Optimal angle for the incline bench is 30 degrees.

[Humble Narcissist]

So then, it doesn't matter what chest exercise you do...it's all the same?

What about grip width?  Does it matter?

It matters.  You can feel the difference even with changing hand placements on pushups.  Do 10 sets of an exercise with a certain grip and see where you are sore the next couple of days.

[IroNat]

I'm so confused!  Some Getbiggers say one thing and some another.

[Humble Narcissist]

I'm so confused!  Some Getbiggers say one thing and some another.

That's why you must always test for yourself.

[IroNat]

That's why you must always test for yourself.

My lack of experience having only trained for 45 years makes my judgement questionable.

[Humble Narcissist]

My lack of experience having only trained for 45 years makes my judgement questionable.

Once you get to 50 years training you'll be more credible.

[Van_Bilderass]

Here's more on loading the upper pecs on inclines.
Proper humerus angle. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGNvOgsjRyz/?igshid=1raad8h7v9qm7

I always thought that elbows out would be best, the opposite would make it a tricep exercise.

[IroNat]

Here's more on loading the upper pecs on inclines.
Proper humerus angle. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGNvOgsjRyz/?igshid=1raad8h7v9qm7

I always thought that elbows out would be best, the opposite would make it a tricep exercise.

Elbows out seems best for pec development but puts more stress on the shoulder.  The old timers in the 40s/50s said elbows flared out was best for pecs.

Think Vince Gironda's V-bar dips which Larry Scott is doing here:

[BB]

Here's more on loading the upper pecs on inclines.
Proper humerus angle. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGNvOgsjRyz/?igshid=1raad8h7v9qm7

It looks right to me too, and I've always found it way kinder to to the AC joint to press in that style

[LurkerNoMore]

So then, it doesn't matter what chest exercise you do...it's all the same?

What about grip width?  Does it matter?

No, of course those things matter and make a difference to what the muscle is doing and what other muscles are assisting (or not) in the movement.  I was referring to the fact that people often make a certain movement or angle completely ineffective through other means.

Think of it this way, I've known several people that swear that preacher bar curls are useless for building biceps.  Every time I have seen these people do it, they use too much weight and end up rounding up over the pad when lowering the weight and then immediately dropping their hips, dipping down and leveraging the weight back up.  It becomes a see-saw motion with their tendons getting the brunt of the work.  No wonder they don't think it works.

[pellius]

One thing they have consistently missed is having the proper resistance profile on the pulldown and rowing machines. Am I the only one who notices that you can pull twice as much weight for the first half of the exercise compared to the last half?

Some add extra handles to the machines to change the resistance profile.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7UbE_Yj4KD/?igshid=1nv1s07ln891f

Or do rows in a different manner from intended
https://www.instagram.com/p/CGdh5QqDz2E/?igshid=15s141y5u8bp0

This is what Arthur Jones tried to compensate for with his cam. Not only continuous tension but matching the resistance profile. Probably the worse is the dumbbell lateral raise. Zero tension on the lateral delt at the start of the movement where you are at your strongest, and maximum resistance at the end of the movement where you are at your weakest.

Some try to compensate by grabbing something and leaning to the side in an effort to change the angle so that you can direct more of the resistance toward the bottom of the movement where you need it. This is a good idea and improves the resistance curve.

But what is so astonishing to me is just how dumb these "trainers" are. They have you lean in the wrong direction which does nothing to increase the resistance at the bottom of the movement and if anything makes the resistance curve worse. I mean, these guys are supposed to be experts. They are writing for a major bbing magazine (in this case Muscle and Fitness). I'm not an expert but it seems glaringly obvious that if you are doing side laterals with your right arm the more you lean to the left the more the resistance increases at the bottom of the movement. In fact, if you simply lie on your left side you will then have the full resistance at the start of the movement but, of course, not resistance on the side delt at the end of the movement which just reverses the problem.

[Van_Bilderass]

^ Exactly, I've thought the same wrt those laterals.

[IroNat]

Jones' cam made the resistance greater at the end of the movement, which was good for things like presses.

Was there an reverse cam on the lateral delt machine to make resistance lower at the end?  I can't recall. 

It would seem like an easy thing to just reverse the cam to do that.

Since it was a combo press/lateral machine it probably did not but maybe somebody knows.

Using chains when pressing is like having a cam.

Jones didn't invent the cam by the way.  There were machines with cams decades earlier.  A good idea.  Jones made it look cool.

Of course there are no studies to show whether a cam makes a difference as far as bodybuilding goes and if you lift an object in "real" life there is no cam.

