Pullovers - Chest

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 12:11 AM GMT
    I wanted much more definition in my lower chest area. Someone said that pullovers are good for this. But, I don't see anyone in my gym do pullovers. Are pullovers effective or a waste of time? Are there other things I can do (I do a lot of decline push-up and bench-presses already)? Thanks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcANO5d0nA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:40 AM GMT
    @aznewbie. thanks for sharing! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    That exercise looks good. Also try:
    - flyes - try with different hand positions
    - dips!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 4:04 AM GMT
    i use pullovers for my chest. I have a distorted body image though, so i can't really comment on if they work. I like them though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 7:08 AM GMT
    try popovers . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:07 PM GMT
    Pullovers aren't a chest exercise. You'll want to research this further.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 6:20 AM GMT
    chuckystud saidPullovers aren't a chest exercise. You'll want to research this further.


    As usual you're wrong again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3TJ_x-kzg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 12:23 PM GMT
    I'm not wrong very often (just in case you're keeping track). It's true that there's chest involvement in the pullover, but, also significant back, involvement, too depending on how they're executed. You got your dig in, and you're right, to an extent. If the dumbbell is more to the sides, it'll involve more chest. When it's single, and in the center, it involves less of the chest. If you don't believe me, go do a few at the gym. I consider that it works both. I still don't consider it the best choice for "chest definition." I give you that chest is the prime mover, but, if you're laying across the bench, you'll notice it in your back, as well. As I said, I'm not usually wrong (that's why I'm me, and, you're not), but, I'll give you some on this one. You got me, but, failed to provide the solution for the original poster. I'm used to it and understand youthful ignorance. What were you saying about "douche bags" (quoting your profile)?

    If you've done very many of them, you'll notice the pull in your back, big time.

    At any rate, if you look at chest anatomy, or, know anything about definition, you know that definition is a function of body fat levels. A well executed fly would be much better for bringing up the chest. If you look at an anatomy chart, you'll see there's no lower or upper chest muscle.

    anatomy2.jpg

    What the original poster needs is a clean diet, and HIIT, to bring up definition. For sarcoplasmic hypterophy, he needs higher rep work. Period. Just the way it is. Pick an exercise. There's two chest muscle groups. Anything that works them will do but flies will likely be more direct, and effective.

    I reckon that's why I have the 48 inch chest, and, you don't.

    9730_212229.jpg

  • turbid2wenty

    Posts: 74

    Dec 19, 2010 12:59 PM GMT
    Well, I don't have any supplementary material to back up my claim, but having done these for a 6 week period I can say that I won't do them as part of a chest routine again. It seemed to me that there was a pretty limited range during that motion that caused any sort of muscle contraction specific to the pecs, with the rest seemingly split between the upper back and shoulders.

    I dunno who this dude is, but check out the following: http://www.davedraper.com/online-5-pullovers-chest.html. This is definitely more what I feel when doing them, but YMMV I guess?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 1:03 PM GMT
    Dave Draper has been around forever (well before your time :-) When he was younger, he was in the big leagues of bodybuilding.

    http://www.davedraper.com/online-5-pullovers-chest.html

    Yeah, most serious lifters would likely agree (including me), I think, but, chest is in there, too. There's a body mechanics thing, and, a perception thing. How you execute the movement changes how it feels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2010 4:54 AM GMT
    Then there's the question of machine pullovers. While I can feel them working my back and suspect they work primarily my back I always get a great, increased chest pump performing machine pullovers as the final exercise of a chest routine. I press with my elbows, never more than lightly resting my fingers throughout the movement, going for a full (chest) stretch. Thoughts?

  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Dec 20, 2010 9:25 AM GMT
    Don't sell yourself short Chunk you're wrong alot!!!!!icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2010 3:37 AM GMT
    I find these hit the Pectoralis minor group (perpendicular to the major and underneath) really well. They also improve your "cleavage" up top. What maximizes it is pinching your shoulder blades together like they're holding a walnut really squeezing the chest group. This should minimize back and shoulder involvement.
    And I can say this with authority Chucky. This is why I HAVE A 49 INCH CHEST AND YOU DON'T!
  • tuffguyndc

    Posts: 4437

    Dec 21, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    sweetyork saidI wanted much more definition in my lower chest area. Someone said that pullovers are good for this. But, I don't see anyone in my gym do pullovers. Are pullovers effective or a waste of time? Are there other things I can do (I do a lot of decline push-up and bench-presses already)? Thanks!
    ha ha ha ha first of all pullovers are not for your chest. they are for either lats or shoulders and a little bit of triceps. i am sorry to laugh at you but who ever told you that do not know what they are talking about. if you want to improve your chest do pushups. do lots and lots of pushups
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2010 7:24 AM GMT
    This thread is pure awesome, in a funny/sad way. Here's my understanding of the pull-over...

    It's not primarily a chest exercise, per se. Meaning, it doesn't target the pecs like the bench press does. Like shockandAWED said, it's supposed to hit the pectoralis minor. If you do the exercise right, you'll feel the pump in that area where your pecs meet your delts. This exercise gives your pecs an overall full appearance.

    The secondary benefit is that helps stretch/expand the cartilage in your rib cage when you use heavier weights. This is good for bodybuilders when they hit that side-chest pose. It allows them to huff up their chest and really make their pecs pop. If you look at pics of old school bodybuilders, you'll notice they have big barrel chests. This is from doing heavy pullovers.

    83R6b.jpg

    Even if you don't aspire to be a bodybuilder, I think pullovers should be included in your routine. Often times, guys focus on the major muscles and ignore the minor ones. I generally think that exercising the minor ones helps decrease the possibility of injury/strain in the future. Just make sure you do the exercise correctly. I see way too many guys do this exercise wrong and end up hurting themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2010 8:27 AM GMT
    Wow, "The Blond Bommer"/Dave Draper. Long ago big dude in the Arnold era. He was nice and Arnold was "Ambitious"??!!
    AS I remember w/my Arnold clone trainer go w/what the Chuckystud said on this one. Look foreword to when dudes look normal/.nat. again but I am in the minority. Plus I went and got old icon_sad.gif lol Not so bad really lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2010 11:18 PM GMT
    After reviewing all the comments, I guess the consensus is that pullovers don't do much for defining the lower chest (if anything at all). Thanks for all the comments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2016 5:49 AM GMT
    https://youtu.be/4fsLT7_tMvU

    This is a cool way to do the PUllover exercise

    https://www.facebook.com/JaguarPawNation/

    https://www.facebook.com/JaguarPawNation/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2016 4:48 AM GMT
    So a pullover update...

    I've now taken to doing pullovers with a dumbbell and find it's also really all about form. When I engage my lats, they work primarily lats though they still train pecs to some extent and are a great segue for me transitioning from chest to back on chest/back days.

    I heard that they increase the size of the ribcage (expansion) if you're in your teens while the cartilage is still pliable or some such, unless that's some gyurban legend.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 18, 2016 1:21 AM GMT
    I think that what you're feeling in your chest when you do pullovers is your serratus working. While the pullover works both lats and pecs, IMO it is better for lats, so I would do something different for lower chest, like decline bench, decline flyes, or cable crossovers.