercise that mostly works
> the triceps becomes an exercise that now primarily works the pecs!

Again...

Which muscle pulls the humerus forward?

>> That doesnt even makes sense...

> What don't you understand?

You.

> One commonly thinks of the legs when it
> comes to running, but in fact it's the heart that's driving
> everything!

I need some more meds...

> Similarly, then, the bench press is commonly thought of
> in terms of the pecs, when in reality it's the triceps that are doing
> most of the work! What don't you get about that analogy?

I am sure that with the right combination of meds, i will grasp that
analogy...

>> Yes.

>> Which was my point all along.

> No it wasn't. You've confused yourself...

Haha!

> by having brought up the
> tangential point about form and distribution. It's all there, in
> black and white.

>> Where do you notice the difference?

> Like I said, the biceps.

Yeah, benches are a truly great bicep builder!

> I think you may also be confusing yourself because instead of reading
> my statements in their entirety first -- never mind pondering them and
> their implications -- you rush to make a response, like you do here,
> asking me where do I notice the difference when in the very next
> sentence I tell you where. IOW, you're not really reading....

This doesnt even makes sense anymore...

>> So both narrow and wide grips are biceps dominant?

> Yes. That's the implications of all my remarks.

Okay. So 3 feet wide grips in pull-ups are bicep dominant, eh?

Okay...

> I'm certain I've
> even straight-out stated so somewhere in this sub-thread.

>> How about retraction/adduction of the shoulder blades and the humerus?

> Again, like I said, if you really have that great of a mind-muscle
> link, such that you can override physiological instinct (which is to
> pull with whatever's around, especially more developed muscles like
> the biceps, which are usually the case for the vast majority of
> people), it's biceps that do most of the work here.

No.

>> Because you do them wrong. And they also hit the teres, rhomboids, infra,
>> supra and traps. Thats a lot of muscle mass.

> You're confusing yourself again: what they hit (which you keep
> bringing up) isn't the same as what they hit most (which is my point,
> presumably that under discussion).

According to you, all the compounds for the upper body, the presses and
pulls, work dominanltly the biceps/triceps with the "assistance" of large
powerfull muscle groups like back and chest/delts

And grip wide doesnt matter, either. According to you.

--
Pete

Pete
July 23rd 07, 12:27 PM
"Prisoner at War" > 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

Pete
July 23rd 07, 01:12 PM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> They are not. Have you ever see me pulling studies out my sleeve?

>> What i post here are mainly personal observations, based on logic. And a
>> little "science." With the help of a video camera, and a computer.

> But I was addressing Tom Anderson. Why do you respond as if I'm
> wondering about you?

Because i like the idea that everything revolves around me. Oh, and i am a
control freak, in case you havent noticed...

>> I read most of AJs books. His insights are really worth the effort to
>> read,
>> but he is wrong sometimes too.

>> He failed to understand that pull-overs with heavy resistance dont build
>> nowhere near as much mass in the back as any forms of rows did, and this
>> "phenomenon" can be explained quite easily.

> I really like his Super Pullover machine because it targets my lats
> like nothing else. Without my much stronger arms in the way, as it
> were, my lats can finally take the stage and get in on the main
> action!

And there is only rotation, no pulling action. 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.

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.

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.

>> Which is why Arnie choose to do a lot of wide grip pull-ups and rows. He
>> loved rows.

> And Muscle Mag International's own book on shoulder injuries says that
> wide-grips for width is just a myth.

Dont twist my words. please...

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.

>> I can manipulate just about any movement to put emphasis on certain
>> muscles.
>> Its not that hard, really.

> You are either extremely talented or very well practiced or badly
> mistaken.

I am extremely talented and very well practiced.

> But if by "it's not that hard, really," you mean to say that that's
> the case for most everyone, then you are definitely badly mistaken.

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

> The mind-muscle link is extremely difficult to cultivate, not just in
> bodybuilding, but in any physical activity requiring skill, for most
> enthusiasts.

It all begins with angle of pull.

>> Yes, they use the flexors in the hip. And one of the heads in the quad
>> crosses the hip as well.

> And I'm saying that it's mainly about hip and legs, not just
> incidentally.

Between the ribcage and pelvis lies the abdominals.

>> Man, you are so wrong. There is no hip joint flexion in crunches. Static
>> contractions, sure, they probably help to stabilize the body, but the
>> pull
>> comes from the abs.

> Like I said in two other posts now, I have in mind machine crunches.
> But I still think my remarks apply to calisthenic crunches, too, only
> towards the last few reps when one really tries to go the extra mile.

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

> But for machine crunches, at least all the ones I've tried (I can
> think of four variants right off the top of my head), the hips and
> legs jump into play pretty quickly and usually threaten to take over
> the effort.

Than you must limit the ROM.

>> Than you never did a real crunch. When i work abs, i do something in
>> beteeen
>> a crunch and situp.

> Heck, that ain't a "real" crunch, either.

See?

> It's a hybrid, not pure.

I know.

> But, like I said above and elsewhere, I was thinking about machine
> crunches....

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

>> Man, that is really ****ed up.

> What's ****ed up is that the emperor has no clothes but everyone nods
> along like they see what they don't!

Ahhhh...

>> Even with narrow grip pull-downs with a triangle, i manipulate my body in
>> such a wat that some stress from the biceps is transferred to the lats.
>> The
>> shoulders and traps dont do much in this movement anyway.

> Again, you're either extremely talented, well practiced, or badly
> mistaken.

Talented and practiced.

>> My lats are just fried when i am finished.

> Well, I guess it'd be hard to be mistaken about that -- so, at least
> in this case, you are extremely talented or well practiced.

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

>> You have some weird ideas about training.

> I don't know why it's weird. Why, the OP, for instance, has
> experienced with his bench press exactly what I'm talking about.

Yes.

And there are ways to correct it.

> He may start parroting the bodybuilding party line later on and also
> claim that, yeah, bench presses are really about chests, but right
> now, in his beginner's innocence, he perceives clearly that it is his
> arms getting the work.

Yes.

>> Nope.

> Just the facts.

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

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

>> Angle of pull.

> Sure, but angle of pull cannot change basic physics: no matter how you
> pull on your fishing rod, it's still what it is, and can only do so
> many things.

Okay.

>> This is wrong.

> Um, no....

Yes.

--
Pete

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 02:35 PM
On Jul 23, 8:12 am, "Pete" > 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

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 02:37 PM
On Jul 23, 7:27 am, "Pete" > 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

Curt
July 23rd 07, 02:40 PM
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?

*******s.

--
Curt

Tom Anderson
July 23rd 07, 03:11 PM
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...

spodosaurus
July 23rd 07, 05:41 PM
Pete wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" > 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
>
>

At the risk of sounding like a seasoned group regular: this guy is
either a ****wit or a troll. He already knows everything, so it's
useless to let him know he's wrong. The best you can do is warn newbies
not to listen to him.

Cheers,

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/

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 07:14 PM
On Jul 23, 7:11 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> No i didnt.

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

> Ehhh... NO!
>
> Its NOT the same exercise with a shirt. Ask the tech dudes like Keith or JMW
> if you dont take my word for it.
> It shifts the load to the tris by taking it of the pecs. I am quite sure
> about this.

I wasn't talking about a shirt there, and neither were you. I don't
even know what a shirt is when it comes to bench presses. You were
talking about form, not aides.

> Not with a wide grip. And certainly NOT without a shirt and skipping the
> last 1/3 of the ROM!

The wider the grip, the more the pecs and rotator cuff tendons come
into play. Sure. But the triceps are still what's actually, most
directly, throwing the weight up.

> You came up with WestSide, not me.

To make the point that some powerlifters know what I'm talking about.
Not to go off on a tangent about shirts and grips.

> No.

Yes: I repeat -- the exercise is the same, regardless of
motivation...I think you're confusing yourself here with an all-too-
intense earnesty that misses the forest for the trees.

> Doing a bench with shirt, in PL is different from a bench without a shirt,
> WITH a wide grip, and without locking out.

I was talking motivation there, not aides and accessories.

> Sure, its still a bench press, but the load has been shifted.

Dude, you've just gone off on your own separate conversation now....

> Man, where did you get that idea that compounds work mainly the arms ?!?!?!
>
> You said the same thing about pull-ups.
>
> And i will say again that YOU are performing them wrong, and that you also
> fail to grasp this whole concept!

I'm not performing them wrong. How the heck can I heave up 295-lbs.
for two clean reps, slow and controlled, otherwise? Like I said, Dave
Tate of Westside Barbell wrote on T-Nation that bench presses are
about triceps. Is he doing 'em wrong, too?

I don't understand what you could possibly be doing over there in
Smurf Land, short of having extremely talented mind-muscle link in
order to circumvent the body's natural reaction to primarily recruit
the tris...maybe I should explain this to you in Dutch, ja?? ^_^

> AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The pectoralis MAJOR as an assistor to the *SMALLER* triceps !?!?!?

Hey, just don't throw no weights around, okay...is this why MFW has no
women nowadays....

> No. Its pulling dirctly at the humerus. Do you have any idea about
> origin/insertion?

Sorry, I was using the word "shoulders" there in a colloquial manner.
Yes, it pulls on the humerus, helping -- helping, mind you -- the
triceps push the bar up.

> The delts, in the wide grip version, help pushing the weight up, but also
> help stabilize/balance the bar. The tris are doing what they were supposed
> to designed for ion the first place, extending the arm and locking it.
>
> The chest cant do that. And you know what?
>
> The humerus travels all the way up, doesnt it?
>
> You see, the tris CANT do that! In fact, because on the tris heads
> originates at the shouldef blades, it helps to bring the humeras
> backwards/downwards, NOT forwards!

When the triceps contract, they straighten the arm. I don't disagree
with what you say at all here, but you seem to not want to give due
credit to the load they carry. Kinda like how the West likes to think
it won WWII when it's really the Russians that did it.

> The pectorals *PRIMARY* function is to bring the humerus forwards/inwards.

I think you're manufacturing straw-man arguments now. I'm not denying
the function of the pecs; just saying that in the bench press it's the
triceps doing most of the work.

> Stubborn fella, arent you?

Well, if I weren't, I would have settled for a 275-pound bench....

> If you look at the bench, moderate/ wide grip, what happens to the humerus?
> You are completely fixed at the elbow joint extension, which is only part of
> the movement.

I'm not denying the contribution of the pecs. I am simply saying that
it's not the main factor.

> I can make the same analogy to squats. According to your logic, the work the
> quads and NOT the glutes.
> Extension at the knee-joint, right?

I've only just adopted squats, and have a paltry max of 225 for five
sets of five right now...so I must recuse myself from commenting on
the mechanics of that movement.

> That has NOTHING to do with angle of pull. Weights and % are not relevant.

Oh dear...the dumbbells and plates are all over the place now...where
are the bar clips or collars??

You brought up weights...you're bringing up percentages right now for
some reason...I was just saying that -- since you mentioned weights
and sets -- perhaps your doing a relatively light poundage has you
feeling that aerobic-like burn and pump which colors your perceptions
of which muscle makes the most contribution....

> We were not talink about injuries. YOU claimed that the bench is a tricep
> exercise!
> And injuries can be avoided by a narrow and curved bench.

