Pre-fatigueing

[goliath]

Originally posted by stonecold54
I would agree with you if you could show me someone that has a stonger bicep muscle than back muscle, a stonger tricep than pectoral.

bro - your ability to formulate an argument based in muscular/skeletal anatomy is comical to say the least. your argument holds no water for one very obvious reason. the muscle groups being compared are in seperate leages in terms of size/shape. the bi group consists of 3 main muscles: biceps brachii (long & short head) and brachialis. The back is a very intricate web of muscle and i'm not going to go into all of the here, but i will touch on a couple of the most superficial just to prove my point. The latisimus dorsi, a VERY large muscle that covers approx. 80% of the back (this muscle alone can generate more force than the entire biceps group). The rhomboids and trapiezius. All of the muscles, plus several others work together in back movments. COMMON SENSE buddy...the back will ALLWAYS be stronger than bi's.

the pec/tri comparison falls short for the same reasons plus a another MAJOR reason - mechanical disadvantage.

[psyko1]

Originally posted by stonecold54
I would agree with you if you could show me someone that has a stonger bicep muscle than back muscle, a stonger tricep than pectoral. in this case it doesn't matter much about the indvidual because the general makeup of the bodies muscles are pretty much universal. now another issue would be whether the makeup of your muscles is more fast twitch or slow twitch, but that would affect the number of sets you would do and that is another issue in itself.

well, for example i think if someone can't work their upper pecs well enough because their arms give out 1st, they could prefatigue doing some flyes. although by doing this i imagine you'd have to use heavy weights to get the full benefit of prefatiguing. that's why i said it all depends on the individual, i personally have never felt the need to do this but may try it to add something different. as for someone with bi's stronger than back can't help you there but this guy seems to have much stronger forearms than bi's:D

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by goliath
bro - your ability to formulate an argument based in muscular/skeletal anatomy is comical to say the least. your argument holds no water for one very obvious reason. the muscle groups being compared are in seperate leages in terms of size/shape. the bi group consists of 3 main muscles: biceps brachii (long & short head) and brachialis. The back is a very intricate web of muscle and i'm not going to go into all of the here, but i will touch on a couple of the most superficial just to prove my point. The latisimus dorsi, a VERY large muscle that covers approx. 80% of the back (this muscle alone can generate more force than the entire biceps group). The rhomboids and trapiezius. All of the muscles, plus several others work together in back movments. COMMON SENSE buddy...the back will ALLWAYS be stronger than bi's.

the pec/tri comparison falls short for the same reasons plus a another MAJOR reason - mechanical disadvantage.

Not sure what you are trying to say here but you are backing up my arguement. and what is you major problem with me? is it possible to post arguements to my posts without using ad hominem attacks or is that to build up your own arguement? not trying to be sarcastic but an honest question, I am sensing much hostility and I don't know why.

[JACKAL]

play nice guys.

but i have a question...if i do flyes before i do chest press so my tris and delts dont burn out before my chest does, then whats the problem? arent flyes a good mass builder for my chest too?

[JACKAL]

Originally posted by goliath
bro - your ability to formulate an argument based in muscular/skeletal anatomy is comical to say the least. your argument holds no water for one very obvious reason. the muscle groups being compared are in seperate leages in terms of size/shape. the bi group consists of 3 main muscles: biceps brachii (long & short head) and brachialis. The back is a very intricate web of muscle and i'm not going to go into all of the here, but i will touch on a couple of the most superficial just to prove my point. The latisimus dorsi, a VERY large muscle that covers approx. 80% of the back (this muscle alone can generate more force than the entire biceps group). The rhomboids and trapiezius. All of the muscles, plus several others work together in back movments. COMMON SENSE buddy...the back will ALLWAYS be stronger than bi's.

the pec/tri comparison falls short for the same reasons plus a another MAJOR reason - mechanical disadvantage.

thats what he is saying.

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by JACKAL
play nice guys.

but i have a question...if i do flyes before i do chest press so my tris and delts dont burn out before my chest does, then whats the problem? arent flyes a good mass builder for my chest too?

yes isolation movements are good for builiding mass. any exercise that gives the muscle good focus is good for mass. pre-exhaustion is just an intesity variable to spice up a workout. I don't use them all the time but just to change things up once in awhile.

[Thor]

Originally posted by JACKAL
play nice guys.

but i have a question...if i do flyes before i do chest press so my tris and delts dont burn out before my chest does, then whats the problem? arent flyes a good mass builder for my chest too?

conventional wisdom says that this is a good idea, and is where the whole pre-exhaust notion came from. The counter argument is that you tire your chest to where you cannot put your full effort into your presses and thereby your presses, which are the base mass builders, suffer. and as I suggested above, the only study I have ever read suggested that it is not a successful technique to use. I would be interested if there was other science out there backing the opposite point of view.

Hey Jordon, I bet you didn't think you would start such a contoversy, huh?

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by goliath
#1. just because something is published in a mag does not make it BS. to think so is just plain ignorant.

#2. MD is actually a decent publication because the majority of the articles are nothing more than sumarized studies. so if a magazine that publishes sumarized studies is just BS to you, have fun living in your little glass bubble.

I will admit that I have not read muscle magazine in a few years. maybe they have changed a bit. but I read them for years from age 14 for about 7 or 8 years and in my experience then they were all reguritation of the same articles over and over. so to answer I do not believe all that in magazines in BS nor do I believe that all that is in magazines is correct. and I actually live in an apartment so I don't know where the glass bubble reference comes from. :confused: