Grondar

Hiya everyone.

I would like to develop my chest and back, and was hoping you guys/gals could suggest some lifts and excersizes to develop these areas.

So far, I know of the Bench Press and Butterfly machine for chest, and Lat Pulldown machine and rowing machine for back..

Does anyone else have any suggestions on lifts or machines I can use to develop my chest and back?

I'd really appreciate this, because instead of implementing leg work into my workout, I'd rather focus more on my chest and back at this point.

Thanks in advance.

__________________
"Yes, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical, you know, a pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence. Gotta get me some of that." -Stewie

rockzilla

Pull-ups/Chin-ups work a lot of your upper back and shoulders along with your arms.
There's a piece of equipment, I think it's called a Roman Chair. It's hard to describe, but you sort of fold yourself over at the waist on it and lift your upper body using your lower back muscles. You can also use it facing sideways to work your obliques (the muscles beside your abs)
Which reminds me, don't neglect your abs. Do some sit-ups/crunches.

shred_head

Deadlifts really help your lower back, and that is a very important area so that you won't injure it. Bent-over rows work the lats really well.

If you have access to a cable machine, cable crossovers are good for your chest. But you might just want to stick with flat bench press and incline bench press, as those are the best mass builders for the chest.

__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" -- Albert Einstein

"A clear indication of women's superiority over man is their refusal to play air guitar." --Frank Zappa

apeman

has anyone said bent-over flys yet?

and even light weights held straight out in front of you, elbows about 90 degrees, and push-together / pull apart kind of motion seemed to work something in my back quite hard. I hope there's a technical name for that cos my description sucks

I also do some fairly random waving-around of light weights, since I figure this has got to help abs, back and especially core muscle strength in the body too... won't gain you much muscle mass but worth the effort I should think.

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

SonnyBono

Reverse sit-ups can really build muscle fast, hold a weight against your chest and lift yourself as far as your back will let you.
Cable crossovers are great as mentioned above.
If it's muscle mass you are looking for, don't try lifting your max, really try to get your reps in and pump up the muscles. But give yourself ample rest.

stevie667

www.bodybuilding.com

I feel like such a rep for sending people there, but their exercise section has all the exercises you'll need for all kinds of different equipment.

But, for your chest, there are only 3 exercises you really need, the bench press, the incline bench press, and the dumbell fly.

hannukah harry

do up-right rows and shoulder shrugs, those will really develop your shoulder girdle.

also, arnold presses are great for the front and middle delt.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

coash

bentover raises are isolations and won't compare to deads/chins/rows for back development

the best domain name in the business not the best info though. some of it is extremely flawed.

rotator cuff injury waiting to happen if you do these
including an extra plane of motion is not necessary and will make you more prone to injury - hence a useless exercise. why not just do normal overhead presses instead.

hannukah harry

i disagree. i've never had a problem with upright rows, and i've never heard of anyone injurying themselves doing them.

as for whether arnold presses are useless or not, i don't know if the extra plane of movement does or does not really do anything. but there are bodybuilders who swear by them. i don't have the book with me that discusses them right now, but when i go home next week, i'll see what it has to say.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

apeman

no, apart from the fact I hate doing upright rows I've never had a problem with them either. I suppose you've got to be careful with your posture and wrists though? I certainly am.

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

bookerV

I've heard from a variety of sources that upright rows are only bad if you go too far up. Otherwise they are just fine for you. Of course doing any exercise with improper form is potentially extremely bad for you. I also enjoy doing Arny's quite a bit. If it's good enough for Arnold, its good enough for me...

__________________
"That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy."

Lionel Hutz

Sp0rAdiC

www.abcbodybuilding.com

there is a section here w/ animations of a bunch of workouts, divided into sections that show what part of the body it works. pretty neat and useful (click on the excercise tab on the top of the page)

cait987

To lazy to type out alot today so have fun

http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html

Phaenx

Bench press, incline bench press, decline bench press, dips.

