PEC-DECKS useless? How come?
Guillermo Gonzalez
On 4 Sep 1996 14:01:23 -0400, d...@interlog.com (Dan Herold) wrote:
>I seem to remember a discussion floating around here last week concerning
>pec-decks and the fact that they're an exersize in futility.
I believe that you can get a great "pump and burn" out of the pec deck,
however, I can't use a heavy enough weight in order to produce substantial
growth. The position it puts you in (humerous sticking out at, elbows at 90
degrees with the wrists rotated upward), at least for me, leaves me prone to
rotator cuff injuries.
>If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
>in most gyms (including home gyms)?
Well, IF they are useless, and most gyms have them it is because most gyms are
commercial crap where they have all sorts of useless machines taking up space
(Note, I am NOT saying that machines in general are useless, only that SOME
machines are useless). If the excersize "looks good" (Dont most pec-decks face
mirrors?) , then people will do them, and people will want to sign up.
>I mean, after completing a few sets
>myself on the pec-deck machine, I feel a good burn. What is it that I am
>exersising if not my pecs?
Your pecs, front deltoids, and maybe the biceps a bit.
Guillermo
Dan Herold
I seem to remember a discussion floating around here last week concerning
pec-decks and the fact that they're an exersize in futility.
Can someone please re-iterate, in somewhat layman's terms, exactly WHY
these excersises are useless?
If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
in most gyms (including home gyms)? I mean, after completing a few sets
myself on the pec-deck machine, I feel a good burn. What is it that I am
exersising if not my pecs?
Many thanks for any light that can be shed on this issue.
Curiously,
.drh
--
Dan R. Herold (drh)
d...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~drh
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Lyle McDonald
> Can someone please re-iterate, in somewhat layman's terms, exactly WHY
> these excersises are useless?
I can think of several reasons why a pec-deck is useless compared to
something like a bench press:
1. can overstress the shoulder. How many people do you see going for the
full, maximum stretch thinking they are putting more stress on the pecs?
Too damn many. Past a certain point, allowing the pads to go too far back
is simply retraction of the scapulae (shoulder blades) and has nothing to
do with the pecs anymore, unless you consider the stress on the ligaments
in the shoulder.
2. Much less weight can be used on a pec-deck vs. a bench press of just
about any sort. Muscle and strength gains are intimately related to how
much tension and overload you apply to the target muscle. You can simply
apply more tension (even though it *is* spread across more muscle groups)
with a compound, multi-joint movement like a bench press.
> If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
> in most gyms (including home gyms)?
Because the gym owners know that the members will bitch if there isn't
one. How many people do you see with no pec development doing set after
set of pec deck or cable-crossovers (generally in front of a mirror where
they can see the muscle working)? Again, too damn many. Same reason most
gyms have the inner and outer thigh machines that women love. If they
didn't, the member would go somewhere that did.
>I mean, after completing a few sets
> myself on the pec-deck machine, I feel a good burn. What is it that I am
> exersising if not my pecs?
You are exercising the pecs, just not in a way optimal/conducive to
gaining mass and strength. As to the burn, that is caused by the buildup
of waste products like lactic acid and has little or nothing to do with
how much strength/size gains you've stimulated. Ask a powerlifter about
going for the burn and then be prepared to duck.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
Andreas Jelvemark
In message <50kg5j$b...@gold.interlog.com> - d...@interlog.com (Dan Herold)4 Sep
1996 14:01:23 -0400 writes:
>Can someone please re-iterate, in somewhat layman's terms, exactly WHY
>these excersises are useless?
I know that Chuck Clark isn't in favor of Pec-Deck and I would also like to
know why.
Perhaps it is due to the Pec-Deck being somewhat of a redundant exercise in
comparison to different presses.
Chuck?
>If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
>in most gyms (including home gyms)? I mean, after completing a few sets
>myself on the pec-deck machine, I feel a good burn. What is it that I am
>exersising if not my pecs?
Pec-Deck is probably quite useless for most people who use it. However they
use bad form causing them to use the anterior delts to a great degree. However
the amount you can press, by using good form, is generally much less than the
weight you can press. I also believe that the chest will not be worked very
hard during the eccentric phase of the exercise since most of the work seems
to be in your upper back. But I'm in deep water here.
