Bill Starr - Overhead Pressing

Training Powerlifting
41

[quote]tom63 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Not that he needs me to defend him but I read it as, “different people have different shaped acromion processes.” Not that people today have different shaped acromion processes as compared to people in the past.

That’s kind of how I read it as well.

Exactly. I don’t know where this clown got the idea that people suddenly evolved in the last few decades.

If he was so familiar with shoulder biomechancis and anatomical variants, he wouldn’t have made an issue out of this.

Starr’s point has validity, along with DeFranco’s. Benching is much more popular and does contribute to shoulder problems, as does overhead lifting and overhead sports. Swimming also can cause the same problems.

When people have a normal variant in the acromion process, they are more prone to impingment syndromes, both primary due to the anatomy, and secondarily due to mechanical changes. This must be taken in account when you train someone, or yourself.

It’s also a reason why an x ray is almost mandatory is cases of shoulder pain.

[/quote]

I know absolutely nothing about this topic so I hope you dont mind if I ask you a few questions. Why would benching contribute to shoulder problems more than overhead pressing? Is it just an issue of load or does it have to do with the plane of motion? or both?

42

[quote]
Exactly. I don’t know where this clown got the idea that people suddenly evolved in the last few decades. [/quote]

This clown got it from the ambiguity of the context of the thread and the wording of your post. Where you get your panties in a wad and call people third grade names I have no clue!

I am very familiar with shoulder biomechanics and and anatomical variants, hence my questioning of them changing within a generation, if I simply misunderstood you correct me, you chose not to do this, but rather pitch fit like a damn dumbass. I bet no one could beat you in a “cut-down” contest though could they? You’re on the damn internet!

43

[quote]Todd23 wrote:
This clown got it from the ambiguity of the context of the thread and the wording of your post. Where you get your panties in a wad and call people third grade names I have no clue!
[/quote]

Unwad your panties and learn to use context clues. No one else misinterpreted what the original poster was saying. You read it wrong; get over it. Any ambiguity you picked up on was due to not reading his whole post carefully, as the ambiguity you think was there would be ruled out quickly by reading the rest of the post. I see where you think what he said may have included changes across time, but that is poor reading comprehension on your part. tom63 probably figured you were smart enough not to completely miss his point - that was his problem.

44

[quote]Todd23 wrote:
I am well aware of anatomic variants.

Never seen anything of the sort in any anatomy book and could not even fathom why it would affect the arms in the over head position even if it were true. [/quote]

todd, you wrote both of these, so i think you’re trying to cover up the fact that you didn’t/don’t know that there are definite anatomical differences in the acromion process. its ok. we’re all here to share info and learn. everyone is wrong sometimes, its ok to admit that you didn’t know and that your reading comprehension was wrong about the whole “evolutionary” non-implication.

45

Here let me try to break up this bickering with a funny story. A friend of mine has an uncle that still holds a world record in the Press due to the fact that he broke it right before they stopped contesting it. Now no one can break it.

Obviously this man believes strongly in the over head press. He says if some one is doing leg press instead of squats we give them a hard time so why should doing a arm (bench) press instead of an over head press be any different. If squats are the king of lower body training then OHPs are the king of upper body training. Unless you need to push your opponent off of you while you lie on your back, what are you training for.
After that someone said that bench makes your pecs look good so what about that. He said, that’s what push-ups are for pretty boy:-)

46

[quote]Miserere wrote:
Funny, I have rotator cuff issues at the moment (left shoulder) and have had them in the past (right shoulder, just to keep the balance), but I can still overhead press without any pain. I’ve always used dumbells, not sure if that would make a difference.

Overhead press is my main shoulder exercise, so I was left scratching my head when I read Ghost Wolf’s negative comments on that article.

Canis Dirus wrote:
Just to clarify, I’m all for overhead pressing. Like I said, were I not dead, I would be doing them.[/quote]

Ah, well, that would explain a lot of things. Like the lack of lower back development you show in your avatar.