Deadlifts, lat pulldowns, seated row, upright dumbell row, middle back shrug.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

coash

it's irrelevent whether you've met people getting injured with upright rows or not. fact still stands. internal rotation of shoulders, and the end of the pull remains anterior which causes the external rotators to pull a lot of the weight due to the closed chain properties of this exercise. just because an injury occurs during an exercise doesn't mean the exercise caused it. if you know anything about rotator cuff injuries you'll know they are chronic.


another irrelevent point is whether bodybuilders swear by some exercise. most of the training programs in arnold's book are trash to the natural lifter.
tell me the point of the extra plane of motion? you're overhead pressing for your delts. you're not training to spin the heavy weights around.

btw if you want further reading on this I'll be happy to direct you to the relevent peer cited literature. don't worry, I'm not going to say 'but ive never heard of anyone not injure themselves with these'

hannukah harry

please give us some peer reviewed literature.

and "i've never heard of someone injuring themselves that way" is pretty damn relevant when you're claiming it's possible, but doesn't seem to happen. you can pull/tear/injure any muscle on any exercise, but that doesn't mean that it's gonna happen.

oh yeah, if someone wants to build their muscles, then what bodybuilders (ie. people with hands on experiance) think is important. if you're just lifting for natural strength, then that's one thing, but if you want the muscles, it doesn't hurt to check out what the pro's do. if you're gonna build a castle, you don't look at house contruction, you look at a castle.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

coash

how many people out of all the people who train on earth who do upright rows have you heard from? or do you think a better approach would be to look at the science of the human biomechanics which would encompass everyone?

Quote:

oh yeah, if someone wants to build their muscles, then what bodybuilders (ie. people with hands on experiance) think is important. if you're just lifting for natural strength, then that's one thing, but if you want the muscles, it doesn't hurt to check out what the pro's do. if you're gonna build a castle, you don't look at house contruction, you look at a castle.

pro bodybuilders' drug bill is quite different to the natural lifters'. from what you write my guess is you're still in the early stages of reading lifting literature, and my suggestion is divert your attention away from bodybuilding muscle mags.

And what are you trying to say...strength athletes don't have muscles? Anyway it does not matter. You still haven't answered the question of what arnold presses offer that normal presses don't. It doesn't really mean much whether bodybuilders do arnold presses if you can't think of the reason behind such a stupid exercise

stevie667

I swear by the arnold press, I've got some great gains out if it comparative to normal presses.
But it takes alot of control in your movements to get anything out of it at all. My presses each take at least 3/4 seconds each, using a very controlled movement up and down, if you try to power the weight without full control, you fuck up the exercise and it's pointless.

If you want to bodybuild, it's best not to read the mags, 99% of them suck.

hannukah harry

so what you're saying is "biomechanically speaking, you can hurt yourself using upright rows." gee, mister, ya think? biomechanically speaking, you can tear any muscle you exercise, and i've known people who have, but none of them ever had a problem with the upright row.

i'm still waiting on the peer reviewed literature.

fyi, i don't read bodybuilding mags, haven't in years. but i am a certified personal trainer and almost done with my bachelors in sports med/ex. science. don't make assumptions, you know the old saying...

and you're right, i haven't answered your question about the extra plane of motion in the arnold press. i don't know if it does help or not, but from personal experiance and that of others, it seems to... so other than you're dissenting opinion, the general opinoin seems to be that it's a good exercise.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

coash

again, using your experience with people does not offer evidence to anything. as before, the potential for injury is chronic, for the biomechanical reasons above. Just before they don't have the injury now does not mean the upright row is not being detrimental to damaging scar tissue or inflammation of the joint or whatever the effect is. as for studies you don't need to look at them to know with all the rotatory work done such an exercise will have a greater potential of injury than others, esp if there's a weakness in that area, like the rotator cuff, or inflexibilities, or whatever.

Quote:

fyi, i don't read bodybuilding mags, haven't in years. but i am a certified personal trainer and almost done with my bachelors in sports med/ex. science. don't make assumptions, you know the old saying...

yes I do. but it doesn't seem much if you think there's a big difference gaining muscle through so called strength or bodybuilding training. back in the old days of bodybuilding there was no such difference.

Quote:

and you're right, i haven't answered your question about the extra plane of motion in the arnold press. i don't know if it does help or not, but from personal experiance and that of others, it seems to... so other than you're dissenting opinion, the general opinoin seems to be that it's a good exercise.

why does general opinion mean anything....lets talk common sense for the moment and forget the journals. If you're about to DB overhead press with 95% of 1RM, keeping in mind you're working your delts, would you really bother to spin this heavy ass weight around, maybe hurt your wrist in the process, and have less energy for the press? there is no point. Google can't even find a point to them.

shred_head

I'd always heard that Arnold Presses were supposed to work your Lateral Deltoids more than just regular shoulder presses, but I don't know if that's technically correct though.

__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" -- Albert Einstein

"A clear indication of women's superiority over man is their refusal to play air guitar." --Frank Zappa

nash

Sorry hannukah harry, but I'm going to agree with coash about the upright rows. There are much better alternatives to the upright row that work the same muscle groups. They also have the added benefit of being much less risky in terms of injury (ask an anatomy or physiology professor). There are many shoulder exercises around -- why recommend something that is so dangerous that most sources (including internet sources) warn against it?

hannukah harry

actually, i finally did a search two days ago on upright rows, found one site saying they were bad, and not quite for the reason coash listed (although that was a lesser reason mentioned), it was the only site in the top 5 to mention this. as you can see, i'm not the only one who recommended them (just to show that the general common knowledge is that they're okay, most people don't realize otherwise). i wasn't going to bother posting anything about this, i was going to wait and let coash back himself up. my feelings are if you've never posted in here before, we don't know if you anything or not, so if you want to say something that seems to widely differ from the general opinion, show some kind of proof. to say "biomechanically speaking..." like he did doesn't back it up, because he could still have been wrong. i like proof, which he said he would give and didn't, that's all it takes for me to say i'm wrong...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

coash

yeah? what site was this and where exactly did you search? how is their reason different from mine?

Quote:

as you can see, i'm not the only one who recommended them (just to show that the general common knowledge is that they're okay, most people don't realize otherwise).

over and over..

Quote:

i wasn't going to bother posting anything about this, i was going to wait and let coash back himself up. my feelings are if you've never posted in here before, we don't know if you anything or not, so if you want to say something that seems to widely differ from the general opinion, show some kind of proof. to say "biomechanically speaking..." like he did doesn't back it up, because he could still have been wrong. i like proof, which he said he would give and didn't, that's all it takes for me to say i'm wrong...

too funny. how does me not posting in this forum before mean that I'm wrong and the general opinion here is the correct one?

I already backed up the reasons describing the musculoskeletal properties behind it. if you don't understand you can ask.

You on the other hand are contradicting yourself. You say you like proof, yet you haven't given a scientific reason other than saying:

"Oh this is what the general opinion is so you must be wrong"

Seems like you have no relevent points to make at this stage, even in the beginning for that matter. There must be something in your undergrad degree that is relevent?

hannukah harry

well, it was a chat thread, so nothing athoratative... to quote "This causes an impingement syndrome in the A/C joint and leads to chronic tendinitis or bursitis. it is also a major contributor to rotator cuff problems." my bad, since it's been a couple days, and was mentioned second, it seemed to be of lesser concern.

Quote:

over and over..

wow, you must be one of those amazing people who never learned a single thing from experiance or another person. lucky you learned everythign you know from books and never had to question if they were right or not! aren't you special!

/sarcasm

Quote:

too funny. how does me not posting in this forum before mean that I'm wrong and the general opinion here is the correct one? I already backed up the reasons describing the musculoskeletal properties behind it. if you don't understand you can ask. You on the other hand are contradicting yourself. You say you like proof, yet you haven't given a scientific reason other than saying: "Oh this is what the general opinion is so you must be wrong" Seems like you have no relevent points to make at this stage, even in the beginning for that matter. There must be something in your undergrad degree that is relevent?

you not posting in here doesn't mean your wrong. but the people who post in here often has a general idea of what kind of knowledge each other have. for all we know, you're some guy who thinks the sky is green and the grass is blue and giving the explanation you did doesn't really tell us anything, because it could easily be your opinion that there isn't room for the movement in the joint but that could just be your opinion. without more than making a statement, we only have your word for it. and i don't know you, so that's not going to happen.

you offered peer reviewed literature on it, i asked to make good on it, and you never followed through. ever think that someone else might think that that's because there isn't? taht you're making a statement and can't back it up? that you're just talking out your ass?

but you're right about this, and you're right that i never gave a scientific answer. but i don't feel i need to. why's that? because i wasn't the one making a statement that goes against what is considered common knowledge (which doesn't seem to matter to you, since you never picked up any info from others). you see, if most of us think one thing, and we all picked it up from different sources and have never heard of your argument before, you need to back it up with proof of your argument. that's how discussin/debate works if you want to change people's opinion. you see, you could have taught us all something, but instead, by not backing it up, you come of as a random person telling us that the sky is blue because god used blue paint when making the sky. could you be right god used blue paint? yep, but prove it.

so basically, if you're gonna make a claim that goes against the grain, the burden of proof is on you. i think that's all i ever asked for...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

coash

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hannukah harry

Forget the topic and complain about how I write now...that's ok.

This is some interesting reasoning, one which I'm not familiar with. 'common knowledge' does not mean anything. 'common knowledge' can be wrong. 'common knowledge' doesn't give you special privileges that excuse you from providing scientific proof of your own. In fact if you have any to dispel my claims it'd be great.

My claims are not opinions. They are simply describing how the human body parts move and react. I'm sure there are studies in around 1850s describing how the rotator cuff works.

The thing is, my rebuttals are not as big a deal as you think. I'm not making super wild claims like 'weight lifting gives you cancer'. It's, again, about just how the anatomy works. If you frequent good lifting boards we won't be having this.

So I guess you want now peer reviewed literature on the function of the rotator cuff and deltoid and wrist flexion and yada. I recommend you go subscribe to Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonlin...est=index-html . It's not free though.

I didn't think I'd have to do this much common sense convincing. But since I'm a stranger here I should make myself more known so I become part of the 'general knowledge' shouldn't I...

pomeranian

I do endurance road cycling, so my back is pretty beat up on the daily. I suggest building ur abs as tight as u can, then start doing those situps where you got someone holding your legs down while from your groin and hip area is suspended over a table or bench and you are using your back to pull your upper body into a horizontal position. This has your own body weight working for you against gravity. I feel good doing this instead of weights. Try it, but don't neglect the abs, cause that helps you to pull up.

pom[COLOR=sienna]

giantpizzaman

for bodybuilding approach: high weight, low to medium reps

for toning, strengthening approach: medium weight, medium to high reps

__________________
hang out with your wang out then rock up with your cock up

coash

not really....no such thing as toning. the 'toned' look relates to muscle size and bodyfat amount. unless you're using periodisation you should always use highest weight you can handle. what you've outlined there is just basically a slower way of building muscle

giantpizzaman

toning: defining and adding shape to the muscle, as oppose to growing it or making gains the two kinda coem hand in hand, but if u tone up before you build you get a much nicer shape

__________________
hang out with your wang out then rock up with your cock up

coash

"defining and adding shape"
well 'defining' is the amount of body fat. and 'adding shape', well you can't change the shape of your muscle. so it's not really 'opposed' to growing

SiNai

Seriously, coash, get off your high horse. Don't pretend that you are an expert and expect to belittle others by throwing garbage at them like

Truth is, you're not impressing anybody.


I'll swear by upright rows until somebody can convince me otherwise, and I personally haven't seen enough proof not to do them. In addition, I would recommend them to a beginner. I know and understand the reasons why they would injure, but it is a great lift to build shoulders and I wouldn't leave it out of my routine- at least some of the time. If it causes a rotator cuff injury, so be it, I'll have some time to work on my abs and legs while I wait it out.

That said, I wouldn't recommend Arnold Presses to anybody, because it's about useless.

Doing low weight, high rep exercises aren't going to build your muscle as fast as high weight, low rep. But, it is 'defining', according to coash's definition, because it sheds body fat, and adds vascularity and an amount of volume, as far as I understand.

By the way, I'm not going to pretend I know all the answers, so if I'm wrong.. Help

Edit: By the way, everything besides the flames in this thread are good ideas, and I would like to emphasize rows and wide grip chins for back, and bench/flys/incline/ for chest. Throw some decline in too for good measure..

__________________
I can't seem to remember now
What it was like- to live life, before you.. symbiont

coash

maybe you could add smileys to all my posts before, then maybe you'll try to read into the information rather than the way it was delivered. if you don't agree with my points then give a counter argument, which hasn't been done so far.

regardless of whether you think upright rows are detrimental, there are better alternatives such as hang cleans. don't believe me google a lifting board, do a poll of upright rows vs hang cleans


no, I didn't say low weight high rep sheds bodyfat. that's the rubbish im trying to get away from