Andreas Jelvemark - and...@df.lth.se
Bill Whedon
Lyle makes some good points, but didn't really explain why it's
not a "good thing" to "go for the burn" when trying to hypertrophy
a muscle. Generally, lactic acid "burn" is associated with lengthy
working of a muscle in a mode which improves _endurance_, not size.
To effectively build _size_, you must stress the muscle to the point
of total failure within a relatively few reps (some even go for the
"single-rep-to-failure"). I generally recommend that people who
wish to hypertrophy do so by choosing a weight which may be lifted
no more than six to eight times before TMF on the first set. If you
are a "beginner", too, one set is generally enough. More experienced
people will "plateau" less frequently by doing 3 sets. You increase
the weight when you are able to do more than 8 reps on the _third_
set, if you're doing 3, or when you can do 12 reps if you're doing
only one.
The above is a guideline, only. YMMV, and since I'm not personally
familiar with your particular situation, you should use the info
with caution. Consult a local Certified Personal Trainer before you
"jump right in". It will pay dividends in getting you on the right
track _much_ more quickly than trying to develop your own program,
or following something the best-cut dude in the gym is doing. What
works for one person, does not necessarily work for another, and
may not even be _safe_! Take good care of your body - it has to
last you a lifetime!
Cheers,
Bill Whedon
--
*================================================================*
* Bill Whedon, ACE PT PO Box 34067, Lenexa KS 66214-6067 USA *
* Come to http://www.tyrell.net/~fitness for lots of neat stuff! *
* Free photo album, fitness pros, ab workouts, and more. *
* "Functional Fitness" is Copyright 1996 by Bill Whedon *
*================================================================*
Al
lyl...@edge.edge.net (Lyle McDonald) wrote:
>In article <50kg5j$b...@gold.interlog.com>, d...@interlog.com (Dan Herold) wrote:
>> If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
>> in most gyms (including home gyms)?
>Because the gym owners know that the members will bitch if there isn't
>one. How many people do you see with no pec development doing set after
>set of pec deck or cable-crossovers (generally in front of a mirror where
>they can see the muscle working)? Again, too damn many. Same reason most
>gyms have the inner and outer thigh machines that women love. If they
>didn't, the member would go somewhere that did.
Same opinion here about the pec-deck but Cable crossovers also
useless? I know it won't give you as much growth as a bench press or
even DB flyes but I have used it quite a lot and I'm happy with the
results i have gotten from it. (But I have seen too many people doing
half-assed Cable crossovers that would then be considered useless. But
i think if done on good form and with enough weight they are a good
Chest exercise and should be considered when one needed some extra
Chest work) Just my two cents.
Al.
>Lyle McDonald, CSCS
Jos Vanhoudt
My opinion on all cable exercises (pec decs included) is that they
don't work for mass. It is because during the negative part of the
movement you lose to much of the tension in your muscles which is not
the case with free weights. The reason for this loss of tension is the
friction of the cable with the rolls. So you end up with a very heavy
positive part (because of the same friction) and a very light negative
part which causes to lose the tension on the muscle and gives the
muscle time to recuperate. So you end up with some sort of endurence
training (with the lactic-burn) in stead of a hypertrophy training.
In a good hypertrophy training the tension on the muscle during the
negative part should be at least heavy as during the positive part to
inhibit recuperation.
I think this is the main reason wy cables are rarely used to build
mass.
Does anybody have a other opinion or experiences??
Joshua
T. David Bamford
Greetings,
aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) wrote:
>Same opinion here about the pec-deck but Cable crossovers also
>useless? I know it won't give you as much growth as a bench press or
>even DB flyes but I have used it quite a lot and I'm happy with the
>results i have gotten from it. (But I have seen too many people doing
>half-assed Cable crossovers that would then be considered useless. But
>i think if done on good form and with enough weight they are a good
>Chest exercise and should be considered when one needed some extra
>Chest work) Just my two cents.
Al,
When I do cable crossovers, I bend at the waist until my torso is
parallel with the floor. It sorta mimicks DB bench presses but with
continuous tension thrown in. You can use a lot of weight this way.
You can really "dig in" to that delt-pec tie-in and work those pecs
directly. Only in this style do I find results for my efforts.
I don't look into any damn mirrors while doing 'em either!
I agree that the cable crossovers as performed in your average
"chrome and pads" gym is essentially worthless...
