Is there any reason to do cable flys over flys on the bench?
It seems like you can maybe get more ROM using the cable machine.
Any preference of one vs the other?
>>35391574
Also, can I ignore the shit out of these and just bench? (Apparently Arnold says no)
>>35391574
who is this
>>35391593
Even though I always go for a freeweight alternative if it's possible, when it comes to chest flys, I have to go with cables since flys on the bench only really work for a good 1/3 of the ROM and you can risk serious shoulder injury
And if you want a fully developed chest you shouldn't just ignore this shit
>>35391574
Cable is better. The resistance curve sucks on DB. As you go up to the top there is lessening resistance, eventually ZERO once your arms are straight. It also has the most resistance at the bottom when your chest is the most stretched, which I think is bad.
You can try doing press flyes. You do a DB press laying on the bench, then you flye it down. So you exhaust the chest during the eccentric slowly, then press it up with DBs (and because your chest is somewhat pre-exhausted it works chest more).
>>35391593
Yes. If it works your chest good enough.
>>35391574
>Is there any reason to do cable flys over flys on the bench?
No risk of shoulder impingement
The muscles work through the whole range of motion
With different cable height you could better target higher or lower chest
It has been argued that dumbbell flies are sub-optimal for chest
p.s. It's "flies", albeit the wrong spelling is quite common among meat-heads
>>35391574
I prefer cables as it's a constant tension 100% of the way through the movement
>>35391593
flies are an auxiliary, isolated exercise. bench is exactly the opposite: compound. Is it important to target with more dedication the chest and upper portion of your torso with a isolation exercise? Probably.
>>35391829
>>35391869
>>35391920
I really appreciate the "why" here, thank you very much guys.
As far as flies - I figured it was that grammatically, being plural and all, but I wasn't sure for some reason.
>>35391936
>>35391949
Thanks.
I also tried the "reverse" of this movement today - grab cables facing the machine and extend almost-straight arms backwards for upper back.
My friend who only does these kicked my ass. I really thought barbell rows worked the same muscles. I do 2x the weight he does on this, but it really doesn't seem to carry over. Interesting day.
>>35391661
Kathleen Eggleton
>>35391920
>p.s. It's "flies", albeit the wrong spelling is quite common among meat-heads
freshman english major detected
>>35391920
>tries to be smart
>fails
It's "flyes"
