Best movements for upper-inner pecs

[van-man]

Ok guys.... I have a bit of a challenge. I have very prominent delts by genetics. My front delts are much bigger than average for people of my size. I'm 6'1" and 210lbs/96kg fit and trim, but I have delts you would see on a guy around 225lbs. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em, but it causes difficulties when I train my upper chest. The delts dominate the movements, and as a result, the very upper/inner part of my pecs are lagging in fullness and development from what I would like to see.
this last cycle I switched up incline barbell for dumbell, focusing on the upper 2/3rds of the movement, and have tried every variation of fly that I can come up with. The dumbells provided some benefit, but the fly movements were all defeated by the delts.

I would like some suggestions on how to focus on this particular area more effectively, and maybe some tips on how to remove as much delt influence as I can.

thanks in advance guys!

 

[Grizzly]

You can't. that's my answer. "Specification" or whatever you want to call it is Weider malarkey.

 

[Phreezer]

Lol.. This question always kills me...

First will you show me on an anatomy chart where the upper chest or upper inner pectoral are located? ......... What? Can't do it?

Well, that's because there is no such thing. THe pectoral is one muscle. not seperated. Guys just think they're upper chest is small .. well, that's because your lower chest is small too... The only way to get a big meaty chest is to build up the whole muscle ... The whole pec.. Exercises like flat bench, low grade decline dumbbell press are best..

This comes from consistant time in the gym and a good diet and from dedication... There is no exercise that will exclusivly build your upper chest... Simply make your whole chest bigger and the upper and lower pectoral (lol) will both be big and full

For chest EMG results show that slight grade decline dumbbell presses have more pectoral recruitment than any other exercise. I would say that Decline dumbbell press and flat bench are the two best. Flyes Suck

 

[van-man]

So you guys don't think that different angles of approach stimulate the fibers of a given muscle group to a greater or lesser degree? You don't think that wide grip bench puts more emphasis on the outer sweep of the pec than say, standard or close grip bench? Because I can feel it when I do the different movements...

"First will you show me on an anatomy chart where the upper chest or upper inner pectoral are located? ......... What? Can't do it?"

Sure phreez, its the area of the pec where the clavicle and sternum intersect.

Pectoralis major

Origin:
medial 1/3 of clavicle
anterior aspect of manubrium & length of body of sternum
cartilaginous attachments of upper 6 ribs
external oblique's aponeurosis
Insertion:
lateral lip of bicipital groove to the crest of the greater tubercle
clavicular fibers insert more distally; sternal fibers more proximally
Action:
adducts humerus
medially rotates humerus
flexion of the arm from extension (clavicular portion)
Blood:
pectoralis branch of thoracoacromial artery (runs with lateral pec. nerve)
lateral thoracic artery (lesser supply, and runs with medial pectoral nerve)
Nerve:
lateral pectoral nerve, C5,6,7 to clavicular portion
medial pectoral nerve, C8,T1 to sternal portion

 

[van-man]

You can't. that's my answer. "Specification" or whatever you want to call it is Weider malarkey.

So Grizz, you think that I'm just going to have to come to terms with the fact that my outer pec sweep is going to get waay larger than I want before the inner/upper region gets to where I want it to be?

Ahhh well, as long as its big I guess I'll be ok with it.

 

[Grizzly]

So Grizz, you think that I'm just going to have to come to terms with the fact that my outer pec sweep is going to get waay larger than I want before the inner/upper region gets to where I want it to be? :

Yes, that's what I think. In every case I've ever seen of sombody complaining that some "part" of a muscle group is weak, it's because that whole muscle group is small. Dudes are always talking about not having enough quad sweep, when, in reality, they just don't have enough quads period.

 

[van-man]

I know what your saying... I guess my thing is that I'm happy with my overall size since it allows me to have plenty of strength and still fit into off the rack racing suits (saves me a shitload of money) but then when I get to looking real close I start thinking "I wish I had a little more there, while maintaining size here". Then I see some jack ass that has no outer sweep with a tremendous center line and I'm like, "WTF am I doing wrongthat I get all this size with no center line?!"
But seperation and fullness get a little bit better with age so, I'll just keep things at where they're at and get huge in my retirement like you are now

ps I'm glad we got back on the right foot..
peace out you big hairy mofo!