[pellius]

Here's more on loading the upper pecs on inclines.
Proper humerus angle. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGNvOgsjRyz/?igshid=1raad8h7v9qm7

I always thought that elbows out would be best, the opposite would make it a tricep exercise.

Since the pecs are moving the humerus, the upper arm, toward the center of the body how would this change, if at all, if the person had no forearms? The resistance could only be put on the humerus, much like the Nautilus pec fly where you are pushing against the pads with your elbows and not your hands.

Say, in the Instagram example you posted he was doing dumbbell flys instead of presses. Would he still choose the second, presumably correct, angle?

[Primemuscle]

Do any of you have opinions about what you think is the optimum degree angle for decline bench presses? Most of the decline benches I have seen are permanently fixed a a certain angle, probably 45 degrees.

[pellius]

Jones' cam made the resistance greater at the end of the movement, which was good for things like presses.

Was there an reverse cam on the lateral delt machine to make resistance lower at the end?  I can't recall. 

It would seem like an easy thing to just reverse the cam to do that.

Since it was a combo press/lateral machine it probably did not but maybe somebody knows.

Using chains when pressing is like having a cam.

Jones didn't invent the cam by the way.  There were machines with cams decades earlier.  A good idea.  Jones made it look cool.

Of course there are no studies to show whether a cam makes a difference as far as bodybuilding goes and if you lift an object in "real" life there is no cam.

Not exactly, but at least there was some resistance at the bottom, the start , of the lateral raise, whereas with the dumbbell you get none. So in that sense it was an improvement.

Can you point to any other exercise equipment before Nautilus that unutilized the cam. I started working with weights in the early 70s and the only thing they had was cables and pulleys.

[IroNat]

Not exactly, but at least there was some resistance at the bottom, the start , of the lateral raise, whereas with the dumbbell you get none. So in that sense it was an improvement.

Can you point to any other exercise equipment before Nautilus that unutilized the cam. I started working with weights in the early 70s and the only thing they had was cables and pulleys.

"Not exactly" means no, methinks.  So Jones cam did not help with lateral raises and actually made the resistance curve worse? 

Are the delts weaker at the top of a lateral raise than at the bottom?  I've never analyzed it.

It's actually a leverage thing with presses.  You have better leverage at the top of a press than the bottom.  The muscle doesn't have to work as hard at the the top of a press.

I can't point you to an actual photo of a machine from the 40s or 50s with a cam but I've seen it.  It was not a common thing.

[Humble Narcissist]

If using a cam or any other machine method to put more stress on a muscle at all angles is superior why don't strong men, powerlifters, weightlifters, or any strength and power athletes use these superior machines?

[IroNat]

If using a cam or any other machine method to put more stress on a muscle at all angles is superior why don't strong men, powerlifters, weightlifters, or any strength and power athletes use these superior machines?

They do use them (if they have them) and other no-cam machines for bodybuilding exercises / pumping / assistance.

Since exercises where you don't balance the weight are relatively useless for developing the skills and strength needed for actual events that's about it.

Anyway, you knew all that.

[Van_Bilderass]

If using a cam or any other machine method to put more stress on a muscle at all angles is superior why don't strong men, powerlifters, weightlifters, or any strength and power athletes use these superior machines?

If you think about it, a big part of those sports is about avoiding stressing muscles through the full range of motion as well as managing and avoiding fatigue. In hypertrophy training you want the opposite, as much mechanical loading of the fibers as possible through the full range of motion. It appears as though loading in the lengthened position causes the most hypertrophy although  loading at all lengths should be beneficial.

A strength athlete benefits from muscle size too so machines wouldn't be bad and some promote their use. But there's only so much energy and time available so most time is spent practicing technique and loading as it happens in competition. I know Westside uses some machines and ton of assistance exercises. On the other end of the spectrum you have the powerlifters who do the 3 lifts and little else.

[Humble Narcissist]

They do use them (if they have them) and other no-cam machines for bodybuilding exercises / pumping / assistance.

Since exercises where you don't balance the weight are relatively useless for developing the skills and strength needed for actual events that's about it.

Anyway, you knew all that.

Well, if you don't develop the skills and strength to go with the muscles, what's the point?  Why just have muscles when you can have both?  Someone needs to tell all of those World's Strongest Man contestants they need to use cams to build their 330lb bodies.

[IroNat]

Well, if you don't develop the skills and strength to go with the muscles, what's the point?  Why just have muscles when you can have both?  Someone needs to tell all of those World's Strongest Man contestants they need to use cams to build their 330lb bodies.

Someone who believes in the Cam...

[Humble Narcissist]

Someone who believes in the Cam...

He's the only one.  Did you see last week's game?