We're talking about the bench press. You brought up grip widths. I
said they don't matter all that much, except for injuries (wider grips
increase likelihood of problems).

Next!

> You are failing to grasp the entire concept.

Look, whatever...I'm benching 295 now and that's my "theory" right
there.

> You are slowly getting there...

I've been waiting for you all along.

> How do you explain the upward travel of the humerus !?!?!?

That's the pecs -- but that's not the main thing putting up the
weight! Once the arm has been brought to a certain angle, where the
triceps can be effective, the triceps take over!

> I was reffering to getting an X amount of weight up in good style, of
> course...

Okay....

> No.
>
> The recommandation is based on the fact that compound exercises drain more
> energy, and if you exhaust the tris before you start benching you have to
> use less weight and pectoral stimulation is limited!

If it were onlya matter of overall energy, one could replenish that.
But the fact is that the triceps would also be too "damaged" (in the
sense of fibral micro-tears) to do the serious work of a bench press.

Look, why do you think dumbbell bench presses are harder than barbell
bench presses? I can put up 295 with a barbell, but does that mean I
simply divide 295 by 2 and can do 147.5 in each hand with a dumbbell
press? No, and it's 'cause the triceps can't do that much, no matter
what the pecs do! The pecs can bring the humerus to a certain
position, but then it's up to the tris to actually put it up! And
they can't because they ain't that strong! So you see, it's dependent
on the tris, mainly, to actually put the weight up, the pecs' great
contribution notwithstanding....

> Just like exhausting the bis before wide grip pull-ups!

Anyway....

> NO!
>
> They are part of the lift, like a chain! If one fails, the lift fails!

True -- but the pecs are the weaker link, as it were.

> At which point during the lift do the tris usually fail? In which part of
> the lift does the power suit helps?
> If you can answer both, you may have find the secret of benching.

What the heck is a power suit -- a skin-tight costume with an "S" logo
and a red cape??

I don't know how to describe the point where my triceps typically
fails, but it seems to be at either of two certain points....

> THAN IT IS NO LONGER A CRUNCH, WE CALL IT A SIT UP !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Or sit crunch. My favorite for ab/flexor stimulation.

The machine is labeled an ab cruncher. I don't know if it's just
marketing or what, but that was what I had in mind, mainly.

Anyway, I certainly concede the point on a proper calisthenic crunch.

> When you are cheating, and turn it into a sit-up!

I think the muscles just kick in automatically...but, anyway, I'm
conceding this part of the debate because it's not where my main
"interest" lies....

> We were NOT talking about perfect isolation!

Sure sounds like it...it's either that you have great mind-muscle link
or you're not going heavy enough....

> We were talking about compound movements, and how they can can be performed
> differently to put emphasis on some muscles.

You can put only but so much emphasis. I am saying that you can't put
enough emphasis to change an exercise fundamentally.....

> Which is called bodybuilding.

Sure...but...then?

> You see, when you are out there with just
> spears and stones, you are not thinking about targetting muscles, its all
> about survival.
>
> Bodybuilding has several compound movements. And isolation movements.
> There are also variations on most compound movements, and they are there for
> a reason.

Right...so...what?.

> Yeah, muscles pull. Like the pectorals who pull at the humerus. See?

Not disputing that. Don't know why you bring it up.

> No.

Yes -- it's listed under "chest" in all books and used on "chest
days"....

> Its a compound for pec/delt/tris, or tri/delt/pecs. Or delt/pec/tri.

Whatever. At this point, dude, I don't even care! I just know that
I'm doing 295 and will be hitting 315 by Christmas!!!

> The pecs bring the humerus forward.upward. The tris cant do that.

The tris straighten the arm. The pecs set it up so that it can
straighten. Don't you see that as a supporting role? (It's a
rhetorical question.)

> I noticed.

So why you bring it up like it's a breaking news flash?

> No, i am talking hamburgers, with cheese and tomatoes.

Someone should make plates like that: big 45s as meat patties, 35s as
cheese, 25s as tomato slices, lil' 10s as pickles....

> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
> HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete, wake up! It's just usenet!

> Then in the future, run with your heart and ignore the legs.

No one says to ignore the legs. But we're talking about what's the
main factor.

> I need a tranquilizer...

You need to pile on some more plates on that barbell, I think...then
you'll see how much work your triceps do!

It also makes you feel nice and calm afterwards, too, a good bench
press....

> Yes.

Whew!

> YES !!!

But -- !

> Weird that wide grip rows doesnt do much for the lattissimus, isnt it? How
> weird...

Erm, no comment....

> And the humerus is pulled by?

Dude, we're definitely in blind-men-and-elephant territory here.

Let me just say that I'm now doing 2 clean reps of 295!! Some good
news for a change, eh....

> Not if you do them wide grip.

Look, if you want to do a crazy-assed super wide grip on nice and
light weight such that you basically cut out the triceps, then sure,
you've proven your point.

That ain't gonna have you doing 295, though!

> What nature?

Um, never mind.

> Yes.

You know what, even though you don't mean it as such, I'll just take
that agreement and leave things at that. Sick of being a blind man
around an elephant.

> Your thesis is wrong.

Nuh uh uh -- too late. You said "yes" and I've accepted it.

> That depends how they are performed.

Ah, trying to out-brink the brink, will you?

No, you said "yes" so that's that.

> Yes.

....

> Dominantly pecs. The arms still extend by elbow joint flexion.
....

> Is it so hard to understand that if you have 2 1/2 feet wide grip, and press
> 2/3 of the way up, the tris are circumvented in some ways?
>
> Again... why do PLers need amazingly strong triceps?
>
> What does a power suit do, why and where?

Sorry, don't know...all I know is that you agree with me and that I'm
lifting 295!

> You are twising my words. Its an all-round exercise for pec/delts tris.

Oh stop playing semantic games here -- the standard term "chest
exercise" doesn't mean pecs-only...sheesh -- if I didn't know better,
I'd think you were arguing about Muslims or homosexuals here...!

> Smaller grips will involve the tris more. Wider the pecs.
> Circumventing the lockout leave the tris out even more.

No comment!

> Okay.

Well, too late now, you could've agreed much earlier....

> Okay.
>
> Keep in mind that exercises were made up by humans.

Even pain itself is, ultimately, illusory...okay....

> Again...
>
> Which muscle pulls the humerus forward?

The arm as a whole still needs to straighten after the humerus --
upper arm -- is pulled into a position conducive to such whole-arm
straightening...you're missing the forest for the trees here....

> You.

It's okay. We're talking about the human body here. It's quite
mysterious, with great variability on top of that. Take it easy!

> I need some more meds...

You need more plates on that barbell, I reckon!

> I am sure that with the right combination of meds, i will grasp that
> analogy...

Dude, just rack the bar and heave...you'll see....

> Haha!

It is funny, two gym rats arguing at the water fountain over what most
makes the bench press a bench press. Never thought I'd come to this!

> Yeah, benches are a truly great bicep builder!

Man, pay attention! We weren't talking about benches at that point,
but pull-ups, which you brought up!

> This doesnt even makes sense anymore...

'Cause, like I said there, you don't seem to be reading my comments in
their entirety, like right there, immediately above....

> Okay. So 3 feet wide grips in pull-ups are bicep dominant, eh?

The wider the grip, the less the biceps are involved...sure you can
construct a crazy-assed exercise that really detracts from the biceps'
role, okay, I grant you that...but so what?

> Okay...

It is. No big deal, really!

> No.

They do. But hey, as long as you're happy with your work outs, all
this is just academic and idle water fountain speculation.

> According to you, all the compounds for the upper body, the presses and
> pulls, work dominanltly the biceps/triceps with the "assistance" of large
> powerfull muscle groups like back and chest/delts
>
> And grip wide doesnt matter, either. According to you.

I don't say they don't matter. Just saying that they are not
dominant.

Heck, my left biceps is throbbing right now, the same that got hurt
from the chin-up (likely precipitated by an unintentional barbell row/
deadlift hybrid earlier in the week!).

No more typing. See you around the rest of MFW, Petey ol' boy! I
hope you'll still spot me doing the bench press, no matter what you
believe about it....

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 07:19 PM
On Jul 23, 9:40 am, Curt > 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.

> *******s.

Nah, just MFW regulars.

> --
> Curt

Prisoner at War
July 23rd 07, 07:22 PM
On Jul 23, 10:11 am, Tom Anderson > 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...

Curt
July 23rd 07, 11:04 PM
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.

--

Curt
July 23rd 07, 11:20 PM
Prisoner at War wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > May I suggest a time-out?
>
> Only if there are young nubile dancing cheerleaders in mini-skirts and
> thongs.

I'll see what I can do. Carlisle is, after all, a college town. Home
to Dickinson College ( http://www.dickinson.edu/ ) and Penn State's
The Dickinson School of Law ( http://www.dsl.psu.edu/ ). Pub crawls
abound.

And if it's dancers you're looking for, well, Carlisle is also home to
the Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet. CPYB has Open Program for
adults as well as the tots. Let me know when you're in the area. ;o)

> > 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.

Hey, you say potato. Uh, never mind.

> > 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.

It probably doesn't. I attended the d wells school of exercise
education.

(No offense, d.)

> > c) deeper chest vs. wider chest
>
> ???

Exactly!

> > d) other
>
> Explain: _________________________________________.

Hey, I accept True/False and Multiple Choice only. NO Essay questions!

> > 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.

My philosophy as well.

> > Why are you both looking at me?
>
> It's your big red nose.

Dammit.

> > *******s.
>
> Nah, just MFW regulars.

A cuter and cuddlier bunch you couldn't ask for!

--
Curt

Pete
July 24th 07, 10:02 AM
"Prisoner at War" > 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

Pete
July 24th 07, 10:23 AM
"Prisoner at War" > 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

Tom Anderson
July 24th 07, 11:51 AM
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Prisoner at War" > 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&TermToSearch=12423182

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&TermToSearch=15228624

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

Pete
July 24th 07, 11:53 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> Its NOT the same exercise with a shirt. Ask the tech dudes like Keith or
>> JMW
>> if you dont take my word for it.
>> It shifts the load to the tris by taking it of the pecs. I am quite sure
>> about this.

> I wasn't talking about a shirt there, and neither were you. I don't
> even know what a shirt is when it comes to bench presses. You were
> talking about form, not aides.

You just dont get it. I tried to explain something about the dynamics of the
bench press, and tried to use the power-suit (shirt) as anexample. You see,
you can use more weight when you put the shirt on. Why do think that is?

But... you still need VERY strong triceps. The shirt helps to take the
stress of the pectorals.

Please, dont let me make you call stupid, i dont like namecalling. If the
shirt helps to take stress of the pecs, and as a result you can use more
weight, what do YOU think that says about the involvement of the pecs in the
bench?

That they were not *highly* involved to begin with ?!?!?!

Than how does the shirt work?

I use the shirt example to explain to you that the pecs are highly involved,
keep THAT in mind.

>> Not with a wide grip. And certainly NOT without a shirt and skipping the
>> last 1/3 of the ROM!

> The wider the grip, the more the pecs and rotator cuff tendons come
> into play. Sure. But the triceps are still what's actually, most
> directly, throwing the weight up.

