my outer pecs are coming good but my inners are lagging. any excersizes i should try?
Printable View
my outer pecs are coming good but my inners are lagging. any excersizes i should try?
i think cable crossovers work great!
I did this excercise this morning and it hit my inner chest HARD. Go to the cross cables and ly on your back. Make sure you are in the middle. Now grad both of the cables. With one arm, push the cable across your chest(like doing a double chest). This is one of the best exercises I can think of for directly hitting your inner chest. Hope this makes since. REDROCK
thanks guys keep em comin'
Close grip triceps presses work the inner chest.
i dont know about the inner pecs either bro i have a huge chest and no inner pecs i envy some guys that have them inner going all the way up
if anyone can give any advice on chst definition its welcome
Bump
I know what you mean reli. if i could get my inners caught up i bet my bench would sky-rocket!
That's correct a close grip bench is great. Also pullovers are another movement that helps the inner and lower part as well my favoriteQuote:
Originally posted by palme
Close grip triceps presses work the inner chest.
Yup close grip bench works well, but tends to work the tri's alittle hard. Cross cables are the best for me. We have a fly machine that you sit in at our gym that looks sorta like a cross cable machine, and that works the hell out of my inner chest. Also Incline dumbell prome press works well. Upon bringing the dumbells up, motion your arms to make the dumbells come together at the top of your exercise. That will hit that "Inner chest" nicely.Quote:
Originally posted by williampowers
That's correct a close grip bench is great. Also pullovers are another movement that helps the inner and lower part as well my favorite
All of the suggestions are good but unfortunately the insertion point of you pectoral muscle is predetermined by the genetics and there is not much you can do about that, however that does not mean you can't improve the inner chest, so follow all of the pointers above and it will certainly improve...XXL
There is no such thing as the inner pec.
so what you are saying is i am blessed for having a big chest but doomed cuz my inner pecs are not sculpted,idont think so its just that i dont think i have worked my chest for definition enough which i intend to do in the future
There is no such thing as working you muscle for definition...if you want definition you have to diet off the layer of fat that is covering the muscle...and yes that's what i'm saying, you insertion point is not faverible for thick inner chest, there for there is nothing you can do short of surgery to reatache your pectorial muscle...as simple as that.....and The French Curler is right there is no cuch thing as the inner pecs...the division line is between upper and lower pecs...XXLQuote:
Originally posted by reli
so what you are saying is i am blessed for having a big chest but doomed cuz my inner pecs are not sculpted,idont think so its just that i dont think i have worked my chest for definition enough which i intend to do in the future
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MIKE_XXL
There is no such thing as working you muscle for definition...if you want definition you have to diet off the layer of fat that is covering the muscle...and yes that's what i'm saying, you insertion point is not faverible for thick inner chest, there for there is nothing you can do short of surgery to reatache your pectorial muscle...as simple as that.....and The French Curler is right there is no cuch thing as the inner pecs...the division line is between upper and lower pecs...XXL
[/QUOT
Mike I hear what you are saying bro diet is the #1 way to train for definition but don't you think that fly's can sculpt more then bulk and you should incorporate both presses and fly to build a perfect chest?
Man, I'm feeling like a newbie all over again. Are you guys saying that there is no way to define the cut between your pecs... other than diet? I was under the impression that flyes built that area, as well as close grips. I was also under the impression that working your muscle for definition or "cutting", just meant using higher reps in the gym while on a very strict diet. Is this untrue too? I don't want to sound like a moron here, I just want to understand the facts, and Im positive you know what your talking about so please explain.Quote:
Originally posted by MIKE_XXL
There is no such thing as working you muscle for definition...if you want definition you have to diet off the layer of fat that is covering the muscle...and yes that's what i'm saying, you insertion point is not faverible for thick inner chest, there for there is nothing you can do short of surgery to reatache your pectorial muscle...as simple as that.....and The French Curler is right there is no cuch thing as the inner pecs...the division line is between upper and lower pecs...XXL
ya guys i htaught i kinda knew what i was talking about. i guess not. i gotta listen to XXL, form his poasts he sounds like he knows his S**T
steele175, you took the words right out of my mouth...cable crossovers kill me...
