Hey Bobo your opinion on seated shoulder presses?
- 08-29-2004, 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by Bobo
Correct. The second picture is the right way to do these. In the first one his torso is moving and he is going really wide with the DB's (in an arc) and doesn't look like he is finishing the movement at the bottom. I wish there was a shot of the second guy from the front to see how it looks when you go straight up with the DB's. Slow, controlled movements with lower weight is much better at developing shoulders than heavy weight. It does not take much weight to sacrifice your form when performing shoulder movements and that is why a lot of people get hurt. Think about boxers and swordsmen. They always have large, ripped shoulders from lightweight/high rep movements. I think it was BOBO who said that more frequency with less volume worked much better on shoulders. I would agree with this statement in general. But form is paramount!!
- 08-30-2004, 09:32 AM
I tried standing arnold presses for the 1st time today, after only doing shoulder/military presses before and I have to say they hit my front delts harder than they have ever been hit before. I used about 10lbs lessper DB than I was using for regular presses. but its definately worth the drop.
- 09-02-2004, 01:00 PM
I think there is an agreement here that Time Under Tension (TUT) is of great importance when working delts, namely that they seem to require a given amount of TUT, larger than most muscle groups.
I agree, although I have not been doing the Arnold Presses in my current routine, have used them, as well as other TUT-increasing techniques, with good success. Interestingly, the idea for this came from growing my forearms, then my calves with success, using TUT increases. My conclusion is that the denser muscle groups - Calves, Forearms and yes, I do believe that delts, while not as dense as the calves, are denser than most other muscles and benefit from more TUT.
As to WHY that would be the case, well I wouldn't know.
Does that make sense to you, Bobo?
09-02-2004, 03:06 PM
09-02-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by LunaHotel
TUT is applicable for all muscle groups. It has been shown in study after study. Frequency is more important IMO with these muscle groups.
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
09-07-2004, 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by Bobo
Do you use frequency in all dense muscle groups or "all muscle groups"
I've done experiments in the past just to see how this works. One time, I had a workout partner with no calves. We tried doing an insane amount of calf work (20 sets/day) every day. Amazingly, we had no problems doing this and he actually made great progress. I tried the same thing with my traps. I found that I could handle only 4 days per week with 4-6 sets without having a "pain in the neck"
I've also found that mixing it up from TUT to heavy with rest periods to high volume drop sets/circuits seems to work with most muscle types/groups.
But one thing that I have only tried on a small scale (and which it seems is what Bobo likes) is low volume/ high frequency....correct me if I'm wrong here Bobo.
With that said, would you (Bobo) agree that every muscle group should be hit more than once per week? And would you also agree that certain muscle groups (legs for instance) should be held to twice per week and others (such as calves) could be hit more than that?
Similar Forum Threads
- By darius in forum Training ForumReplies: 237Last Post: 05-19-2011, 12:26 PM
- By Frank Reynolds in forum Training ForumReplies: 10Last Post: 04-26-2006, 12:44 AM
- By Sixpack in forum Training ForumReplies: 9Last Post: 04-27-2005, 10:57 PM
- By candle25 in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 0Last Post: 01-09-2005, 08:35 AM
- By meathead1987 in forum Training ForumReplies: 42Last Post: 12-09-2004, 03:16 PM