Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: heavysquatter on February 18, 2014, 06:11:10 PM
-
hey guys, i was wondering if you knew of a good exercise for chest that i could implement into my program. my chest workout yesterday was as follow,
4 sets decline bench
2 sets decline db
4 sets incline bench
2 sets incline hammer
3 sets cable cross hi
3 sets cable cross low
assisted dips with 50lbs assistance x 100 reps (usually takes about 10-14 sets)
-
hey guys, i was wondering if you knew of a good exercise for chest that i could implement into my program. my chest workout yesterday was as follow,
4 sets decline bench
2 sets decline db
4 sets incline bench
2 sets incline hammer
3 sets cable cross hi
3 sets cable cross low
assisted dips with 50lbs assistance x 100 reps (usually takes about 10-14 sets)
You are severely overtrained no wonder you are not growing.
-
Seems very high volume.
I alternate flat/incline/decline barbell presses with dumbbells on a weekly basis. To finish the workout I use plate-loaded Hammer Strength machines to really squeeze the muscle with a controlled ROM I can't get with the other two. I don't bother with flyes but I do dips EOW.
As for the amount, that's up to you. How much energy you do have? Are you eating as much as you want or calorie-restricted? Do you do cardio?
All variables to consider. My philosophy is train until the muscle is so tight another set would risk tearing it off the tendon.
Sometimes my chest is so tight I have to do like Nasser in this video and ask someone to take it off for me.
-
You are severely overtrained no wonder you are not growing.
My first thoughts exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if he does that 2x a week, too.
-
hey guys, i was wondering if you knew of a good exercise for chest that i could implement into my program. my chest workout yesterday was as follow,
4 sets decline bench
2 sets decline db
4 sets incline bench
2 sets incline hammer
3 sets cable cross hi
3 sets cable cross low
assisted dips with 50lbs assistance x 100 reps (usually takes about 10-14 sets)
s
stfu gimmick post this uiseless shit in the proper forum or die
-
workout for chest: incline machine press or bench press. done.
"hitting a muscle from all different angles" is gayer than light is fast.
-
workout for chest: incline machine press or bench press. done.
"hitting a muscle from all different angles" is gayer than light is fast.
That was Jay Cutler's prime advice in "CEO muscle". "Don't do tension reps, do different angles!"
-
stfu gimmick post this uiseless shit in the proper forum or die
jeez man what crawled up your freakin butt? seriously? wishing death upon somebody? that is not right man. I'm appalled. I've never had somebody say something like this to me before.
-
jeez man what crawled up your freakin butt? seriously? wishing death upon somebody? that is not right man. I'm appalled. I've never had somebody say something like this to me before.
He's the authorized forum gimmick account bounty hunter. Don't take it personally if he frisks you in your first few dozen threads to check for gimmicky behavior.
-
jeez man what crawled up your freakin butt? seriously? wishing death upon somebody? that is not right man. I'm appalled. I've never had somebody say something like this to me before.
well cock sucker your in the wrong place... your homo response just proves your a gimmick...... any real man would have told me to fuck off. You same half dozen guys making account after account to repeat the same gimmick shit... fucking senseless
-
well cock sucker your in the wrong place... your homo response just proves your a gimmick...... any real man would have told me to fuck off. You same half dozen guys making account after account to repeat the same gimmick shit... fucking senseless
what does that even mean? a gimmick account? and no, a real man choses not to engage in such senseless rubbish. you really need to grow up pal.
-
pics?
you are natural allegedly.
in an ironic way this means, just train however you feel like.the result will be the same.
-
pics?
you are natural allegedly.
in an ironic way this means, just train however you feel like.the result will be the same.
i will try to get some pics but I'm not too technologically savvy. I have been natural since birth but I am willing to look into other options if I can become properly educated on the science.
-
pics?
you are natural allegedly.
in an ironic way this means, just train however you feel like.the result will be the same.
I read in flex magazine that training naturally is exactly as effective as not training at all, naturally.
-
I read in flex magazine that training naturally is exactly as effective as not training at all, naturally.
that is not true. there is no science to back that claim
-
what does that even mean? a gimmick account? and no, a real man choses not to engage in such senseless rubbish. you really need to grow up pal.
retarded first post gay answers gimmick
-
My first thoughts exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if he does that 2x a week, too.