T. David Bamford
Lyle McDonald
> Lyle makes some good points, but didn't really explain why it's
> not a "good thing" to "go for the burn" when trying to hypertrophy
> a muscle. Generally, lactic acid "burn" is associated with lengthy
> working of a muscle in a mode which improves _endurance_, not size.
> To effectively build _size_, you must stress the muscle to the point
> of total failure within a relatively few reps (some even go for the
> "single-rep-to-failure").
Good point. Also, a question that might come up is why not go to failure
in low reps with the pec-deck? Because isolation movements like this
typically put a lot more stress on the joints and aren't really suitable
for low rep, high tension training. Same thing goes generally for leg
extensions and stuff like that.
Lyle McDonald, CSCS
Rick Turkel
In article <323543...@uia.ua.ac.be>, Jos Vanhoudt <vho...@uia.ua.ac.be>
writes:
I'm no expert, but IMHO the friction here is minimal in any decent machine;
the cable moves against a pulley wheel and not a stationary object, and the
weights move along lubricated rods. Besides, for things like flys, the
physics of the situation is such that machine flys are _much_ better than
supine (lying) db flys. In the latter, once you get the dumbbells up above
the plane of your body, the fraction of the weight that you're working
against decreases because the motion is no longer vertical. Machine flys,
OTOH, maintain the same resistance throughout the entire range of motion.
My personal experience has been that I get a much better burn from machine
flys than from db flys with the same weight. The only caveat is that you
have to pay careful attention to stressing both sides equally (unless
you're doing one-arm machine flys, of course).
--
Rick Turkel (___ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
rtu...@freenet.columbus)oh.us| | \ ) |/ \ | | | \__) |
rtu...@cas.org / | _| __)/ | ___) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Rich or poor, it's good to have money. Ko rano rani | u jamu pada.
James Krieger
aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) writes:
> lyl...@edge.edge.net (Lyle McDonald) wrote:
>
> >In article <50kg5j$b...@gold.interlog.com>, d...@interlog.com (Dan Herold) wrote:
>
>
> >> If they are indeed useless, why are pec-deck machines such a common scene
> >> in most gyms (including home gyms)?
>
> >Because the gym owners know that the members will bitch if there isn't
> >one. How many people do you see with no pec development doing set after
> >set of pec deck or cable-crossovers (generally in front of a mirror where
> >they can see the muscle working)? Again, too damn many. Same reason most
> >gyms have the inner and outer thigh machines that women love. If they
> >didn't, the member would go somewhere that did.
>
> useless? I know it won't give you as much growth as a bench press or
> even DB flyes but I have used it quite a lot and I'm happy with the
> results i have gotten from it. (But I have seen too many people doing
> half-assed Cable crossovers that would then be considered useless. But
> i think if done on good form and with enough weight they are a good
> Chest exercise and should be considered when one needed some extra
> Chest work) Just my two cents.
>
than isolation movements since the degree of overload that may be established
is much greater. Some people will say that cable crossovers improve
definition and tone and help "shape" their pecs, but anybody who knows
basic stuff on physiology will know that this is a bunch of crap.
Definition is purely a function of how much bodyfat you have covering
your muscles.
Chuck Clark
tbam...@ime.net (T. David Bamford) wrote:
> When I do cable crossovers, I bend at the waist until my torso is
>parallel with the floor. It sorta mimicks DB bench presses but with
>continuous tension thrown in. You can use a lot of weight this way.
>You can really "dig in" to that delt-pec tie-in and work those pecs
>directly.
What's a pec-delt tie-in? Is that a muscle or what?
<Chuck being very facetious>
--
Chuck Clark SPT
cmcl...@homer.louisville.edu
University of Louisville, KY
http://www.louisville.edu/~cmclarz1
Al
James Krieger <jkri...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>> Same opinion here about the pec-deck but Cable crossovers also
>> useless? I know it won't give you as much growth as a bench press or
>> even DB flyes but I have used it quite a lot and I'm happy with the
>> results i have gotten from it. (But I have seen too many people doing
>> half-assed Cable crossovers that would then be considered useless. But
>> i think if done on good form and with enough weight they are a good
>> Chest exercise and should be considered when one needed some extra
>> Chest work) Just my two cents.