Yes you should incorporate both Pressing and Fly movements into any successful chest routine, the reason is that the pressing movements are compound movements and will allow you to handle much higher weights. However the flying movements represent the actual function of the chest, which is to pull the arm together, so you definitely need those in your routine. High reps will not define the muscle, look at Dorian Yates, he believes in very high intensity and heavy weights with basic movements and when he was competing he was defined, right…so the training has very little to do with defining the physique…now to the inner pec thing, as you work you chest and it gets thicker and thicker the inner pecs will appear better developed and the cleavage will be more pronounced, so train you chest hard and as it grows the inner pecs will improve…higher reps do not work for definition, the proof is in my pics I only use heavy compound movements even when dieting for a show and I have definition…that’s not to say there is no room in any routine for higher reps, from time to time I need to give my joints arrest and I lower the weights and do higher reps…XXL
Thanks for clearing that up......
This then begs the question why would you do close grip press, if not only to develop the tricep. Or wide grip for that matter.
You should do pressing movements from all angles because even a slight change will recruit different muscle fibers and it allowes for greater muscle exustion and in turn growth...change your angles and reps and keep progressin...remember no rules are written in stone...XXL
Flyes and crossover are good because they isolate the pecs more than a press. But, the pecs are more designed for power. Still, these exercises are good and should still be used.
Thats exactly what i wanted to know XXL!
Dips with your body leaning forward at a 45 degree angle, this will put the stress from your tricepts to your chest, specifically your inner chest.
I found this at a different board many months ago... can't say I believe everything it says, but its alot of good info.... on another note, I don't know who orginially posted this as the post i took it from was not the original either and the author wasn't cited... >>>
"The existence of the so-called "upper", "lower", "inner" and "outer" pectorals along with the assertion that it is possible to isolate one or more of these to the relative exclusion of the others in training, are among the most firmly entrenched myths in Strength Training and Bodybuilding circles. In fact none of these truly exist as either separate and distinct muscles or regions in a functional sense. Even though it could be argued that there appears to be a structural distinction between the upper and lower pectorals (and some anatomy texts do in fact support this distinction though not all do) because the pectoralis-major does originate from both the sternum and the proximal or sternal half of the clavicle along it’s anterior surface (it also has connections to the cartilages of all the true ribs with the frequent exception of the first and seventh, and to the Aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle), this is considered to be a common (though extensive) origin in terms of the mechanical function of the muscle. Thus the pectoralis-major is in fact for all practical purposes one continuous muscle with a common origin and insertion, and functions as a single force-producing unit. The terms upper, lower, inner and outer are imprecise and relevant only in order to make a vague subjective distinction between relative portions of the same muscle for descriptive purposes. They are vague and imprecise terms because there is no clearly delineated or universally defined border between them.
Further it is not physically possible either in theory or practice to contract one region of a single muscle to the exclusion of another region or regions (as a Biomechanics Professor of mine once demonstrated to a bunch of us smart-ass know-it-all’s taking his course, using EMG analysis). When a muscle contracts it does so in a linear fashion by simultaneously reducing the length of its constituent fibers and thus its overall length from origin to insertion. Even where a single muscle is separated into multiple functional units that are clearly defined such as the triceps (which are referred to as “heads” by Anatomists and Biomechanists), because they share a common point of insertion in order for one head to shorten all must shorten. This only makes sense if you think about it because otherwise there would be “slack” in one when the other shortened, which as we know does not occur. Note that there are some special cases where one head of a muscle must actually lengthen when the other shortens (e.g. the posterior head of the deltoid in relation to the anterior head during the positive stroke of fly’s), the point however is that even in these special cases there is no “slack” because there is in fact contractile activity (whether concentric or eccentric) throughout the muscle.