Than a shirt doesnt help to bench more weight, right?

>> You came up with WestSide, not me.

> To make the point that some powerlifters know what I'm talking about.
> Not to go off on a tangent about shirts and grips.

Its an analogy to still fail to grasp.

We are just not on the same page wrt application of logic.

>> Sure, its still a bench press, but the load has been shifted.

> Dude, you've just gone off on your own separate conversation now....

No.

I have been OT throughout this entire thread. You fail to grasp that.

>> And i will say again that YOU are performing them wrong, and that you
>> also
>> fail to grasp this whole concept!

> I'm not performing them wrong. How the heck can I heave up 295-lbs.
> for two clean reps, slow and controlled, otherwise?

See?

You are completely clueless. We were not talking about record lifts, but
which exercise stimulates which muscles, and how a load can be divided
differently over certain muscle groups by making adjustments.

> Like I said, Dave
> Tate of Westside Barbell wrote on T-Nation that bench presses are
> about triceps. Is he doing 'em wrong, too?

See?

You dont get it. Thats from a PL point of view, wether he is right or wrong,
doesnt matter.
We were taloikg about wther or not bench presses stimulate pecs wrt triceps.

Another hint:

A lift doesnt count when its not completely locked out. Do you understand
now why tris are important to PLers?

Even Keith said several times that all you need for a good bench are lotsa
benches and some tricep work. I didnt realize that before he said it, but i
understood it immediately.

PLers couldnt care less about pectoral development, which is what we are
talking about. Despite that, PLers have usually pretty good pecs. But during
the bench, the bar doesnt travel that deep, due to fact that PLers have
usually relatively big ribcages and short arms.

Which takes a bit of pectoral stress out of the equation.
I am getting tired explaining to you why that is.

Must i also explainwhy i prefer low inclines and dips over flat benches

> I don't understand what you could possibly be doing over there in
> Smurf Land, short of having extremely talented mind-muscle link in
> order to circumvent the body's natural reaction to primarily recruit
> the tris...maybe I should explain this to you in Dutch, ja?? ^_^

Yeah, the mushrooms have ****ed up my brain so badly i am not capable of
uderstunding foreign languages anymore.

>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> The pectoralis MAJOR as an assistor to the *SMALLER* triceps !?!?!?

>> No. Its pulling dirctly at the humerus. Do you have any idea about
>> origin/insertion?

> Sorry, I was using the word "shoulders" there in a colloquial manner.
> Yes, it pulls on the humerus, helping -- helping, mind you -- the
> triceps push the bar up.

Haha!

>> The humerus travels all the way up, doesnt it?

> I think you're manufacturing straw-man arguments now. I'm not denying
> the function of the pecs; just saying that in the bench press it's the
> triceps doing most of the work.

Depends on the grip width. And the way the humerus travels down/sideways.

>> That has NOTHING to do with angle of pull. Weights and % are not
>> relevant.

> Oh dear...the dumbbells and plates are all over the place now...where
> are the bar clips or collars??

> You brought up weights...

Ehhh... no, actually that was you.

> you're bringing up percentages right now for
> some reason...I was just saying that -- since you mentioned weights
> and sets -- perhaps your doing a relatively light poundage has you
> feeling that aerobic-like burn and pump which colors your perceptions
> of which muscle makes the most contribution....

Thats because i am so weak and tou are so immensly strong.

>> We were not talink about injuries. YOU claimed that the bench is a tricep
>> exercise!
>> And injuries can be avoided by a narrow and curved bench.

> We're talking about the bench press.

Yes.

> You brought up grip widths.

Yes.

>I said they don't matter all that much...

Than try a foot wide grip for several months followed by a 2 1/2 feet wide
grip.
You will be in pain. And its not the tris that are going to hurt.

>> You are failing to grasp the entire concept.

> Look, whatever...I'm benching 295 now and that's my "theory" right
> there.

See? We were not even discussing record lifts. Because you bench 295 you
claim your thesis is right?

Your way of thinking is twisted.

>> How do you explain the upward travel of the humerus !?!?!?

> That's the pecs -- but that's not the main thing putting up the
> weight! Once the arm has been brought to a certain angle, where the
> triceps can be effective, the triceps take over!

Really? They do? Funny how that works...

You see, when the grip is wider, you have "shifted" that "crossover" point.
With compounds, there is ALWAYS a croosover point, and by making a few
changes, that crossover point can be shifted, and its possible to activate a
certain muscle (pecs) for a longer amount of time and reduce another muscle
(tris) time max. under tension.

When you use a 2 1/2 feet wide grip, and press 2/3 of theway up, your tris
are just ouside that crossover point. Which doesnt mean you didnt use them.
there is always elbow joint extension, but the stress has been reduced at
the elbow joint.

> Look, why do you think dumbbell bench presses are harder than barbell
> bench presses?

Harder to balance, and a longer ROM.

> I can put up 295 with a barbell, but does that mean I
> simply divide 295 by 2 and can do 147.5 in each hand with a dumbbell
> press?

No.

> No, and it's 'cause the triceps can't do that much, no matter
> what the pecs do!

In fact, the tris work harder during DB presses...

>The pecs can bring the humerus to a certain
> position, but then it's up to the tris to actually put it up! And
> they can't because they ain't that strong! So you see, it's dependent
> on the tris, mainly, to actually put the weight up, the pecs' great
> contribution notwithstanding....

Ah!

>> They are part of the lift, like a chain! If one fails, the lift fails!

> True -- but the pecs are the weaker link, as it were.

If they are the weaker link, they have to work harder, silly!

>> At which point during the lift do the tris usually fail? In which part of
>> the lift does the power suit helps?
>> If you can answer both, you may have find the secret of benching.

> What the heck is a power suit -- a skin-tight costume with an "S" logo
> and a red cape??

Yes.

>> We were NOT talking about perfect isolation!

> Sure sounds like it...it's either that you have great mind-muscle link
> or you're not going heavy enough....

I am not going heavy enough.

>> We were talking about compound movements, and how they can can be
>> performed
>> differently to put emphasis on some muscles.

> You can put only but so much emphasis. I am saying that you can't put
> enough emphasis to change an exercise fundamentally.....

Ah!

>> Bodybuilding has several compound movements. And isolation movements.
>> There are also variations on most compound movements, and they are there
>> for
>> a reason.

> Right...so...what?.

Thats the topic we are discussing, isnt it?

>> Yeah, muscles pull. Like the pectorals who pull at the humerus. See?

> Not disputing that. Don't know why you bring it up.

I am convinced now that you really dont.

>> Its a compound for pec/delt/tris, or tri/delt/pecs. Or delt/pec/tri.

> Whatever. At this point, dude, I don't even care! I just know that
> I'm doing 295 and will be hitting 315 by Christmas!!!

Which proves that the bench work mainly the tris?

>> The pecs bring the humerus forward.upward. The tris cant do that.

> The tris straighten the arm. The pecs set it up so that it can
> straighten. Don't you see that as a supporting role? (It's a
> rhetorical question.)

I think you really believe that it is...

> You need to pile on some more plates on that barbell, I think...then
> you'll see how much work your triceps do!

Reming to use more weight during cable rows, so i can actually feel my
biceps work, too...

>> Weird that wide grip rows doesnt do much for the lattissimus, isnt it?
>> How
>> weird...

> Erm, no comment....

Thats because you seem to be unable to understyand the difference.

>> And the humerus is pulled by?

> Dude, we're definitely in blind-men-and-elephant territory here.

> Let me just say that I'm now doing 2 clean reps of 295!! Some good
> news for a change, eh....

Yes.

And that certainly proves your tris over pecs theory

> light weight such that you basically cut out the triceps, then sure,
> you've proven your point.

I remember seeing Nubret benching 300 pounds for 8 reps, wide grip, at 220
pounds, and yes, his pecs really sucked.

> You know what, even though you don't mean it as such, I'll just take
> that agreement and leave things at that. Sick of being a blind man
> around an elephant.

Fine.

>> Your thesis is wrong.

> Nuh uh uh -- too late. You said "yes" and I've accepted it.

Silly...

> Ah, trying to out-brink the brink, will you?

> No, you said "yes" so that's that.

Silly...

>> Again... why do PLers need amazingly strong triceps?

>> What does a power suit do, why and where?

> Sorry, don't know..

I kow you dont.


>> You are twising my words. Its an all-round exercise for pec/delts tris.

>> Smaller grips will involve the tris more. Wider the pecs.
>> Circumventing the lockout leave the tris out even more.

> No comment!

Obvious...

>> Okay.

> Well, too late now, you could've agreed much earlier....

Silly...

>> Which muscle pulls the humerus forward?

> The arm as a whole still needs to straighten after the humerus --
> upper arm -- is pulled into a position conducive to such whole-arm
> straightening...you're missing the forest for the trees here....

Sure.

>> You.

> It's okay. We're talking about the human body here. It's quite
> mysterious, with great variability on top of that. Take it easy!

Sure.

>> I need some more meds...

> You need more plates on that barbell, I reckon!

Because i am soweak and you are so immensly strong...

> Dude, just rack the bar and heave...you'll see....

>> Haha!

>> Okay. So 3 feet wide grips in pull-ups are bicep dominant, eh?

> I don't say they don't matter. Just saying that they are not
> dominant.

> Heck, my left biceps is throbbing right now, the same that got hurt
> from the chin-up (likely precipitated by an unintentional barbell row/
> deadlift hybrid earlier in the week!).

> No more typing. See you around the rest of MFW, Petey ol' boy! I
> hope you'll still spot me doing the bench press, no matter what you
> believe about it....

Sure.

--
Pete

David Cohen
July 24th 07, 12:06 PM
"Pete" > wrote, and wrote, and wrote, 14 kbs worth:
> "Prisoner at War" > schreef:
<who the **** cares what he schreef>

Pete, as you know, Ari, who is a very patient and generally nice and
tolerant person, has concluded that this moron is either a "****wit" or a
"troll".

I'm voting "****wit".

David

Pete
July 24th 07, 12:08 PM
"Tom Anderson" > 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:

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12423182

> 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&TermToSearch=15228624

> Says the same.

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

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.

If both are done with the torso straight up and motionless, than yes, wide
grips get give more stimulation then narrow grips.

--
Pete

Pete
July 24th 07, 12:26 PM
"David Cohen" > schreef:

> <who the **** cares what he schreef>

> Pete, as you know, Ari, who is a very patient and generally nice and
> tolerant person, has concluded that this moron is either a "****wit" or a
> "troll".

He is either very bright and knows how to get respones out of me, or he just
dont get it.

> I'm voting "****wit".

Seconded.

--
Pete

Tom Anderson
July 24th 07, 02:33 PM
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" > 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

Curt
July 25th 07, 03:13 AM
Pete wrote:
> Prisoner at War schreef:
[...]

> A lift doesnt count when its not completely locked out. Do you
> understand now why tris are important to PLers?

Oh, those crazy powerlifters and their rules. The lights, however, are
very decorative.

[...]

> PLers couldnt care less about pectoral development, which is
> what we are talking about. Despite that, PLers have usually
> pretty good pecs.

*******s.

[...]