>I disagree with this. Compound movements will always be more effective
>than isolation movements since the degree of overload that may be established
>is much greater. Some people will say that cable crossovers improve
>definition and tone and help "shape" their pecs, but anybody who knows
>basic stuff on physiology will know that this is a bunch of crap.
>Definition is purely a function of how much bodyfat you have covering
>your muscles.
Did i say anything about Cable Crossovers improving definition,
shape or "tone"?? Nope , I don't think so. I just said that in my
opinion CC aren't useless and that IF some EXTRA chest work was needed
they where a good choice. Also I never said that CC where better that
ANY compound movement.
Al.
T h i s T e x t i s i n h e r e j u s t b e c a u s e m y
d a m n s e r v e r d i d n' t l e t m e p o s t i f t h e
t e x t c o u n t w a s t o o s m a l l .
Jos Vanhoudt
Rick Turkel wrote:
>
> In article <323543...@uia.ua.ac.be>, Jos Vanhoudt <vho...@uia.ua.ac.be>
> writes:
> |> My opinion on all cable exercises (pec decs included) is that they
> |> don't work for mass. It is because during the negative part of the
> |> movement you lose to much of the tension in your muscles which is not
> |> the case with free weights. The reason for this loss of tension is the
> |> friction of the cable with the rolls. So you end up with a very heavy
> |> positive part (because of the same friction) and a very light negative
> |> part which causes to lose the tension on the muscle and gives the
> |> muscle time to recuperate. So you end up with some sort of endurence
> |> training (with the lactic-burn) in stead of a hypertrophy training.
> |> In a good hypertrophy training the tension on the muscle during the
> |> negative part should be at least heavy as during the positive part to
> |> inhibit recuperation.
> |> I think this is the main reason wy cables are rarely used to build
> |> mass.
> |> Does anybody have a other opinion or experiences??
>
> I'm no expert, but IMHO the friction here is minimal in any decent machine;
> the cable moves against a pulley wheel and not a stationary object, and the
> weights move along lubricated rods.
OK, but maybe this minimal amount of friction is already enough to
make a exercise ineffective. We all know that the negative part of the
movement is the most important one to stimulate strenght and muscle
gain. At least that's what many studies showed. Any amount of friction
works in two directions, it makes to positive part heavier while it
makes the negative part easier, exactly the opposite we need!!
Try to hold on for a few seconds at the point of maximal muscle
contraction both with dumbbell lateral raises and cable lateral raises
and you will find a big difference. It's much easier to hold the cable
than it is to hold the dumbbell and this is not a matter of angle but
a matter of friction.
Besides, for things like flys, the
> physics of the situation is such that machine flys are _much_ better than
> supine (lying) db flys. In the latter, once you get the dumbbells up above
> the plane of your body, the fraction of the weight that you're working
> against decreases because the motion is no longer vertical. Machine flys,
> OTOH, maintain the same resistance throughout the entire range of motion.
You're right the main difficulty with dumbbell flyes is to keep the
tension on the muscle at the end of the movement especially if you
prefer to move the dumbbells rather close to eachother at the top of
the movement. But if you manage to keep the tension on the muscle by
not lifting the dubbells to high I'm sure they will be more effective
then machine flyes because of the extra stress during the negative
part.
>
> My personal experience has been that I get a much better burn from machine
> flys than from db flys with the same weight.
The burn is not necessarely a proof for muscle growth stimulation,
it's only evidence for lactic acid accumulation. The more reps you do
in the same set the more probable it is to feel a strong burn but you
won't necessarely grow faster.
Guillermo Gonzalez
No shit... I was working up to some pretty impressive poundages on the Pec
Deck when one day, my form went out a LITTLE, but a left rotator went out ALOT..
To this day, that SOB still gives me pain at times... damned those Pec
Decs...
Guillermo
T. David Bamford
cmcl...@homer.louisville.edu (Chuck Clark) wrote:
>tbam...@ime.net (T. David Bamford) wrote:
>> When I do cable crossovers, I bend at the waist until my torso is
>>parallel with the floor. It sorta mimicks DB bench presses but with
>>continuous tension thrown in. You can use a lot of weight this way.
>>You can really "dig in" to that delt-pec tie-in and work those pecs
>>directly.
>What's a pec-delt tie-in? Is that a muscle or what?
