Just a couple questions.
When using the bench, do you prefer to use a form that isolates the pecs more – e.g., wide grip, bring to the neck/collarbone, minimal arch, no leg drive – or a form that uses a larger set of muscles – e.g., tucked elbows, strong arch, strong leg drive? Which do you find works better?
Do you find that holding a peak contraction of the pecs and triceps at the top of an explosive rep is worth it? Does the additional stimulus benefit overshadow the fatigue?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Just a couple questions.
When using the bench, do you prefer to use a form that isolates the pecs more – e.g., wide grip, bring to the neck/collarbone, minimal arch, no leg drive – or a form that uses a larger set of muscles – e.g., tucked elbows, strong arch, strong leg drive? Which do you find works better?
Do you find that holding a peak contraction of the pecs and triceps at the top of an explosive rep is worth it? Does the additional stimulus benefit overshadow the fatigue?[/quote]
If you want to injure your shoulders or pec, use a wide-grip with the elbows out. If you want results, keep the elbows at about a 45 degrees angle
For explosive work it wont give you much. At the end of a higher volume set it might be beneficial.
I’d stumbled upon some earlier threads from several years ago when you were experimenting with some of Gironda’s ideas. He had a handful of questionable movements with high injury risk, so I wasn’t quite sure what your takeaway was.
Thank you.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’d stumbled upon some earlier threads from several years ago when you were experimenting with some of Gironda’s ideas. He had a handful of questionable movements with high injury risk, so I wasn’t quite sure what your takeaway was.
Thank you.[/quote]
The neck press is a movement that works, but it has to be done with a light weight. So it’s not really in line with my core principles