 

[Grizzly]

I feel your pain. Not that I would argue with more size everywhere, but I have a very wide chest, but it's super weak at the bottom. I've declined my balls off in the past and, lo and behold, didn't do anything.

Muscle shape is determined by genetics. Ever seen the guys with the really shitty bicep insertion points that makes their arms look funny? Those same guys do everything they can to "lengthen" their biceps. They still have the same shitty, short biceps 3 years later.

 

[van-man]

lol! Thats me!

Aww fuck it! I'll just go get some synthol! hahaha!

 

[Phreezer]

WTF? that doesn't show any muscle named Upper Pectoral, or inner upper pectoral? Is your IQ below 70? lol.... I don't know how to get into your wittle head that it's just one big ol muscle. If it's small on one part it small on another. The anatomy chart you posted if you'll take the time to actually look at it shows what I've been telling you all along.

NOW, AGAIN... It's called the pectoralis Major.. There is no Upper Pectoral or lower pectoral or an inner pectoral. THAT is my point. Your post doesn't do anything but show how you are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You pull stuff out of your ass all the time. Stuff that is wrong. I grow tired of seeing all the misinformation you are posting..but I digress..

(to note there is a pectoralis minor but it is a very small triangular shaped muscle near the thorax.)

Now, I also want to address your other little comment .....EMG studies..wait, I obviously have to explain what that is. It stands for electro myofibril graph. This is a machine that's used to gauge how much work a muscle is performing. This machine has shown in multiple studies that the exercise that gets the most activity from the pectoal is Low grade decline Dumbbell presses. 2nd is traditional bench press. My point.. There is clinical data to support what I'm saying. You can choose to believe it or not. It doesn't change it from being the truth.

 

[Kayz]

Kind of off topice, but kind of on topic. If you truly want a bigger/stronger chest, strengthen your rotator cuffs. I had a 70 % tear of the supraspinatus (1 of 4 RC muscles), which made my entire shoulder girdle and chest very very weak. I also had surface tears on the subscapularis and the teres minor ot a lesser degree. Fortunately I was able to avoid surgery and thru intense phsical therapy I was able to drastically improve the strength of my RC. Low and behold, my chest began to get stronger with each workout. With the added strenght came an increase in size.

I'd venture to say that 80% of the people at your gym have grossly weak RC's...and it hinders their shoulder/chest development. The RC is responsible for keeping the "ball in the socket" and stabilizing your shoulder for all movements. If your RC is underdeveloped, the ball of the humerus will "slip" out of the socket to a small degree...throwing your form off big time.

Strong RC = strong pectorals.

 

[Ramstein II]

I consider it a head of the pec major that cannot be fully isolated but can be stressed. I'm not the only one. http://www.exrx.net/Muscles/PectoralisClavicular.html

I know that genetic variation determines how isolated your clavicular head of the pec is isolated. I personally can flex my lower chest to almost the exclusion of my upper chest. I can certainly make each head sore to the exclusion of the others.

My favorite exercises for upper chest: Hammer Strength Iso Incline Press, cable flies from low pullies, incline dumbell flies. I also do barbell press, but I never feel it as much. I'm too strong for dumbbell press (j/k). They're too dangerous to handle given my broken lower back.

 

[van-man]

WTF? that doesn't show any muscle named Upper Pectoral, or inner upper pectoral? Is your IQ below 70? lol.... I don't know how to get into your wittle head that it's just one big ol muscle. If it's small on one part it small on another. The anatomy chart you posted if you'll take the time to actually look at it shows what I've been telling you all along.

NOW, AGAIN... It's called the pectoralis Major.. There is no Upper Pectoral or lower pectoral or an inner pectoral. THAT is my point. Your post doesn't do anything but show how you are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You pull stuff out of your ass all the time. Stuff that is wrong. I grow tired of seeing all the misinformation you are posting..but I digress..

(to note there is a pectoralis minor but it is a very small triangular shaped muscle near the thorax.)

Now, I also want to address your other little comment .....EMG studies..wait, I obviously have to explain what that is. It stands for electro myofibril graph. This is a machine that's used to gauge how much work a muscle is performing. This machine has shown in multiple studies that the exercise that gets the most activity from the pectoal is Low grade decline Dumbbell presses. 2nd is traditional bench press. My point.. There is clinical data to support what I'm saying. You can choose to believe it or not. It doesn't change it from being the truth.