That is not to say however, that all fibers in different areas, or heads are necessarily shortened to the same degree during a particular movement. Depending on the shape of the muscle, the joint geometry involved, and the specific movement being performed, fibers in one area of a muscle or head may be required to shorten more or less than in others (or even to lengthen) in order to complete the required movement. For example during a decline fly though muscle fibers in all regions of the pectoralis-major must shorten as the upper arm is drawn towards the median plane of the body, because of the angle of the arm in relation to the trunk the fibers in what we commonly refer to as the lower pecs will have shortened by a greater percentage of their overall length than those in the upper region of the muscle by the completion of the movement. Conversely when performing an incline fly there is greater shortening in the fibers towards the upper portion of the muscle than in the lower.
Many proponents of the so-called “isolation” approach to training claim that this proportionally greater shortening of the fibers equates to greater tension in the “target” region than in others, and therefore stimulates greater adaptation; but this is completely at odds with the cross-bridge model of muscle contraction which clearly shows that as fiber length decreases tension also declines due to increasing overlap and interference in the area of the cross-bridges. Some also contend that the fibers called upon to shorten to a greater degree tend to fatigue faster than others and that therefore there is greater overall fiber recruitment in the region where this occurs, and thus a greater stimulus to growth; but there is no evidence to suggest that a fiber fatigues faster in one position than in another in relation to other fibers in the same muscle. In fact it has been shown that Time Under Tension (TUT) is the determining factor in fatigue and not fiber length. In fact fiber recruitment tends to increase in a very uniform fashion throughout an entire muscle as fatigue sets in.
The ability to “isolate” a head, or region of a muscle to the exclusion of others by performing a particular movement, or by limiting movement to a particular plane and thus develop it to a greater degree, is a myth created by people who wish to appear more knowledgeable than they are, and has been perpetuated by trade magazines and parroted throughout gyms everywhere. It is pure non-sense and completely ignores the applicable elements of physiology, anatomy, and physics in particular. Quite simply the science does not support it, and in most cases is completely at odds with the idea.
Regardless of the science however, many people will remain firmly convinced that muscle isolation is a reality because they can “feel” different movements more in one region of a muscle than in others. This I do not dispute, nor does science. There is in fact differentiated neural feedback from motor units depending on the relative length of the component fibers, and this feedback tends to be (or is interpreted by the brain as) more intense when the fibers in question are either shortened (contracted) or lengthened (stretched) in the extreme. However this has to do with proprioception (the ability to sense the orientation and relative position of your body in space by interpreting neural feedback related to muscle fiber length and joint position) and not tension, fatigue, or level of fiber recruitment. Unfortunately it has been seized upon and offered up as “evidence” by those looking to support their ideas by any means available.
Muscle shape is a function of genetics and degree of overall development. As you develop a muscle towards its potential, it does change in appearance (generally for the better) but always within the parameters defined by its inherent shape. A person who tends to have proportionately more mass towards the upper, lower, inner or outer region of his or her pectoralis-major will always have that tendency, though it may be more or less apparent at various stages in their development, and in most cases appears less pronounced as overall development proceeds. That is not to say that training a muscle group from multiple angles is totally without value. In fact we know that even subtly different movements can elicit varying levels of fiber recruitment within a muscle in an overall sense (i.e. in terms of the percentage of total available fibers) due to differences in joint mechanics, and neural activation patterns, as well as varying involvement of synergistic and antagonistic muscle groups involved. So by all means experiment with different angles in your training, but don’t expect to be able to correct so-called “unbalanced” muscles this way, or to target specific areas of a particular muscle. Work to develop each of your muscles as completely as possible and shape will take care of itself. If you want to worry about “shaping” you should pay more attention to the balance between different muscle groups and work to bring up any weak groups you may have in relation to the rest of your physique."
I have really concentrated on the inner chest, whether that is a misconception or not, and have had good result with the pecdec machine. I do heavy high reps till failure. At failure, or just before, I hold the handle together in front of me and do quarter reps, squeezing in hard and flexing the pec when the handles are together. Do as many quarter reps as you can. Whether or not you can "isolate" the inner pec or not, i have seen more definition in that region of my chest after doing these for a month every chest workout as the last excercise.