> > <snip> skin-tight costume with an "S" logo and a red cape??

Lee Priest is at it again?

--
Curt

Curt
July 25th 07, 03:16 AM
Pete wrote:
> "David Cohen" schreef:
>
> > <who the **** cares what he schreef>
> > Pete, as you know, Ari, who is a very patient and generally nice and
> > tolerant person, has concluded that this moron is either a "****wit" or a
> > "troll".
>
> He is either very bright and knows how to get respones out of me, or he just
> dont get it.
>
> > I'm voting "****wit".
>
> Seconded.

Regardless, this thread has had more exercise execution elocution
innit than many an MFW post in recent days. So, yeah, there's that.

--
Curt

Prisoner at War
July 25th 07, 09:53 PM
On Jul 24, 6:53 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> You just dont get it. I tried to explain something about the dynamics of the
> bench press, and tried to use the power-suit (shirt) as anexample. You see,
> you can use more weight when you put the shirt on. Why do think that is?

I don't know anything about no powerlifting shirts, so any point you
try to make based on it will be lost on me. Sorry.

> But... you still need VERY strong triceps. The shirt helps to take the
> stress of the pectorals.

Okay. I'm still not familiar with those shirts, so I really can't
say. Please address my remarks on their own terms if you mean to
defeat them.

> Please, dont let me make you call stupid, i dont like namecalling.

Names don't matter. Depending on who it's coming from, it can even be
quite a compliment!

>If the
> shirt helps to take stress of the pecs, and as a result you can use more
> weight, what do YOU think that says about the involvement of the pecs in the
> bench?

So if they invent something which takes the weight off the triceps so
that more weight can be moved, does that prove my point about the
triceps's involvment in the bench press???

Resorting to argument-by-accessory has gotten you confused over what
we're talking about here.

> That they were not *highly* involved to begin with ?!?!?!
>
> Than how does the shirt work?
>
> I use the shirt example to explain to you that the pecs are highly involved,
> keep THAT in mind.

Straw-man argument, Pete.

Look, I never said that they weren't "highly" involved...neither did I
say that they were. My point is that the triceps are the main
contributor. You're saying the pecs are the main contributor. No
one's arguing that the pecs don't contribute, or contribute heavily.
It's whether they are a primary factor, overall.

> Than a shirt doesnt help to bench more weight, right?

Look, I don't know about no shirts, okay? So it does help bench more
weight, so what? What if there's an aide which help the triceps in a
similar fashion; would that prove my point that tris are the primary
muscles involved? No. The accessory hasn't any relevance to the
question of whether the muscle is or is not the star of the show.

> Its an analogy to still fail to grasp.

?

> We are just not on the same page wrt application of logic.

We seem to have different premises.

Anyway, **** logic: you know they can invent whole particle physics
theories which are logically consistent but have no real-world
analogue, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/science/24ferm.html?ref=science

> No.
>
> I have been OT throughout this entire thread. You fail to grasp that.

OT = Off Topic, dude!

LOL

Hey, maybe this is one of them glass half-full/half-empty (OT=off-
topic/on-topic) situations....

> See?
>
> You are completely clueless. We were not talking about record lifts, but
> which exercise stimulates which muscles, and how a load can be divided
> differently over certain muscle groups by making adjustments.

I lift two clean, slow, controlled reps at 295-lbs. I know how I do
it. My pecs never get sore from it. It's my triceps which get sore.
Maybe my pecs are clueless, but I'm not!

> See?
>
> You dont get it. Thats from a PL point of view, wether he is right or wrong,
> doesnt matter.
> We were taloikg about wther or not bench presses stimulate pecs wrt triceps.

Maybe you are -- in which case you're preaching to the choir, since I
have no argument there. Of course the pecs work in conjunction with
the tris! My point is that the tris are the major contributor to the
overall effort.

> Another hint:
>
> A lift doesnt count when its not completely locked out. Do you understand
> now why tris are important to PLers?

Pete, you're confusing yourself. I don't care if pink shorts and
green jelly beans are important to powerlifters' bench presses. I'm
only saying that tris are more important than pecs overall in that
movement!

> Even Keith said several times that all you need for a good bench are lotsa
> benches and some tricep work. I didnt realize that before he said it, but i
> understood it immediately.

I don't know who Keith is and at this point I don't want to know
'cause you keep bringing up everything else when the point is very
simple: tris do more work than pecs on the bench press.

> PLers couldnt care less about pectoral development, which is what we are
> talking about.

No we're not! I'm not talking "development" at all. I'm simply
saying that tris do more work on the bench press than pecs. Pecs get
developed by the bench press, sure, but tris are the prime movers of
that exercise!

> Despite that, PLers have usually pretty good pecs. But during
> the bench, the bar doesnt travel that deep, due to fact that PLers have
> usually relatively big ribcages and short arms.
>
> Which takes a bit of pectoral stress out of the equation.
> I am getting tired explaining to you why that is.

Dude, it's okay. If you've made your point already, no need to
belabor it on my account. I'm well on my way to reclaiming 315!!!

> Must i also explainwhy i prefer low inclines and dips over flat benches

Ummm....is that a trick question or a serious invitation -- to
injury???

> Yeah, the mushrooms have ****ed up my brain so badly i am not capable of
> uderstunding foreign languages anymore.

Do shrooms have an anabolic effect? I'm serious. Maybe not since
they calm you, right? But them other drugs that make you go
psycho...I wonder if they've ever helped anyone lift serious
poundage....

> Haha!

It's a ticklish notion, yes -- most iconoclastic positions are. But I
know the report of my own muscles, and those of powerlifters and
newbies.

Hey, maybe that explains why I'm a better bodybuilder than you! =D

> Depends on the grip width. And the way the humerus travels down/sideways.

Okay, at this point, I'm just going to have do one of them "no
comment" things on you....

> Ehhh... no, actually that was you.

No comment!

> Thats because i am so weak and tou are so immensly strong.

Noooooo comment!!

> Yes.

No comment!

> Yes.

No comment!

> Than try a foot wide grip for several months followed by a 2 1/2 feet wide
> grip.
> You will be in pain. And its not the tris that are going to hurt.

No comment!

> See? We were not even discussing record lifts. Because you bench 295 you
> claim your thesis is right?

Because I bench 295, it really doesn't matter what you or I say. I
can attribute it to faith in Satan and you can it's from bitch tits --
it doesn't matter. Just trying to keep all our theorizing in
perspective, that's all, 'cause you seem to be getting more upset than
Dutchmen ever were over Maastricht!

> Your way of thinking is twisted.

Yabadabadoo -- weight-lifting does remodel the mind, you know.

> Really? They do? Funny how that works...
>
> You see, when the grip is wider, you have "shifted" that "crossover" point.
> With compounds, there is ALWAYS a croosover point, and by making a few
> changes, that crossover point can be shifted, and its possible to activate a
> certain muscle (pecs) for a longer amount of time and reduce another muscle
> (tris) time max. under tension.
>
> When you use a 2 1/2 feet wide grip, and press 2/3 of theway up, your tris
> are just ouside that crossover point. Which doesnt mean you didnt use them.
> there is always elbow joint extension, but the stress has been reduced at
> the elbow joint.

I think you're just engaging in what semanticists call "verbal
barking," inundating verbiage which seems intellectually intimidating
but which are besides the point.

> Harder to balance, and a longer ROM.
>
> No.
>
> In fact, the tris work harder during DB presses...

I agree with that!

> Ah!
>
> If they are the weaker link, they have to work harder, silly!

Is that what's eating you, then???

I'm not saying who "works harder" but who "contributes most"...indeed,
we stumble over semantics!

> Yes.

jmw wears a leopard skin, though.

> I am not going heavy enough.

Well, get that powersuit out of your closet!

> Ah!

Relax, don't take credit for something that I've been saying from the
get-go....

> Thats the topic we are discussing, isnt it?

No comment!

> I am convinced now that you really dont.

No comment.

> Which proves that the bench work mainly the tris?

For me it does! Hey, maybe you should "tri" it too!!

> I think you really believe that it is...

No comment!

> Reming to use more weight during cable rows, so i can actually feel my
> biceps work, too...

I don't do cable rows...don't like that flimsy feeling....

> Thats because you seem to be unable to understyand the difference.

Just don't want to go off on another wild tangent with you, Flying
Dutchman!

> Yes.
>
> And that certainly proves your tris over pecs theory

Just proves that there's no arguing with 295, baby!!!

> I remember seeing Nubret benching 300 pounds for 8 reps, wide grip, at 220
> pounds, and yes, his pecs really sucked.

How's Nubret doing? Tell him next time you see him that I said not to
"tri" so hard.

> Fine.
>
> Silly...
>
> Silly...
>
> I kow you dont.
>
> Obvious...
>
> Silly...
>
> Sure.
>
> Sure.
>
> Because i am soweak and you are so immensly strong...
>
> Sure.

So, anyway, any advice on how to proceed after the 315? I'm scared
thinking about it...I wanna put up four plates on each side by next
December...how I get there, I'm not sure...just keep doing what I've
been doing?? I'm afraid my lil' seven-inch wrists will snap...hey,
you do know that wrists are the main factor behind the bench press,
didn't you???

;-)

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 25th 07, 10:08 PM
On Jul 24, 5:23 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> Profasi is an *excellent* testosterone booster. Second to none.

Hehehe...can't I just take the girl instead??

> --
> Pete

Pete
July 27th 07, 09:16 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> You just dont get it. I tried to explain something about the dynamics of
>> the
>> bench press, and tried to use the power-suit (shirt) as anexample. You
>> see,
>> you can use more weight when you put the shirt on. Why do think that is?

> I don't know anything about no powerlifting shirts, so any point you
> try to make based on it will be lost on me. Sorry.

Thats okay.

http://www.crueldrawings.com/galleries/hines.html?hin=06&pic=6

> So, anyway, any advice on how to proceed after the 315?

Ever tried insulin?

> I'm scared thinking about it...I wanna put up four plates on each side by
> next
> December...how I get there, I'm not sure...just keep doing what I've
> been doing?? I'm afraid my lil' seven-inch wrists will snap...

I used to have sex with feminine jointed men when i was in prison.

And they loved it.

> hey, you do know that wrists are the main factor behind the bench press,
> didn't you???

You sure had me going there, bro!

--
Pete

Prisoner at War
July 31st 07, 01:13 AM
On Jul 24, 5:02 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> I am sneaky. I pretend to be a nice, and before you know it, i contol your
> thoughts.

I don't know why you think that's so sneaky -- it's been practiced by
jmw here for ages.

> 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.

Well, that machine isn't supposed to work everything -- we all agree
calisthenics and free weights provide generally superior exercise.

> 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...

Truth to tell, I only do any exercise 'cause it's fun. I've developed
a great physique (photos coming soon, so that I can do before and
after comparisons in a year) doing just simple calisthenics and a few
basic free weight movements, as well as, I believe, jogging.

So I'm not sure what's a great back-builder. I only know that my arms
inevitably come into play, such that they do the majority of the
work. Not the correct form, too much weight -- yes, I know...maybe
I'm just physically, anatomically incapable of executing a true or
ideal pull-up or pull-down, but anyway, these exercises are for me and
many others primarily about arms and shoulders, with the back just
beginning to come into play towards the very last handful of reps.