47

[quote]Todd23 wrote:

Exactly. I don’t know where this clown got the idea that people suddenly evolved in the last few decades.

This clown got it from the ambiguity of the context of the thread and the wording of your post. Where you get your panties in a wad and call people third grade names I have no clue!

If he was so familiar with shoulder biomechancis and anatomical variants, he wouldn’t have made an issue out of this.

I am very familiar with shoulder biomechanics and and anatomical variants, hence my questioning of them changing within a generation, if I simply misunderstood you correct me, you chose not to do this, but rather pitch fit like a damn dumbass. I bet no one could beat you in a “cut-down” contest though could they? You’re on the damn internet!
[/quote]

First rule when in a hole: stop digging.

48

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
tom63 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

Not that he needs me to defend him but I read it as, “different people have different shaped acromion processes.” Not that people today have different shaped acromion processes as compared to people in the past.

That’s kind of how I read it as well.

Exactly. I don’t know where this clown got the idea that people suddenly evolved in the last few decades.

If he was so familiar with shoulder biomechancis and anatomical variants, he wouldn’t have made an issue out of this.

Starr’s point has validity, along with DeFranco’s. Benching is much more popular and does contribute to shoulder problems, as does overhead lifting and overhead sports. Swimming also can cause the same problems.

When people have a normal variant in the acromion process, they are more prone to impingment syndromes, both primary due to the anatomy, and secondarily due to mechanical changes. This must be taken in account when you train someone, or yourself.

It’s also a reason why an x ray is almost mandatory is cases of shoulder pain.

I know absolutely nothing about this topic so I hope you dont mind if I ask you a few questions. Why would benching contribute to shoulder problems more than overhead pressing? Is it just an issue of load or does it have to do with the plane of motion? or both?

[/quote]

I think both contribute equally. Now we are more bench oriented. this leads to greater work on the internal rotators which can lead to impingment syndrome.

Not always, and with correct, well balanced training between the scapular ratractors and the anterior shoulder muscles, pecs, etc, problems can be minimized. this is a reason why i think ART on a regular basis is mandatory for a weight training individual.

Breaking down myofascial restrictions before they cause biomechanical changes is a great idea.

As for over head pressing, this is as bad on the shoulder as benching. You will get some better balance in your training, but still wiill aggravate the area if you have an abnomal variant in your shoulder.

We also don’t live in a vacuum. Did you pitch, swim, or play quaterback. Few of us have the best coaching on technique, prehab, and rehab as kids. We just chuck stuff.

Another point, in the O lifting era, we also did more cleans and snatches which would help balnce out the shoulder region more than your typical weider workout. the how much do you lift question was in regards to your overhead press, not the bench.

It comes down to balanced training with taking in account any individual problems, differences in anatomy, both x ray and limb length, among other factors.

49

[quote]RickJames wrote:
Todd23 wrote:
This clown got it from the ambiguity of the context of the thread and the wording of your post. Where you get your panties in a wad and call people third grade names I have no clue!

Unwad your panties and learn to use context clues. No one else misinterpreted what the original poster was saying. You read it wrong; get over it. Any ambiguity you picked up on was due to not reading his whole post carefully, as the ambiguity you think was there would be ruled out quickly by reading the rest of the post. I see where you think what he said may have included changes across time, but that is poor reading comprehension on your part. tom63 probably figured you were smart enough not to completely miss his point - that was his problem.[/quote]

I didn’t read it wrong. I read it as it was written. I did not read it as it was intended. The previous post werecontextually past tense in talking about lifters in the overhead era, hence the wording, “The problem is that people have different shaped acromion processes…” contextually could be past or present. What the he meant to say was that a problem that could be associated with overhead lifting could be the result of the fact that ‘people can have anatomical variances within the shoulder.’ To say “people have different shaped acromion processes…” was and still is ambiguos to his apparent intended meaning if we all still use English. Tom had never heard of me before I questioned his post, therefore, asserting that he assumed that I was “smart enough” to comprehend his post is ignorant. To assume that I am smart enough to comprehend ambiguously written and phrased “thoughts” is flattering, but I can’t decipher what people mean if they cannot clearly write it. Nor can I think very highly of them if they cannot explain themselves or make a simple correction, but had rather act like a 13 year old dumbass who has watched Napolean Dynamite 12 too many times.