Ok I am now officially resolved on the matter.... I am convinced that you intentionally spin and misinterpret EVERYTHING I say. I would humbly request that you add me to your ignore list as you are really bumming me out man

Not that you care, and not that I care you know, but I just feel like saying this; Both of my parents are RN's and I've been reading medical books since I was nine! (that was when my father began med school). And I've been test for my IQ three times in my life; the lowest I ever scored was a 136 and the highest was a 141, so I just split the numbers and call it a nice even 138. Now leave me the fuck alone!

 

[Phreezer]

Lol.. sorry but as a mod nobody is on my ignore list. I could care less what you say your iq is... your reading comprehension needs some work and so does your trying to pass off your logic as fact.

Maybe you'll do a bit more research in the future before you try to pad your post count.

Take care,

P

Ok I am now officially resolved on the matter.... I am convinced that you intentionally spin and misinterpret EVERYTHING I say. I would humbly request that you add me to your ignore list as you are really bumming me out man

Not that you care, and not that I care you know, but I just feel like saying this; Both of my parents are RN's and I've been reading medical books since I was nine! (that was when my father began med school). And I've been test for my IQ three times in my life; the lowest I ever scored was a 136 and the highest was a 141, so I just split the numbers and call it a nice even 138. Now leave me the fuck alone!

 

[combat_action]

LOL, I posted this whole response in another forum so it's a easy cut and paste....

In my opinion, you cannot target sections of a muscle without working the entire thing. If that was the case, you could flex your "inner" chest without flexing the entire thing. Likewise, can you flex your "inner" or "outer" biceps without flexing the whole thing?

Here's a good piece of an article debunking myths like isolationalism. http://www.wannabebig.com/printarticle.php?articleid=11

MYTH 1. Specific portions of a muscle can be trained

The gist of this myth goes something like this, "You can hit the lower portion of your pecs with decline presses." Any statement similar to this is pure B.S. The implication is that doing decline presses will make the lower portion of your pecs larger. This is physiologically impossible. The pectoralis major are the two muscles that we commonly refer to as the chest. There are also the pectoralis minor which runs underneath the upper portion of the major. The pectoralis major, when stimulated with exercise and allowed to recover will grow. It will grow as a whole (as with all muscles), not in sections. So doing an incline, decline, or flat bench press will not make your pectoralis major grow in different fashions. The shape of your muscle is genetically determined by its origin and insertion points and no training will change this. If individual muscle cells (within a specific fiber type) grew at different rates you would have very lumpy muscles. Think about it! When selecting an exercise for a specific muscle, you should pick the one that most closely mimics the muscle's primary function (i.e. the pectoralis major's primary function is to pull the arm across the chest and downward--- so a decline press would be best amongst the presses). Another important factor in exercise selection is your own anatomy, the length of your bones and where your muscles insert and originate. Through experimentation, most experienced lifters learn which exercises work best for them.

That's also like saying some preacher curls work my "lower biceps"... http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_training-myths.htm

The Top Ten Training Myths
Myth #10: Preacher curls work the lower biceps.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "lower" biceps. It’s impossible to contract the lower portion of your biceps without recruiting any other portions.

Still not convinced? Well, you might be thinking that whenever you complete a tough set of preacher curls, you get a pump in your biceps just above the bend in your elbow. After all, it’s your "lower" biceps which creates your biceps "peak," isn’t it?

Okay, here’s the deal. The prime movers in the preacher curl are your biceps brachii and the brachialis. The biceps brachii consists of a long and short head and it crosses over two joints (your shoulder and elbow). On the other hand, the brachialis only crosses over one joint (the elbow) and it lies underneath the biceps brachii. It originates on the middle of your humerus and inserts on the radius.

When performing a preacher curl, your upper arms are placed in front of your upper body (shoulder flexion). For a muscle to be fully activated, it must be stretched at both ends. Since the biceps brachii attaches to the shoulder, it can’t be fully activated because the angle of the preacher bench places the shoulders in flexion. This places a large portion of the load on the short head of the biceps brachii and the brachialis.