> Narrow grip.

But I'm talking about the Nautilus Super Pullover machine, which has
no grip!

> 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.

Hello, why don't *you* try to figure out how to follow the thread of a
conversation instead of having to write things out repeatedly. I was
talking about Nautilius Super Pullover machines!

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

You know, this is all like an argument over a government-mandated
minimum wage. I say there should be, you say no, and you produce a
prodigious list of reasons why not, with charts and references and
maybe even a horoscope or two.

Kinda besides the point.

You talk about insertion points and all kinds of technical anatomy.
You sound like you know what you're talking about. But how do I
know? What I do know is that my triceps are what drive my bench press
-- all due respect to my pecs notwithstanding.

> 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.

I've heard that, but it doesn't seem like it should be such a
"technical" feat -- this isn't gymnastics we're talking about, after
all.

Indeed, it's kind of weird how such a seemingly simple movement could
be done "wrong"...but, anyway, believe it or not, I hope I'm wrong!
'Cause I'd really love to add another good back exercise into my
routine.

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

I've already noted that theory under an earlier post this year about
Bob Cicherillo's advice concerning width.

But I was just stating that wide grips building width is a myth.
That's according to the chiropractor who wrote Robert Kennedy's little
book on shoulder injuries.

> NewsGroup.

Heh, I was afraid that's what you'd meant.

> <SNIP>
>
> The hips dont pull anything, its just a bone.

Obviously, I'm referring to hip muscles.

> 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.

Well, I had in mind machine crunches, but whatever the exact
percentages ("most" versus "least"), I wish all these exercises worked
for me as they ideally should.

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

I understand what you mean -- I'm just saying, let's not start another
sub-thread!

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

You're in your own little head there. What's for me to get? If you
want to talk to me about a statement of mine, you need to deal with it
on my terms, see it from my perspective and address it that way.
Instead, you're trying to talk French to an Irishman. Hello??

> 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.

I have "Strength Training Anatomy," too, and I know that the biceps
are what's primarily responsible for bending the elbow.

But, heck, my forearms get blasted way before my biceps...it's like in
a war where you have to go throw a bunch of PVTs to get to the GEN....

> 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.

Why? So you can start another argument over it??

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

They contract hard, but for some reason, it's not them that get burn
or pump or sore later on.

> 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?

Well, if you only ever do your bench presses half-way down and back
up, it seems when you try doing a full and proper press your muscles
wouldn't know what to do, given the unfamiliar ROM....

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

Are you a lawyer or something? It's like I'm saying, this is
pornography, and you split hairs over whether the Venus de Milo is
also porn, etc.

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

I already told you: some weightlifters like Dave Tate of Westside
Barbell who writes on T-Nation, as well as others who experience what
I'm talking about.

> 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.

As I noted elsewhere, we seem to be starting from different premises.

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

I don't pretend to know why. I'm just saying that it's so. You want
to bring in anatomical detail, that's cool. But don't get angry
because I'm operating anecdotally while you're in an anatomical mode
of thought.

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

Okay, I see what you mean by "why"...you're talking about "why" in the
sense of "how" -- specifically, how A causes B. I was responding in
the colloquial, general sense of "why"....

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

I see where you're coming from now.

Well, Jesus ****ing Christ, why didn't you just say so??

You're talking about "why" and "logic" in the sense of anatomical
facts.

We're not playing the same game, as I'd long said; not having the same
conversation. Looking at the same thing, but having different
conversations about it.

> I am not playng games, i am discussing training
>
> >you have bullybrink and company for that.
>
> Who are probably lauging very hard right now...

Who cares? What's funny is you think that means anything.

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

I've already given my examples. Of course, they don't meet with your
approval because, as I've said, we're having different conversations
here, though about the same thing.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...hey, whatever. If it makes you
feel better, I'll concede the point. It still feels like my arms are
doing most of the work, and I'm lifting 295 right now, regardless of
how it actually happens.

This has been an interesting conversation, though. If you have any
books to recommend on biomechanics, let me know. Perhaps by reading
up on anatomy in such detail and within a physical (as in "physics")
context, I can better develop a muscle-mind link (through
visualization, etc.) which will help me experience the kind of
muscular contractions that I'm supposed to....

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
July 31st 07, 01:18 AM
On Jul 27, 4:16 am, "Pete" > wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" > schreef:
>
> >> You just dont get it. I tried to explain something about the dynamics of
> >> the
> >>benchpress, and tried to use the power-suit (shirt) as anexample. You
> >> see,
> >> you can use more weight when you put the shirt on. Why do think that is?
> > I don't know anything about no powerlifting shirts, so any point you
> > try to make based on it will be lost on me. Sorry.
>
> Thats okay.
>
> http://www.crueldrawings.com/galleries/hines.html?hin=06&pic=6
>
> > So, anyway, any advice on how to proceed after the 315?
>
> Ever tried insulin?
>
> > I'm scared thinking about it...I wanna put up four plates on each side by
> > next
> > December...how I get there, I'm not sure...just keep doing what I've
> > been doing?? I'm afraid my lil' seven-inch wrists will snap...
>
> I used to have sex with feminine jointed men when i was in prison.
>
> And they loved it.
>
> > hey, you do know that wrists are the main factor behind thebenchpress,
> > didn't you???
>
> You sure had me going there, bro!
>
> --
> Pete



Okay, so you're a Dutch jailbird who learned English from the faggot
cellmate???

Muslims should definitely take over.

Pete
August 1st 07, 10:33 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

> Okay, so you're a Dutch jailbird who learned English from the faggot
> cellmate???

Not really. English was a gift i got from birth.

And my cellmate wasnt a faggot. He was a heterosexual Asian guy i used to
rear-end.

When you close your eyes, Asian guys are the next best thing to the real
thing.

They have smooth skins, no bodyhair at all and give excellent blow-jobs.
That erect 4 incher reminds me of a huge clit.

God... i miss prison!

> Muslims should definitely take over.

Really?

Perhaps you ask the Koreans about that.

--
Pete

Pete
August 1st 07, 10:54 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

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

> I don't know why you think that's so sneaky -- it's been practiced by
> jmw here for ages.

There are always more experienced.

>> 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.

> So I'm not sure what's a great back-builder.

Rows and pulldowns/pullups.

> I only know that my arms
> inevitably come into play, such that they do the majority of the
> work.

Allready answered.

> Not the correct form, too much weight -- yes, I know...maybe
> I'm just physically, anatomically incapable of executing a true or
> ideal pull-up or pull-down, but anyway, these exercises are for me and
> many others primarily about arms and shoulders, with the back just
> beginning to come into play towards the very last handful of reps.

How doest that work? They work the final reps but not the initial ones?

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

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

> You know, this is all like an argument over a government-mandated
> minimum wage. I say there should be, you say no, and you produce a
> prodigious list of reasons why not, with charts and references and
> maybe even a horoscope or two.

> Kinda besides the point.

Kinda like your statement about bench presses and pull-ups?

You claim they work mainly the arms because.... well, because!

> You talk about insertion points and all kinds of technical anatomy.
> You sound like you know what you're talking about.

Yes.

> But how do I know?

I told you insulin is a very effective and safe substance, so its a safe
assumption for you that you can trust me.

> What I do know is that my triceps are what drive my bench press

Because?

> -- all due respect to my pecs notwithstanding.>
>> 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.

> I've heard that, but it doesn't seem like it should be such a
> "technical" feat -- this isn't gymnastics we're talking about, after
> all.

It isnt. Mind you, i am not even one of the techno dudes in this newsgroup.

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

> You're in your own little head there. What's for me to get? If you
> want to talk to me about a statement of mine, you need to deal with it
> on my terms, see it from my perspective and address it that way.
> Instead, you're trying to talk French to an Irishman. Hello??

Hello.

>> 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.

> I have "Strength Training Anatomy," too, and I know that the biceps
> are what's primarily responsible for bending the elbow.

Okay.

>> 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.

> Why?

What happens to the wrist if the flexors in the forearm do not contract
during curls?

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

> They contract hard, but for some reason, it's not them that get burn
> or pump or sore later on.

Really?

Okay.

>> 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?

> Well, if you only ever do your bench presses half-way...

I didnt say halfway. Although it would work.
2/3- 3/4 is somewhat better.

> down and back
> up, it seems when you try doing a full and proper press your muscles
> wouldn't know what to do, given the unfamiliar ROM....

If you claim that your tris are doing the majority of work during bench
presses, you really should learn how to avoid lockouts...

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

> Are you a lawyer or something?

Worse.

A salesman. I get paid to tell lies.

>> I start to wonder who has put that idea intoyour head.
>
> I already told you: some weightlifters like Dave Tate of Westside
> Barbell who writes on T-Nation, as well as others who experience what
> I'm talking about.

Ah, okay...

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

> I don't pretend to know why. I'm just saying that it's so. You want
> to bring in anatomical detail, that's cool. But don't get angry
> because I'm operating anecdotally while you're in an anatomical mode
> of thought.

Angry?

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

> Okay, I see what you mean by "why"...you're talking about "why" in the
> sense of "how" -- specifically, how A causes B. I was responding in
> the colloquial, general sense of "why"....

Ahhhhhhhhhh....

> I see where you're coming from now.

> Well, Jesus ****ing Christ, why didn't you just say so??

> You're talking about "why" and "logic" in the sense of anatomical
> facts.

> We're not playing the same game, as I'd long said; not having the same
> conversation. Looking at the same thing, but having different
> conversations about it.

>> I am not playng games, i am discussing training

>> >you have bullybrink and company for that.

>> Who are probably lauging very hard right now...

> Who cares? What's funny is you think that means anything.

No, whats funny is that you think... nevermind.

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

> I've already given my examples. Of course, they don't meet with your
> approval because, as I've said, we're having different conversations
> here, though about the same thing.

Yes.

Bench presses work mainly the tris... because they work mainly the tris.

I understand now.

> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...hey, whatever. If it makes you
> feel better, I'll concede the point. It still feels like my arms are
> doing most of the work, and I'm lifting 295 right now, regardless of
> how it actually happens.

> This has been an interesting conversation, though. If you have any
> books to recommend on biomechanics, let me know. Perhaps by reading
> up on anatomy in such detail and within a physical (as in "physics")
> context, I can better develop a muscle-mind link (through
> visualization, etc.) which will help me experience the kind of
> muscular contractions that I'm supposed to....

--
Pete

Prisoner at War
August 1st 07, 03:03 PM
On Aug 1, 5:54 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
>
><SNIP>
>
>
> How doest that work? They work the final reps but not the initial ones?

The principle is that the final reps are the ones that really stress
the muscles...all the reps before those are just priming things
up...kinda like how airlines only turn a profit with the last handful
of seats on a flight (everything else just covers costs).

Not another argument, please: just saying.

> Kinda like your statement about bench presses and pull-ups?
>
> You claim they work mainly the arms because.... well, because!

I claim it based on personal experience, and the anecdotal
observations of others. You counter with technical verbiage which I
cannot answer to. You could simply be bamboozling me for all I know,
and you could be totally correct -- there's simply no way for me to
answer on that level. It's like I'm talking about God and you want to
talk physics. Different kinds of conversation here.