><Chuck being very facetious>
Okay....you got me! <G>
( I can take it... )
T. David Bamford
T. David Bamford
lyl...@edge.edge.net (Lyle McDonald) wrote:
>... a question that might come up is why not go to failure
>in low reps with the pec-deck? Because isolation movements like this
>typically put a lot more stress on the joints and aren't really suitable
>for low rep, high tension training. Same thing goes generally for leg
>extensions and stuff like that.
Great observation. A nice compound movement like a heavy chin
( weight added ) can be done in a negatives-only style and the "pain"
is the "good kind" that comes from muscular stess, not joint
discomfort! I've done 'em with 100 pounds on my belt ( at a
bodyweight of 250+ ) with no problem even though I can only do 6 or so
with bodywieght. That's overload!
Disclaimer: Such attempts should be done only after thouroughly
warming up and stretching. Strict and slow is the way to go with
heavy negatives. Train hard but be safe...
T. David Bamford
James Krieger
> My personal experience has been that I get a much better burn from machine
> have to pay careful attention to stressing both sides equally (unless
> you're doing one-arm machine flys, of course).
A burn means nothing, though. A burn is simply do to the acidic conditions
built up in your muscles. It means nothing as far as stimulating hypertrophy
is concerned. You can do 100 reps of barbell curls and feel an intense burn,
but will your biceps be any bigger?
Free weight compound movements will always rule over isolation movements
when it comes to stimulating hypertrophy.
James Krieger
aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) writes:
> James Krieger <jkri...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> >> Same opinion here about the pec-deck but Cable crossovers also
> >> useless? I know it won't give you as much growth as a bench press or
> >> even DB flyes but I have used it quite a lot and I'm happy with the
> >> results i have gotten from it. (But I have seen too many people doing
> >> half-assed Cable crossovers that would then be considered useless. But
> >> i think if done on good form and with enough weight they are a good
> >> Chest exercise and should be considered when one needed some extra
> >> Chest work) Just my two cents.
> >> Al.
> >I disagree with this. Compound movements will always be more effective
> >than isolation movements since the degree of overload that may be established
> >is much greater. Some people will say that cable crossovers improve
> >definition and tone and help "shape" their pecs, but anybody who knows
> >basic stuff on physiology will know that this is a bunch of crap.
> >Definition is purely a function of how much bodyfat you have covering
> >your muscles.
>
>
> Did i say anything about Cable Crossovers improving definition,
> shape or "tone"?? Nope , I don't think so. I just said that in my
> opinion CC aren't useless and that IF some EXTRA chest work was needed
> they where a good choice. Also I never said that CC where better that
> ANY compound movement.
Then why not do some extra sets of some compound movement if you need the
EXTRA chest work.
Al
James Krieger <jkri...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>> Al.
>
>Then why not do some extra sets of some compound movement if you need the
>EXTRA chest work.
The same reason why we don't work our legs with squats only, or
shoulders with just Military presses or Presses behind the neck:
VARIETY.
Al.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bob Mann
aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) wrote:
> Did i say anything about Cable Crossovers improving definition,
>shape or "tone"?? Nope , I don't think so. I just said that in my
>opinion CC aren't useless and that IF some EXTRA chest work was needed
>they where a good choice. Also I never said that CC where better that
>ANY compound movement.
I agree, however if I find that I can still do more chest
work I will do an extra set of presses because I obviously
didn't put enough into the first one. |3^)
Bob Mann
James Krieger
aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) writes:
> James Krieger <jkri...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >aes...@imparcial.com.mx (Al) writes:
> >>
> >> Did i say anything about Cable Crossovers improving definition,
> >> shape or "tone"?? Nope , I don't think so. I just said that in my
> >> opinion CC aren't useless and that IF some EXTRA chest work was needed
> >> they where a good choice. Also I never said that CC where better that
> >> ANY compound movement.
> >
> >Then why not do some extra sets of some compound movement if you need the
> >EXTRA chest work.
>
> The same reason why we don't work our legs with squats only, or
> shoulders with just Military presses or Presses behind the neck:
> VARIETY.
>
> Al.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Flat dumbbell press, incline dumbbell press, incline barbell press,
flat barbell press, decline dumbbell press, decline barbell press, close-grip
barbell press, and dips are all the best ones.