50

[quote]rawda wrote:
Todd23 wrote:
I am well aware of anatomic variants.

Never seen anything of the sort in any anatomy book and could not even fathom why it would affect the arms in the over head position even if it were true.

todd, you wrote both of these, so i think you’re trying to cover up the fact that you didn’t/don’t know that there are definite anatomical differences in the acromion process. its ok. we’re all here to share info and learn. everyone is wrong sometimes, its ok to admit that you didn’t know and that your reading comprehension was wrong about the whole “evolutionary” non-implication.
[/quote]

You have taken two completely seperate phrases and put them in a blender, hence your confusion due to lost meaning and context. I never denied or questioned that individuals have anatomical differences within the acromion process. The second quote was referring to seeing changes in the basic structure via an evolutionary process that seemed to have been implied. Further more, I will not post something that I am “wrong” about. If I am ignorant of something, I might ask a question, but if I post something it will be factual or stated as an opinion. A factual statement will be correct. An opinion may be proved to be inaccurate or incorrect, and that would be fine. It was an opinion as opposed to a factual statement because there wasn’t enough information to establish it as fact. I understand that some bulletien board warriors might crayfish on a statement, but I happen to have been through puberty, I simply can’t get a charge off of a discussion board.

51

[quote]tom63 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
tom63 wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

Not that he needs me to defend him but I read it as, “different people have different shaped acromion processes.” Not that people today have different shaped acromion processes as compared to people in the past.

That’s kind of how I read it as well.

Exactly. I don’t know where this clown got the idea that people suddenly evolved in the last few decades.

If he was so familiar with shoulder biomechancis and anatomical variants, he wouldn’t have made an issue out of this.

Starr’s point has validity, along with DeFranco’s. Benching is much more popular and does contribute to shoulder problems, as does overhead lifting and overhead sports. Swimming also can cause the same problems.

When people have a normal variant in the acromion process, they are more prone to impingment syndromes, both primary due to the anatomy, and secondarily due to mechanical changes. This must be taken in account when you train someone, or yourself.

It’s also a reason why an x ray is almost mandatory is cases of shoulder pain.

I know absolutely nothing about this topic so I hope you dont mind if I ask you a few questions. Why would benching contribute to shoulder problems more than overhead pressing? Is it just an issue of load or does it have to do with the plane of motion? or both?

I think both contribute equally. Now we are more bench oriented. this leads to greater work on the internal rotators which can lead to impingment syndrome.

Not always, and with correct, well balanced training between the scapular ratractors and the anterior shoulder muscles, pecs, etc, problems can be minimized. this is a reason why i think ART on a regular basis is mandatory for a weight training individual.

Breaking down myofascial restrictions before they cause biomechanical changes is a great idea.

As for over head pressing, this is as bad on the shoulder as benching. You will get some better balance in your training, but still wiill aggravate the area if you have an abnomal variant in your shoulder.

We also don’t live in a vacuum. Did you pitch, swim, or play quaterback. Few of us have the best coaching on technique, prehab, and rehab as kids. We just chuck stuff.

Another point, in the O lifting era, we also did more cleans and snatches which would help balnce out the shoulder region more than your typical weider workout. the how much do you lift question was in regards to your overhead press, not the bench.

It comes down to balanced training with taking in account any individual problems, differences in anatomy, both x ray and limb length, among other factors.[/quote]

Thanks for the feedback. I wish we could go back to the old days. Aside from everything you’ve mentioned above, overhead pressing and olympic lifts are just way more fun and impressive, IMHO.

52

You really are a numbnuts, aren’t you. No one else had a problem understanding what was written.

You want to show people how smart you are. Get a degree, get a job and do something in your field.