> <SNIP>
>
>
> Because?

"Already answered."

> It isnt. Mind you, i am not even one of the techno dudes in this newsgroup.

Well, you're doing a good job impression non-tech folks like me, only
I can't answer to anything like that so don't get upset at me because
of your insistence that I speak Greek with you!

> What happens to the wrist if the flexors in the forearm do not contract
> during curls?

You hurt it, according to Dr. Levy's "Sports Injury Handbook," which
I'm reading currently.

> I didnt say halfway. Although it would work.
> 2/3- 3/4 is somewhat better.

Q.E.D., then!

> If you claim that your tris are doing the majority of work during bench
> presses, you really should learn how to avoid lockouts...

I don't know what a lock-out is, but it doesn't sound like anything I
do. I straighten my arms to demonstrate control, but I don't think I
lock my elbows, because I don't want all the weight going on them.

> Worse.
>
> A salesman. I get paid to tell lies.

Whereas you tell the truth for free?

> Ah, okay...

Okay?

> Angry?

You sound very frustrated.

> Yes.
>
> Bench presses work mainly the tris... because they work mainly the tris.
>
> I understand now.

Reductio ad absurdum. That's on you. Right there, I've just said
that bench presses mainly work my tris, and others say that too, and
you want to make an issue of "why" (in the sense of "how")...but
however it works, that's how it works. You're the one who wants to
argue. Why is it so important for you that other people's experiences
conform to your theories of biomechanics? Perhaps our chest muscles
are so strong that it's our tris getting the real workout on the bench
press. Whatever the reason is, "why" is a straw-man argument you've
set up with yourself. You're just ****ing on your own leg here! But
you're mad at me for jumping out of the way.

> --
> Pete

Prisoner at War
August 1st 07, 03:11 PM
On Aug 1, 5:33 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>
> Not really. English was a gift i got from birth.
>
> And my cellmate wasnt a faggot. He was a heterosexual Asian guy i used to
> rear-end.
>
> When you close your eyes, Asian guys are the next best thing to the real
> thing.
>
> They have smooth skins, no bodyhair at all and give excellent blow-jobs.
> That erect 4 incher reminds me of a huge clit.

Yo, even if sarcasm, that's seriously sick. Whoa. No wonder the
Muslims are winning. You're such degenerates. Hitler was right. The
East will bury you.

> God... i miss prison!

Yeah, you smurfs are funny that way...why are all the psycho-sexual
serial killers whiteboys? What is it about white people that makes
them so crazy??? And then you complain about the Muslims taking
over...what a larf! You are degenerates, and the rest of the world
will bury you. China alone has five thousand years of civilization to
the whole West's apogee of only five hundred.

Keeping dreaming about your drugs, guns, and gay porn...what
degenerates!

> Really?
>
> Perhaps you ask the Koreans about that.

Who cares about the Koreans, ****ing Christian crazies, bull**** they
picked up like AIDS from you Euro trash faggots.

> --
> Pete

Lucas Buck
August 1st 07, 09:27 PM
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:11:28 -0700, Prisoner at War > wrote:

>On Aug 1, 5:33 am, "Pete" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not really. English was a gift i got from birth.
>>
>> And my cellmate wasnt a faggot. He was a heterosexual Asian guy i used to
>> rear-end.
>>
>> When you close your eyes, Asian guys are the next best thing to the real
>> thing.
>>
>> They have smooth skins, no bodyhair at all and give excellent blow-jobs.
>> That erect 4 incher reminds me of a huge clit.
>
>Yo, even if sarcasm, that's seriously sick. Whoa. No wonder the
>Muslims are winning. You're such degenerates. Hitler was right. The
>East will bury you.

The East certainly buried HIM, anyway.

>Yeah, you smurfs are funny that way...why are all the psycho-sexual
>serial killers whiteboys? What is it about white people that makes
>them so crazy??? And then you complain about the Muslims taking
>over...what a larf! You are degenerates, and the rest of the world
>will bury you. China alone has five thousand years of civilization

If that's how you define "civilization" -- big bureaucracy, few accomplishments.
Their biggest engineering accomplishment didn't do the job, and most of their
artistic efforts were buried underground...

and eventually get their asses kicked by two different small island nations
in different centuries...

and they still cling to their primitive pictographic written language, centuries after
"uncivilized" nations went to more efficient alphabetic texts.

Meanwhile, they kill their own people to sell their organs to foreigners and
corrupt party powermongers and supply-chain theives poison people and
livestock alike to make an extra buck.


This is a definition of "civilization" with which I was previously unfamiliar.



DISCLAIMER: Lucy Liu is still hot, anyway.

Pete
August 2nd 07, 08:58 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> They have smooth skins, no bodyhair at all and give excellent blow-jobs.
>> That erect 4 incher reminds me of a huge clit.

> Yo, even if sarcasm, that's seriously sick. Whoa. No wonder the
> Muslims are winning.

Who says they are winning?

> You're such degenerates.

Sure.

The Europeans are really degenerates. In contrast to the Asians, of course.

Europeans are so degenerate, that millons have gone to Asia to mob the
floors over there.

Its the only way for us to make money.

That, and letting our 5 and 6 year cousins getting involved in prostitution,
or letting them work 20 hours a day in factories.

Yes, our culture is backwards.

> Hitler was right. The
> East will bury you.

Sure they will.

>> God... i miss prison!

> Yeah, you smurfs are funny that way...why are all the psycho-sexual
> serial killers whiteboys?

Because the White people are inferior.

In contrast to "muslims" or Asians, who are clearly superior.

> What is it about white people that makes
> them so crazy??? And then you complain about the Muslims taking
> over...what a larf! You are degenerates, and the rest of the world
> will bury you. China alone has five thousand years of civilization to
> the whole West's apogee of only five hundred.

Yes, and they have certainly accomplished a lot in those 5 thousand years.

I am so jealous. I wish we were more like the Chinese.

Then we would at least be able to drive in decent cars. Truly state of the
art.

> Keeping dreaming about your drugs, guns, and gay porn...what
> degenerates!

>> Really?

>> Perhaps you ask the Koreans about that.

> Who cares about the Koreans, ****ing Christian crazies, bull**** they
> picked up like AIDS from you Euro trash faggots.

Yep.

And spread it all the way to Indonesia.

No worries, though. The Asians have an excellent health care system.

Of course, in contast to ours, which really sucks.,

--
Pete

Pete
August 2nd 07, 09:21 AM
"Prisoner at War" > schreef:

>> How doest that work? They work the final reps but not the initial ones?

> The principle is that the final reps are the ones that really stress
> the muscles...all the reps before those are just priming things
> up...kinda like how airlines only turn a profit with the last handful
> of seats on a flight (everything else just covers costs).

Ah, i see!

> Not another argument, please: just saying.

Okay.

>> Kinda like your statement about bench presses and pull-ups?

>> You claim they work mainly the arms because.... well, because!

>> What happens to the wrist if the flexors in the forearm do not contract
>> during curls?

> You hurt it, according to Dr. Levy's "Sports Injury Handbook," which
> I'm reading currently.

Yes.

>> If you claim that your tris are doing the majority of work during bench
>> presses, you really should learn how to avoid lockouts...

> I don't know what a lock-out is, but it doesn't sound like anything I
> do. I straighten my arms to demonstrate control...

Yes. I am sure you do.

>> Bench presses work mainly the tris... because they work mainly the tris.

>> I understand now.

> Reductio ad absurdum. That's on you. Right there, I've just said
> that bench presses mainly work my tris, and others say that too, and
> you want to make an issue of "why" (in the sense of "how")...but
> however it works, that's how it works. You're the one who wants to
> argue. Why is it so important for you that other people's experiences
> conform to your theories of biomechanics? Perhaps our chest muscles
> are so strong that it's our tris getting the real workout on the bench
> press.

Yes.

Thats probably the reason.

> Whatever the reason is, "why" is a straw-man argument you've
> set up with yourself. You're just ****ing on your own leg here! But
> you're mad at me for jumping out of the way.

Yes.

--
Pete

Prisoner at War
August 2nd 07, 10:22 PM
On Aug 1, 4:27 pm, Lucas Buck > wrote:
>
>
> The East certainly buried HIM, anyway.

Yeah, he knew the East was a danger that would only grow with time.
Amateur historians fault Hitler for having invaded the Soviet Union,
but what they fail to realize that when you're up against someone
bigger than yourself, you need to throw in the first punch. Hitler's
problem was that he didn't execute all his follow-ups.

> If that's how you define "civilization" -- big bureaucracy, few accomplishments.
> Their biggest engineering accomplishment didn't do the job, and most of their
> artistic efforts were buried underground...

The biggest engineering accomplishment did do the job. What are you
talking about? And that's only one of many. As for "artistic
efforts," I don't know how you've determined that "most" were
"buried," but certainly enough remain to have secured their place in
the history textbooks.

You forget that they only discovered America because everyone was
trying to get to China. And even for the next fifty years after
discovering the New World, the West was trying to get through or
around it!

> and eventually get their asses kicked by two different small island nations
> in different centuries...

Have you ever been in a street fight? Everyone gets their ass kicked
sooner or later. *Everyone.* The difference is in who's still alive
and able to recover.

Everyone that's tried has failed to subjugate China, in the long
term. Everyone. China just absorbs them. The Manchus are no more,
the Mongols are just another check-box on the census...it's barely
just been a hundred years, with the British, and hardly sixty, with
the Japanese.

That's nothing, and it's something the West just doesn't understand.
Experience.

> and they still cling to their primitive pictographic written language, centuries after
> "uncivilized" nations went to more efficient alphabetic texts.

Mathematics is a pictographic language. It's extremely efficient in
conveying the information it needs to.

Likewise the Chinese language. It is only "primitive" because, being
ignorant, you think that a language is about being "efficient" in
terms of, presumably, speed. But spoken Chinese is most efficient in
that regard -- which is why literal translations into inflection
languages go along the lines of "long time no see"...why "I haven't
seen you in a long time" when "long time no see" works just fine?

Etc.

> Meanwhile, they kill their own people to sell their organs to foreigners and
> corrupt party powermongers and supply-chain theives poison people and
> livestock alike to make an extra buck.

That's just Dickensian capitalism at work. Typical Western ****, like
AIDS, that come in like, as Deng Xioping shrugged, "flies through the
window."

Or do you forget why this Pax Americana is such an anomaly?

> This is a definition of "civilization" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

You are indeed most familiar.

Oxford Don Joseph Needham -- who wasn't even a Sinologist by training
-- had eleven volumes of "Science and Civilization in China" at the
time of his passing, and the series was still unfinished. To this day
Cambridge University Press continues work researching the technical
achievements which paved the way for Western ascendancy.

Yin and yang...you do not realize the ways of nature; therefore you
mistake your luck as your own; you will be buried.

> DISCLAIMER: Lucy Liu is still hot, anyway.

She's absolutely disgusting. OMG, I swear, you whiteboys really have
the weirdest fetishes. You get the ugliest Asians and black women and
you turn that into some kind of sexual fantasy. That's like some dumb
tourist ordering pizza without cheese or something.