[joswift]

using tension bands for lateral raises is way harder than using dumbells, you have to resist the downward and cant use momentum in the upward

[pellius]

If using a cam or any other machine method to put more stress on a muscle at all angles is superior why don't strong men, powerlifters, weightlifters, or any strength and power athletes use these superior machines?

Because their sport is very activity-specific. If you are tested on how much you can bench that means you have to practice the bench press. And being able to bench press a lot of weight doesn't necessarily make you strong. I mean, of course, you get stronger as you bench more weight but physical strength is very difficult to pin down specifically. Back in the 1990s when I was at my strongest, I could bench 7 clean reps with a slight pause at the bottom. Matt Hughes, at the time, was primarily a wrestler, and he could bench 225 for maybe 8 reps. We were about the same weight, I had maybe five pounds on him and much leaner. When we wrestled he just totally rag-dolled me. Not only was he a superior wrestler but his strength was overwhelming.
He may not have had weight lifting strength but he had the functional farm boy strength that is hard to quantify. If you watch his fight with Frank Trigg, whose gym I was training at during that time. You will see Frank get everything perfectly on the ground: take-down, side-control, mount, back, and then the choke. It just doesn't get any better than that. But he couldn't finish Matt. Later Frank would relate at just how incredibly strong Matt was. After escaping, Matt would perform the same sequence on Frank: take-down, side-control, mount, back, choke -- only this time he would finish Frank.

Jones believed in training the muscle throughout its full range under constant variable tension matching the movement's strength curve. Whether he succeeded at achieving all these conditions is debatable. Whether it has any advantage is also debatable. Will a muscle look or perform better under full-range continuous tension? Studies have shown that it is during the "stretch portion" of the movement where the stimulus for hypertrophy takes place. Those guys at Iron Man tried to build a career on these partial movements calling them "X-Reps". Jason Huh built an incredible physique just doing these partial movements. Look at Coleman doing T-Bar rows. The only real tension he is getting in his back is during the stretch portion where he really wrenches his back muscles in the beginning only to have momentum take over the rest of the movement.

The idea of the superiority of full-range movements I think is just that it seems to make sense. I do it because I am concerned with flexibility but I certainly haven't seen any spurt of muscle growth in any of the training protocols I have tried throughout the decades of training so it's hard to determine what is optimal.

[joswift]

Because their sport is very activity-specific. If you are tested on how much you can bench that means you have to practice the bench press. And being able to bench press a lot of weight doesn't necessarily make you strong. I mean, of course, you get stronger as you bench more weight but physical strength is very difficult to pin down specifically. Back in the 1990s when I was at my strongest, I could bench 7 clean reps with a slight pause at the bottom. Matt Hughes, at the time, was primarily a wrestler, and he could bench 225 for maybe 8 reps. We were about the same weight, I had maybe five pounds on him and much leaner. When we wrestled he just totally rag-dolled me. Not only was he a superior wrestler but his strength was overwhelming.
He may not have had weight lifting strength but he had the functional farm boy strength that is hard to quantify. If you watch his fight with Frank Trigg, whose gym I was training at during that time. You will see Frank get everything perfectly on the ground: take-down, side-control, mount, back, and then the choke. It just doesn't get any better than that. But he couldn't finish Matt. Later Frank would relate at just how incredibly strong Matt was. After escaping, Matt would perform the same sequence on Frank: take-down, side-control, mount, back, choke -- only this time he would finish Frank.

Jones believed in training the muscle throughout its full range under constant variable tension matching the movement's strength curve. Whether he succeeded at achieving all these conditions is debatable. Whether it has any advantage is also debatable. Will a muscle look or perform better under full-range continuous tension? Studies have shown that it is during the "stretch portion" of the movement where the stimulus for hypertrophy takes place. Those guys at Iron Man tried to build a career on these partial movements calling them "X-Reps". Jason Huh built an incredible physique just doing these partial movements. Look at Coleman doing T-Bar rows. The only real tension he is getting in his back is during the stretch portion where he really wrenches his back muscles in the beginning only to have momentum take over the rest of the movement.

The idea of the superiority of full-range movements I think is just that it seems to make sense. I do it because I am concerned with flexibility but I certainly haven't seen any spurt of muscle growth in any of the training protocols I have tried throughout the decades of training so it's hard to determine what is optimal.

the cons to this are that the muscle hits failure at its weakest position not its strongest, I use full range then partials to get a bit extra stress, I see people using large weights on leg press and doing a very short range of motion, they claim to put more stress on the muscle as opposed to using less weight and failing if you let the weight come down deeper

Tis a conundrum...