Remember that the brachialis lies underneath the biceps brachii and it originates lower on the upper arm. When the brachialis gets "pumped," it pushes the bottom of the biceps brachii forward, creating what appears to be a "lower biceps."

In my opinion, the idea of being able to work your muscles in sections is people's justification for doing a 5 day split. An example would be a "chest day", doing 3 sets of inclines for 'upper pecs', then a few sets of declines for 'lower pecs', then ending the day with some flat bench flyes for the 'inner chest'. Or worse yet, doing some high incline smith presses for the very top of your upper pecs because they're not up to snuff. Fortunately, exercises like flat bench more than stimulate the ENTIRE chest as a WHOLE. Hence the success rate for programs like the 5 x 5.

 

[Kayz]

Hey Phreez. Everything you said makes sense, but I have one question.

Can you drink winny?

Just trying to lighten the mood up in here a bit.

 

[van-man]

No you cannot drink winny. You have to hash it out into several straight lines on a mirrored coffee table and snort it using us currency rolled up as a straw. But, you cannot use any denomination lower than a twenty as it will break down the long esters in the winny

Ok, just so everyone knows and phreezer will back off, there is not now, nor has there ever been any confusion on my part as to the construction of the pectorial muscle.

Now, what about gains slowing after sticking with the same exercise over a period of time? I used to do only flat bench when I worked chest. I would do between 4 and 7 sets depending on how heavy I was trying to go. I made progress doing that for about a year or so, but then I just kinda quit making improvements. Mostly in strength, but also in size. Then I started mixing it up, and I started making improvements again real quick. For chest, I started doing 4 sets of incline, then 4 sets of flat, then 3 or 4 sets of some various fly movements. I don't ever max out, but on heavy days I'll do 4 really heavy sets of 6 reps. When I got stuck I was weighing about 185, and my heavy sets were about 225lbs. on flat bench. After another year of training like this I was up to 275lbs. Currently, I'm doing this with 355lbs (after implementing AAS). I can do more for a couple sets but I have to drop for the last one or two. And I'm still able to keep my lean body weight a touch over 200lbs! (I'm not wanting to add anymore mass, only strength, and symmetry if it is possible)
Anyway, this was the training philosophy that Arnold, Franko, Lou, and Zane all subscribed to and that Arnold testifies to in his Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding. And it worked for me, so it can't be all bunk.

To me it seems that claiming full muscle development can be had with only one movement (decline bench in this case), is the same sort of claim that would say a smith machine bench press is just as good as a barbell bench press. I've always thought it understood that machines that lock you into one motion did not allow for full muscle fiber stimulation. And that is where I'm hanging up on the idea that I should just rely on one essential movement to take care of all my pectorial development needs.

I understand the postition, I just would like a little more explanation on how only one movement is necessary for total pectorial development...

 

[combat_action]

Anyway, this was the training philosophy that Arnold, Franko, Lou, and Zane all subscribed to and that Arnold testifies to in his Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding. And it worked for me, so it can't be all bunk.

Well anything can work, but that doesn't mean it's anywhere close to optimal IMO. If I remember correctly, Arnold S's advanced workout in that infernal book featured working out 6 days per week with only a single day off and a megaton of volume. It also features using a pyramid scheme for just about everything which is also garbage IMO. That's like saying, "I'm going to grab the latest FLEX magazine and do "Ronnie Coleman's Back Routine" and get terrific results! I can't wait to try it!" [)]

The death of modern bodybuilding

One of the biggest problems that I have with split routines is that it results in an ‘isolation mentality’. Every effort is made, more often than not, to try to isolate each individual muscle. This practice, by definition, results in a loss of some of the very best drills one could do. The clean-and-press, for instance; should it be trained on back day or shoulder day. But wait, what if you do squat-snatches; is that a leg drill or a back drill; and doesn’t it also involve the shoulders to an extent? The bent press; where do you start with that? Deadlifts; back or legs? High pulls? One-arm dumbbell swings? Dumbbell cleans? Sots presses?

To me it seems that claiming full muscle development can be had with only one movement (decline bench in this case), is the same sort of claim that would say a smith machine bench press is just as good as a barbell bench press.

That's a bad analogy. No way you can compare a machine with a fixed path of motion to a free weight compound exercise. Then again, that really doesn't have anything to do with my point either. My point was that you cannot isolate portions of your muscles.