Truly the sun sets in the West.

Lucas Buck
August 3rd 07, 03:18 AM
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:22:57 -0700, Prisoner at War > wrote:

>On Aug 1, 4:27 pm, Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The East certainly buried HIM, anyway.
>
>Yeah, he knew the East was a danger that would only grow with time.
>Amateur historians fault Hitler for having invaded the Soviet Union,
>but what they fail to realize that when you're up against someone
>bigger than yourself, you need to throw in the first punch. Hitler's
>problem was that he didn't execute all his follow-ups.
>
>> If that's how you define "civilization" -- big bureaucracy, few accomplishments.
>> Their biggest engineering accomplishment didn't do the job, and most of their
>> artistic efforts were buried underground...
>
>The biggest engineering accomplishment did do the job.

The Mongols DIDN'T take over China after all? Huh?

>You forget that they only discovered America because everyone was
>trying to get to China.

Wow, your school sucks even worse than ours. The VIKINGS "discovered" America,
even if you don't count the Bering-crossing peoples thousand of years earlier.

>Everyone that's tried has failed to subjugate China, in the long
>term.

No, everyone who has tried has SUCCEEDED, at least for their time. The Mongols. The
British. The Japanese. The Communists/Military complex.

>Everyone. China just absorbs them. The Manchus are no more,
>the Mongols are just another check-box on the census...it's barely
>just been a hundred years, with the British, and hardly sixty, with
>the Japanese.

The Japanese would STILL control Korea and Manchuria had the **US** not defeated them.
The Chinese didn't do squat against the Japanese alone. Hell, they could hardly
resist the French. The FRENCH. My God, the FRENCH maintained a major presence in
the theater until the Japanese took over in the 1930s.

>> and they still cling to their primitive pictographic written language, centuries after
>> "uncivilized" nations went to more efficient alphabetic texts.
>
>Mathematics is a pictographic language. It's extremely efficient in
>conveying the information it needs to.

Uh, no. It's another alphabetic language in this context, at least if you are
using numerals. A *pictographic* language would have completely distinct symbols
for 11, 12, 21, 10, 100, 1000, etc, not repeating patterns of a discrete set of symbols.
Heck, it'd be worse than Roman numerals.

>Likewise the Chinese language. It is only "primitive" because, being
>ignorant, you think that a language is about being "efficient" in
>terms of, presumably, speed. But spoken Chinese is most efficient in
>that regard -- which is why literal translations into inflection
>languages go along the lines of "long time no see"...why "I haven't
>seen you in a long time" when "long time no see" works just fine?
>
>Etc.

Uh huh.
Funny how we can understand each other easily, as can, say, random speakers
from Birmingham, Edinburgh, Auckland, Perth, Singapore, New York, Seattle, and Atlanta
can all understand each other easily.

Good luck having a conversation between a Guangzhou, a Zhejiang, and a Mandarin speaker.

>> Meanwhile, they kill their own people to sell their organs to foreigners and
>> corrupt party powermongers and supply-chain theives poison people and
>> livestock alike to make an extra buck.
>
>That's just Dickensian capitalism at work. Typical Western ****, like
>AIDS, that come in like, as Deng Xioping (sic) shrugged, "flies through the
>window."

AIDS is *Western*?

West AFRICAN, maybe, although I don't know of anybody
else that would equate that as "Western".

And it's spreading unchecked in most of China now... as opposed to in the West.
This was accelerated by the increase in high-risk gay sex in China over the past
few decades -- one downside of spending two generations killing most of your female babies.


Your theory would also have most intellectual-property theft going East-to-West.
<snort> The Chinese can't even make a ****ing TOY to specs (note the
major recalls by Fisher-Price and TCW this week due to lead-laced toys).


>Yin and yang...you do not realize the ways of nature; therefore you
>mistake your luck as your own; you will be buried.

"We will bury you!" -- Nikita Krushchev (where is he now?)

Pete
August 3rd 07, 09:36 AM
"Lucas Buck" > schreef:

> AIDS is *Western*?

> West AFRICAN, maybe, although I don't know of anybody
> else that would equate that as "Western".

> And it's spreading unchecked in most of China now... as opposed to in the
> West.
> This was accelerated by the increase in high-risk gay sex in China over
> the past
> few decades -- one downside of spending two generations killing most of
> your female babies.

How do you say "condom" in Chinese?

> Your theory would also have most intellectual-property theft going
> East-to-West.
> <snort> The Chinese can't even make a ****ing TOY to specs (note the
> major recalls by Fisher-Price and TCW this week due to lead-laced toys).

Typical.

Like the SangYongs. SUVs that were build so terrible, that the driver doesnt
even survive a crash with a bicycle.

Great culture.

And those ****ing chopsticks! I hate them!

But i have to admit;
The finest rerstaurants in our Red Light District are Chinese. Genuine
Chinese.

That sliced steak with mushrooms just melt in your mouth.

--
Pete

Lucas Buck
August 4th 07, 03:33 AM
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:36:15 +0200, "Pete" > wrote:

>"Lucas Buck" > schreef:
>
>> AIDS is *Western*?
>
>> West AFRICAN, maybe, although I don't know of anybody
>> else that would equate that as "Western".
>
>> And it's spreading unchecked in most of China now... as opposed to in the
>> West.
>> This was accelerated by the increase in high-risk gay sex in China over
>> the past
>> few decades -- one downside of spending two generations killing most of
>> your female babies.
>
>How do you say "condom" in Chinese?

You don't.

That's a big part of the problem.

>The finest rerstaurants in our Red Light District are Chinese. Genuine
>Chinese.

In the red-light district, why would anybody eat the FOOD?

>That sliced steak with mushrooms just melt in your mouth.

Steak isn't a "genuine Chinese" dish. Unless its' cat steaks.

Prisoner at War
August 7th 07, 07:09 PM
On Aug 2, 10:18 pm, Lucas Buck > wrote:
>
>
> The Mongols DIDN'T take over China after all? Huh?

Doesn't mean that the Wall failed.

Did the U.S. Army fail in Iraq? If you don't use equipment properly,
whose fault is that? There are immigration laws on the books right
now. But if they're not enforced, is it the laws that are lacking?

Like the downfall of any great nation, it is always from within. The
Wall did not fail to keep away the nomads -- they were let in by local
warlords as the country delved into civil war. There are whole
Chinese operas about such treachery.

> Wow, your school sucks even worse than ours. The VIKINGS "discovered" America,
> even if you don't count the Bering-crossing peoples thousand of years earlier.

Moron, some posit that the ancient Phoenicians "discovered"
America...heck, if you want to play semantic games here, obviously the
Native Americans (from Asia) discovered America.

But the discovery of America is ascribed to Columbus because the
Vikings did not publicize their discovery. If you find gold and you
don't claim it, you can't cry later on that it's yours when someone
else files the papers for it.

> No, everyone who has tried has SUCCEEDED, at least for their time. The Mongols. The
> British. The Japanese. The Communists/Military complex.

I guess you are easily impressed, then.

And I suppose America has "succeeded" in Iraq as well, then, according
to your logic...LOL

> The Japanese would STILL control Korea and Manchuria had the **US** not defeated them.

This is like the Western Allies claiming to have won WWII when it was
the Russians tying down the Germans.

The Japanese long considered China their biggest problem. They
devoted most of their resources there. It was only when the US cut
off Japan's oil supplies (in addition to the American embargo, the US
Navy intercepted tankers bound for Japan) that the Japs felt forced to
attack America first.

> The Chinese didn't do squat against the Japanese alone. Hell, they could hardly
> resist the French. The FRENCH. My God, the FRENCH maintained a major presence in
> the theater until the Japanese took over in the 1930s.

You are woefully ill-informed. Try perusing soc.history.war.world-war-
ii. Further discussion is pointless because behind your statements
are a tangle of unexamined assumptions concerning power, status, and
warfare.

> Uh, no. It's another alphabetic language in this context, at least if you are
> using numerals.

Absolutely wrong. Do you know what an alphabet really is??
Mathematic symbols are not an alphabet at all. But they are
pictograms/ideograms, which is why no matter how you pronounce or even
spell "+" or "-" is *means* the same thing. This is why Chinese
script was used throughout Asia, even though Asian countries had their
own pronunciations and even grammars.

> A *pictographic* language would have completely distinct symbols
> for 11, 12, 21, 10, 100, 1000, etc, not repeating patterns of a discrete set of symbols.
> Heck, it'd be worse than Roman numerals.

You're confusing number bases (Base Ten, etc.) with meaning
(semantics).

The symbols are discrete. The "grammar" for combining them into
meaningful statements is another issue (numeral bases).

> Uh huh.
> Funny how we can understand each other easily, as can, say, random speakers
> from Birmingham, Edinburgh, Auckland, Perth, Singapore, New York, Seattle, and Atlanta
> can all understand each other easily.

Actually, no. The variation in English accents can be so pronounced
that conversation is extremely difficult.

> Good luck having a conversation between a Guangzhou, a Zhejiang, and a Mandarin speaker.

Like when English accents are impenetrable, you can always write
things out. This is why a Korean or Japanese, even, can understand
"basic Chinese" if resorting to written characters (just like
mathematical symbols, as previously noted).

> AIDS is *Western*?

Yes. The West is the great promoter of AIDS.

> West AFRICAN, maybe, although I don't know of anybody
> else that would equate that as "Western".

It came from chimps in Africa (can't imagine how, but I suppose it's
like with them Scottish herders and their sheep), but the West is the
great vehicle for AIDS.

> And it's spreading unchecked in most of China now... as opposed to in the West.

Yes, another thing for which we owe you! And the greater the
deferment, the greater the interest....

> This was accelerated by the increase in high-risk gay sex in China over the past
> few decades -- one downside of spending two generations killing most of your female babies.

The sex imbalance is statistical, like 1 to 1.58 or something. Hardly
anything to cause an outbreak of faggotry, such as what you celebrate
in the West.

Of course, you fail to note once again how it's brought in by faggots
and whites in general.

> Your theory would also have most intellectual-property theft going East-to-West.
> <snort>

Then why don't you try debunking the elven volume "Science and
Civilization in China" from Cambridge University Press. You'd win
more points that way, than simply dismissing inconvenient facts on
usenet with me.

> The Chinese can't even make a ****ing TOY to specs (note the
> major recalls by Fisher-Price and TCW this week due to lead-laced toys).

LOL -- you mean the West can't even buy a ****ing toy to spec! You
want to blame me for the big hole in your pocket, mister??
ROTFLMFAO!!

> "We will bury you!" -- Nikita Krushchev (where is he now?)

Believe it or not, I'm glad for your sense of comfort...after all, all
war is based on deception!

And with that, I must retire from this conversation...I am giving away
my secrets here! Suffice it to say, you do not understand history
beyond a 90-minute Hollywood flick, and you think in terms of chess
when the game is called wei chi (go).

Tod
August 12th 07, 03:23 AM
Wow, who changed the channel?

"Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 2, 10:18 pm, Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Mongols DIDN'T take over China after all? Huh?
>
> Doesn't mean that the Wall failed.
>
> Did the U.S. Army fail in Iraq? If you don't use equipment properly,
> whose fault is that? There are immigration laws on the books right
> now. But if they're not enforced, is it the laws that are lacking?
>
> Like the downfall of any great nation, it is always from within. The
> Wall did not fail to keep away the nomads -- they were let in by local
> warlords as the country delved into civil war. There are whole
> Chinese operas about such treachery.
>
>> Wow, your school sucks even worse than ours. The VIKINGS "discovered"
>> America,
>> even if you don't count the Bering-crossing peoples thousand of years
>> earlier.
>
> Moron, some posit that the ancient Phoenicians "discovered"
> America...heck, if you want to play semantic games here, obviously the
> Native Americans (from Asia) discovered America.
>
> But the discovery of America is ascribed to Columbus because the
> Vikings did not publicize their discovery. If you find gold and you
> don't claim it, you can't cry later on that it's yours when someone
> else files the papers for it.
>
>> No, everyone who has tried has SUCCEEDED, at least for their time. The
>> Mongols. The
>> British. The Japanese. The Communists/Military complex.
>
> I guess you are easily impressed, then.
>
> And I suppose America has "succeeded" in Iraq as well, then, according
> to your logic...LOL
>
>> The Japanese would STILL control Korea and Manchuria had the **US** not
>> defeated them.
>
> This is like the Western Allies claiming to have won WWII when it was
> the Russians tying down the Germans.
>
> The Japanese long considered China their biggest problem. They
> devoted most of their resources there. It was only when the US cut
> off Japan's oil supplies (in addition to the American embargo, the US
> Navy intercepted tankers bound for Japan) that the Japs felt forced to
> attack America first.
>
>> The Chinese didn't do squat against the Japanese alone. Hell, they could
>> hardly
>> resist the French. The FRENCH. My God, the FRENCH maintained a major
>> presence in
>> the theater until the Japanese took over in the 1930s.
>
> You are woefully ill-informed. Try perusing soc.history.war.world-war-
> ii. Further discussion is pointless because behind your statements
> are a tangle of unexamined assumptions concerning power, status, and
> warfare.
>
>> Uh, no. It's another alphabetic language in this context, at least if
>> you are
>> using numerals.
>
> Absolutely wrong. Do you know what an alphabet really is??
> Mathematic symbols are not an alphabet at all. But they are
> pictograms/ideograms, which is why no matter how you pronounce or even
> spell "+" or "-" is *means* the same thing. This is why Chinese
> script was used throughout Asia, even though Asian countries had their
> own pronunciations and even grammars.
>
>> A *pictographic* language would have completely distinct symbols
>> for 11, 12, 21, 10, 100, 1000, etc, not repeating patterns of a discrete
>> set of symbols.
>> Heck, it'd be worse than Roman numerals.
>
> You're confusing number bases (Base Ten, etc.) with meaning
> (semantics).
>
> The symbols are discrete. The "grammar" for combining them into
> meaningful statements is another issue (numeral bases).
>
>> Uh huh.
>> Funny how we can understand each other easily, as can, say, random
>> speakers
>> from Birmingham, Edinburgh, Auckland, Perth, Singapore, New York,
>> Seattle, and Atlanta
>> can all understand each other easily.
>
> Actually, no. The variation in English accents can be so pronounced
> that conversation is extremely difficult.
>
>> Good luck having a conversation between a Guangzhou, a Zhejiang, and a
>> Mandarin speaker.
>
> Like when English accents are impenetrable, you can always write
> things out. This is why a Korean or Japanese, even, can understand
> "basic Chinese" if resorting to written characters (just like
> mathematical symbols, as previously noted).
>
>> AIDS is *Western*?
>
> Yes. The West is the great promoter of AIDS.
>
>> West AFRICAN, maybe, although I don't know of anybody
>> else that would equate that as "Western".
>
> It came from chimps in Africa (can't imagine how, but I suppose it's
> like with them Scottish herders and their sheep), but the West is the
> great vehicle for AIDS.
>
>> And it's spreading unchecked in most of China now... as opposed to in the
>> West.
>
> Yes, another thing for which we owe you! And the greater the
> deferment, the greater the interest....
>
>> This was accelerated by the increase in high-risk gay sex in China over
>> the past
>> few decades -- one downside of spending two generations killing most of
>> your female babies.
>
> The sex imbalance is statistical, like 1 to 1.58 or something. Hardly
> anything to cause an outbreak of faggotry, such as what you celebrate
> in the West.
>
> Of course, you fail to note once again how it's brought in by faggots
> and whites in general.
>
>> Your theory would also have most intellectual-property theft going
>> East-to-West.
>> <snort>
>
> Then why don't you try debunking the elven volume "Science and
> Civilization in China" from Cambridge University Press. You'd win
> more points that way, than simply dismissing inconvenient facts on
> usenet with me.
>
>> The Chinese can't even make a ****ing TOY to specs (note the
>> major recalls by Fisher-Price and TCW this week due to lead-laced toys).
>
> LOL -- you mean the West can't even buy a ****ing toy to spec! You
> want to blame me for the big hole in your pocket, mister??
> ROTFLMFAO!!
>
>> "We will bury you!" -- Nikita Krushchev (where is he now?)
>
> Believe it or not, I'm glad for your sense of comfort...after all, all
> war is based on deception!
>
> And with that, I must retire from this conversation...I am giving away
> my secrets here! Suffice it to say, you do not understand history
> beyond a 90-minute Hollywood flick, and you think in terms of chess
> when the game is called wei chi (go).
>

Prisoner at War
August 12th 07, 03:03 PM
That's the weird thing about MFW...wasn't I talking about bench
presses?

In any case, no matter what the old-timey blow-hards like to say,
bench presses work out the triceps more than the pecs, typically.
It's classified as a chest exercise because it really does target the
pecs, but that doesn't mean the pecs are doing most of the work.

And no, I'm not doing them wrong: you can't do a bench press wrong
(unless you get hurt or something like that). It's a very simple
movement; not too much nuance involved, like making a ham
sandwich...basically the same thing, no matter what slight variations
there may be (grip width and bar placement, and cheese or no cheese
and choice of bread, respectively).

As a matter of fact, once the muscle adapt to a particular weight and
number of sets and reps, you hardly ever really "feel" it again -- not
just in terms of DOMS, but even during the exercise. I'm benching 295
nowadays, and if anything gets sore at all (and it really doesn't)
it's my triceps, as I try to move up in reps.



On Aug 11, 10:23 pm, "Tod" > wrote:
> Wow, who changed the channel?

Omelet
August 12th 07, 03:08 PM
In article om>,
Prisoner at War > wrote:

> In any case, no matter what the old-timey blow-hards like to say,
> bench presses work out the triceps more than the pecs

That depends on how and where you grip the bar.
Yes, it will work triceps some, but it's still good for pecs if you know
what you are doing.

Try Inclines and SQEEZE the pecs at the top of the lift.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Lucas Buck
August 14th 07, 02:51 AM
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:09:14 -0700, Prisoner at War > wrote:

>On Aug 2, 10:18 pm, Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Mongols DIDN'T take over China after all? Huh?
>
>Doesn't mean that the Wall failed.

The operation was a success, but the patient died.

>Like the downfall of any great nation, it is always from within. The
>Wall did not fail to keep away the nomads -- they were let in by local
>warlords as the country delved into civil war. There are whole
>Chinese operas about such treachery.

.... which are sort of like rap videos, except the music is more dischordant in the former.

>> Wow, your school sucks even worse than ours. The VIKINGS "discovered" America,
>> even if you don't count the Bering-crossing peoples thousand of years earlier.
>
>Moron, some posit that the ancient Phoenicians "discovered"
>America...heck, if you want to play semantic games here, obviously the
>Native Americans (from Asia) discovered America.

I heard it was Al Gore's ancestors.

>> The Japanese would STILL control Korea and Manchuria had the **US** not defeated them.
>
>This is like the Western Allies claiming to have won WWII when it was
>the Russians tying down the Germans.

Had the Russians not fought WITH the Axis first, Germany couldn't have taken
Europe in the first place.

"Moron."

>The Japanese long considered China their biggest problem. They
>devoted most of their resources there. It was only when the US cut
>off Japan's oil supplies (in addition to the American embargo, the US
>Navy intercepted tankers bound for Japan) that the Japs felt forced to
>attack America first.

Huh? The Japanese didn't take any oil from US territory, not even Alaska.
They used southest asia / micronesia for that. China was hardly a "problem"
for them at all - it was surrounded on three sides by Japanese or other Axis troops
once China took Manchuria/Manchuko.

>> Uh, no. It's another alphabetic language in this context, at least if you are
>> using numerals.
>
>Absolutely wrong. Do you know what an alphabet really is??
>Mathematic symbols are not an alphabet at all. But they are
>pictograms/ideograms, which is why no matter how you pronounce or even
>spell "+" or "-" is *means* the same thing. This is why Chinese
>script was used throughout Asia, even though Asian countries had their
>own pronunciations and even grammars.

You are confusing an ALPHABET with a SCRIPT or character set.

Each pictogram in Chinese means something by itself.

A LETTER in an alphabetic language does not (except for the few single-letter
words).

Chinese script was used in those countries that lacked a written language (e.g. Korea)
but never supplanted any well-established written language.

>> Uh huh.
>> Funny how we can understand each other easily, as can, say, random speakers
>> from Birmingham, Edinburgh, Auckland, Perth, Singapore, New York, Seattle, and Atlanta
>> can all understand each other easily.
>
>Actually, no. The variation in English accents can be so pronounced
>that conversation is extremely difficult.

Actually, yes. Your claim is a rare exception, not the general rule.

>> Good luck having a conversation between a Guangzhou, a Zhejiang, and a Mandarin speaker.
>
>Like when English accents are impenetrable, you can always write
>things out. This is why a Korean or Japanese, even, can understand
>"basic Chinese" if resorting to written characters (just like
>mathematical symbols, as previously noted).

IF they read Chinese in the first place. Both now have distinct writing of their own.

>> AIDS is *Western*?
>
>Yes. The West is the great promoter of AIDS.

Wow. This defines your logic in a nutshell.

This is a definition of "promoter" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

>> Your theory would also have most intellectual-property theft going East-to-West.
>> <snort>
>
>Then why don't you try debunking the elven volume "Science and
>Civilization in China" from Cambridge University Press. You'd win
>more points that way, than simply dismissing inconvenient facts on
>usenet with me.
>
>> The Chinese can't even make a ****ing TOY to specs (note the
>> major recalls by Fisher-Price and TCW this week due to lead-laced toys).
>
>LOL -- you mean the West can't even buy a ****ing toy to spec! You
>want to blame me for the big hole in your pocket, mister??
>ROTFLMFAO!!

Wow. This defines your logic in a nutshell.

>And with that, I must retire from this conversation...I am giving away
>my secrets here! Suffice it to say, you do not understand history
>beyond a 90-minute Hollywood flick, and you think in terms of chess
>when the game is called wei chi (go).

"No, not *chess*. *Poker*." - Captain Kirk

Curt
August 14th 07, 06:51 AM
Lucas Buck wrote:

re "The West is the great promoter of AIDS."

> Wow. This defines your logic in a nutshell.

Reagan.

--
Curt