Triceps first?

[Tanya]

Can anyone tell me the logic of working triceps BEFORE chest? I have seen several people do this at the gym in the last month and not individuals that look like newbies.

I've always worked bigger muscles before smaller muscles......

[Steve]

Some folk's delts and tris overpower their pecs when benching. More often than not, IME, it's piss poor form. But regardless, if you're in this camp you might find it a good idea to prefatigue the muscles that typically over-power what you're actually attempting to target.

Or they could be specializing on their arms at the moment.

Just two ideas.

[Jeff Rage]

My initial thought would be that they don't know what they are doing!

My guess would be that they are trying to specialize triceps.

[tic]

Once in awhile, I like to flip things around and do Tricep first. Reason being is that once I complete my chest workout, my tricep is pretty worn out as well. When I do workout tricep first, I can use more weight and lift more reps / sets on tricep. It only takes one person to do that, and other folks follow in line.

[Steve]

Hence the specialization.

But Jeff is right... they probably don't know what they're doing. There are plenty of guys in my gym who are far more jacked than I am and when talking to them, it's plainly obvious they know next to nothing about training.

Funny how that works.

Which is why broscience dies so very hard.

[Tanya]

Don't know what they were doing was my first guess - OR it was in some magazine this month....

I'm going to have to watch them over the next week and see how their form is - betting Steve is right and it is just bad

[tic]

I love bro-science, Steve!!!!

Admittly, it took me awhile to undo what I learned and still am figuring out. I got a feeling that bro-science is supplement based. If you take the right supplement (steriod), you will be jacked up!!!

Tanya, I agree w/ ya. My money is that they are newbie and copying something from a mag.

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Bro-science often works because, generally speaking, because the worst day at the gym is better then the best day on the couch.

But more practically, much of what is said or thought works for general purposes...then along comes a tid-bit of information that just seems to fit the puzzle...and there you have it.

As example, science clearly tells us it's calories in vs. calories out....but I swear on all things holy: I can eat between 2,500 and 4,300 calories per day and my weight won't change, it's like a 'band' and my set-point holds me there. Science says that if I eat 4,300 instead of 2,500 then the daily increase of some 1,800 calories would result in 12,600 extra calories each week...and I know not all of that would translate into 3.6 pounds, but you'd think at least one pound per week...but not really.

Bro-science says you have to get under 2k per day to bust a move. It marginally makes sense and there's lot of concepts we can apply...but in the end, sometimes a bit of Bro-science takes ya there.

Was Kermit the frog really green? I just don't know anymore....