And that is where I'm hanging up on the idea that I should just rely on one essential movement to take care of all my pectorial development needs.

I understand the postition, I just would like a little more explanation on how only one movement is necessary for total pectorial development...

I was just giving an example that the flat bench stimulates the entire pectoral muscle. I'm not saying to adopt the flat bench as your ONLY exercise, drop the rest, and go balls to the wall for the next hundred years.

What I AM saying is that you don't need do do a full assault with an arsenal of 8 different exercises from every concievable angle to work the SAME muscle. You can't take a marker, divide your chest up into 6 different pieces and strategically work each little piece! Instead, you can pick up something like 5x5 flat bench, then 2-3 x 10 incline DB, and move on to another bodypart...Essentially working your pectoral muscle as a whole.

There's a lot of things to take into account such as frequency, set/rep schemes, ect. Something like Bill Starr's 5x5 features flat bench twice a week, once ramping up to a top set of 5, once 5 sets of 5 with the same weight. You could do inclines instead of flat one day as per AM's version. If you got an adequate amount of volume and frequency with 1-2 compound lifts, in this case flat and incline or decline bench, you certainly won't need cable crossovers or incline DB flyes to work your "inner-upper" pecs, especially since there really is no such thing.

 

[Phreezer]

Top Quality post bro...

Well anything can work, but that doesn't mean it's anywhere close to optimal IMO. If I remember correctly, Arnold S's advanced workout in that infernal book featured working out 6 days per week with only a single day off and a megaton of volume. It also features using a pyramid scheme for just about everything which is also garbage IMO. That's like saying, "I'm going to grab the latest FLEX magazine and do "Ronnie Coleman's Back Routine" and get terrific results! I can't wait to try it!" [)]

The death of modern bodybuilding





That's a bad analogy. No way you can compare a machine with a fixed path of motion to a free weight compound exercise. Then again, that really doesn't have anything to do with my point either. My point was that you cannot isolate portions of your muscles.



I was just giving an example that the flat bench stimulates the entire pectoral muscle. I'm not saying to adopt the flat bench as your ONLY exercise, drop the rest, and go balls to the wall for the next hundred years.

What I AM saying is that you don't need do do a full assault with an arsenal of 8 different exercises from every concievable angle to work the SAME muscle. You can't take a marker, divide your chest up into 6 different pieces and strategically work each little piece! Instead, you can pick up something like 5x5 flat bench, then 2-3 x 10 incline DB, and move on to another bodypart...Essentially working your pectoral muscle as a whole.

There's a lot of things to take into account such as frequency, set/rep schemes, ect. Something like Bill Starr's 5x5 features flat bench twice a week, once ramping up to a top set of 5, once 5 sets of 5 with the same weight. You could do inclines instead of flat one day as per AM's version. If you got an adequate amount of volume and frequency with 1-2 compound lifts, in this case flat and incline or decline bench, you certainly won't need cable crossovers or incline DB flyes to work your "inner-upper" pecs, especially since there really is no such thing.

 

[van-man]

I totally agree on the volume thing in Arnold's book. I took one look at that shit and knew there was no way in hell I was going to do that to my body. I just do three movements right now at about three or four sets a piece and I can tell that the benefit I get from the last few sets is not as good as quality as the first few were.

I'm beginning to see where you guys are coming from though. First problem is the mass mentality. I simply can't have anymore than what I already have right now.
Second is coming from both ends. You're right the smith machine is a bad analogy. But I'm NOT trying to work my pecs in isolation! I just want inefficient stimulation. Meaning that I neglect the greater area of the pectorial muscle. I realize that the desire to do that doesn't make sense to big un's like phreez and grizz, but you have to remember that weight lifting is not my sport, it is a hobby that has improved my sport. And the demands of my sport, sadly, take precedent over the most effective way of gaining mass. However, honestly, my question has been more of one of vanity than anything else.

So, thanks for all the input. You guys have confirmed what I was already noticing, that our muscles grow in a predetermined shape, and there is now way to influence their grow in the way of implementing controls.
And, in a few years, when I get ready to move on to something else, and I have the freedom to get as big as I want to be, then you guys will have already helped me shed some old dogma's... even you phreezer Asshole!