People in Arnolds days did that much, if not more and used less drugs.
Has the human body changed that much that now our bodies cant adapt to that type of work load?
Were bodies back in the 70's drastically different than they are now?
-
that is not true. there is no science to back that claim
fuck science.
science is just shy of irrelevant to bodybuilding.
truth.
-
welll a little bit lean mass can be gained naturaly, its not entirely pointless.
yes, even when shredded, some bit will be left.
-
People in Arnolds days did that much, if not more and used less drugs.
Has the human body changed that much that now our bodies cant adapt to that type of work load?
Were bodies back in the 70's drastically different than they are now?
Then explain why the guys had smaller legs back then? The best answer anyone comes up with is usually because they overtrained them. And the guys then used a lot of drugs, dude. They just didn't use GH and slin. Don't kid yourself on the dosages. Also they didn't have today's nutritional knowledge down. To them, it was about eating enough protein precontest. Off-season, some didn't even lift or juice. Different era, can't compare to today.
-
Then explain why the guys had smaller legs back then? The best answer anyone comes up with is usually because they overtrained them. And the guys then used a lot of drugs, dude. They just didn't use GH and slin. Don't kid yourself on the dosages. Also they didn't have today's nutritional knowledge down. To them, it was about eating enough protein precontest. Off-season, some didn't even lift or juice. Different era, can't compare to today.
fuck science.
science is just shy of irrelevant to bodybuilding.
truth.
No, not true.
-
No, not true.
Eh, I was a bit dismissive.
I was kind of attempting to point out the obscure science points and whatnot that naturals like to argue about. I just didnt have the time or motivation to display my point correctly.
but still basically fuck science.
-
Not a fan of this new gimmick. His trolling is shit.
-
Then explain why the guys had smaller legs back then? The best answer anyone comes up with is usually because they overtrained them. And the guys then used a lot of drugs, dude. They just didn't use GH and slin. Don't kid yourself on the dosages. Also they didn't have today's nutritional knowledge down. To them, it was about eating enough protein precontest. Off-season, some didn't even lift or juice. Different era, can't compare to today.
But their arms, chest, back (depending on the bodybuilder), shoulder, forearms, and calves were just as big. Whats your point?
And you just say "they just didnt use GH and slin" as though they really dont do anything lol. GH and slin makes a WORLD of difference.
Fact is the guys back then trained like animals, lots of sets, no GH and no slin, and had better physiques, and all around, besides legs, had equal sized body parts. How do you explain Platz legs, arnolds chest, columbos back. All built with lots of sets and no gh and slin.
No overtraining there!
If guys today werent such lazy sacks of shit and trained and dieted and rested right, they could get away with a lot of sets like the guys back in the day did.
-
But their arms, chest, back (depending on the bodybuilder), shoulder, forearms, and calves were just as big. Whats your point?
My point is legs take longer to recover due to the effort and muscle fascia tearing involved. Therefore overtraining caused them to be smaller, logically. Training your traps and calves 3x a week and your legs 3x a week is a different world altogether. Don't lump muscles together.
And you just say "they just didnt use GH and slin" as though they really dont do anything lol. GH and slin makes a WORLD of difference.
Yeah, they make your gut bigger and contribute an extra 20-30lbs of muscle, more or less. Look at Ronnie before 2003 and after. The impact of upping the GH and insulin are readily obvious in the distortion of his organ size and jawline, rather than a heap of extra muscle. C'mon, man. Some of the best physiques of BBing history date back to the 70s. The new guys didn't reinvent the wheel. They just learned to recover better, eat better, and yeah, use more chemicals.
Fact is the guys back then trained like animals, lots of sets, no GH and no slin, and had better physiques, and all around, besides legs, had equal sized body parts. How do you explain Platz legs, arnolds chest, columbos back. All built with lots of sets and no gh and slin.
Good genetics. You cherrypicked those guys because they had freaky body parts. But they also had very weak ones. And in today's shows, they'd place near bottom or not at all due to how bodybuilding's changed.
No overtraining there!
If guys today werent such lazy sacks of shit and trained and dieted and rested right, they could get away with a lot of sets like the guys back in the day did.
Not buying it dude. Today's guys work smarter, not harder. Learn the difference.
-
interesting thread... keep it coming.