Dave Tate has no problem with my responses on his Q & A.

What you did was misread soemthing, didn’t get the point, then proceeded to get cocky about it.

If you actually no anything about this, why didn’t you ask a reasonable question so I could clarify, instead of trying to be a smartass.

You might not realize this, but I treat these things. If you ask Dave Tate, Jim wendler, Serrano, Leahy, and Buchberger, they no me and think I do a great job treatment wise. As Fahd said, I’m infinitely more qualified than you to comment on this.

I don’t pretend to be a professional writer, but if you weren’t trying so hard to show how smart you are, you would have gotten the point.

53

Good lord, can you just shut up so we actually have an intelligent debate.

54

In case anyone cares, the anatomical variants of the acromion process are categorized as Bigliani Type 1 - 3

1 = ideal (least percentage of the population)
2 = curved (this is the most common type of acromion shape, which is a factor in why people may have more impingement syndromes these days)
3 = hooked (this is the 2nd highest and most RC repairs have been found to have this acromion shape)

I felt like posting this information because I have a practical on upper quarter pathomechanics on Wednesday and I am deluding myself into believing reading T-Nation can count as studying. :slight_smile:

I have all sorts of other useless information (unless you are going into high level orthopedic care) that might help people. For specifics, just ask!

55

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You really are a numbnuts, aren’t you. No one else had a problem understanding what was written.

You want to show people how smart you are. Get a degree, get a job and do something in your field.[/quote]

And your reasoning for assuming I don’t?

Well another response, and I might. Your responses on Dave Tates QnA has nothing to do with this thread.

I didn’t misread, I mistook your meaning. And your a damn liar if you think I got cocky. I didn’t go off on the Jr. High kid at recess tangent and vocabulary. The implication was that shoulders in the human organism were somehow different now as opposed to 30 years ago. That implies evolution. Hence my question. You were the one who instead of saying, ‘wait, hold on, you misunderstand me…’ proceeded with your silly little diatribe.

I did ask a reasonable question to a seemingly unreasonable assertion. I have not acted like the smartass, go back and read your pathetically immature responses and tone. I was all for you calrifying, go back and read your own responses, you were too busy calling me dumb dumb head and the like. Clarifying yourself was the last thing on you mind.

You might not realize this, but your qualifications and capabilities have no bearing on the disagreement. On top of that, you are infinitely ignorant as to whether or not you are more qualified than myself to comment on such a topic. Whether you are or not, you are still ignorant of it. You have no way of knowing.

How have I tried to show how smart I am? I did not even comment on the actual topic of the efficacy of overhead pressing. (By the way I more or less agree to a degree with Starr’s points.) I merely asked a question and since then have been merely areguing with children. What are you in the seventh grade? Calling people childish names, ego stroking your perceived qualifications when they have no releveance to the discussion between you and myself…You don’t have to be a professional writer, but sometimes it helps when someone has a little maturity. In addition, assuming you are a therapists of some type as you imply I would have expected a slight degree of professionalism. You have shown neither. From your tone you sound like a spoiled teenager, as opposed to an apparently qualified therapists. Serrano, Leahy, Wendler and Tate are mature professionals, they would never call people names like a child on the play ground. Therefore, throw there names around if you like, and hopefully you are as good a therapists as you say you are, but please don’t hold yourself up to the same standard as these professionals, you clearly are not.

56

Todd, you sure you’re not a woman?

you know, because women stereotypically dont know when to stop arguing.

BTW, what makes you think guys like Tate wouldn’t throw around childish insults?

57

What a dumbass. Please ignore him until he learns to appreciate contributions from the more knowledgable posters of this forum.

58

I liked this thread back in the day…

59

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Todd, you sure you’re not a woman?

you know, because women stereotypically dont know when to stop arguing.

BTW, what makes you think guys like Tate wouldn’t throw around childish insults?[/quote]

Why are continuing posting then? My post never really involved anyone but Tom, but there’s a handful of you little fellas running around kissing his ass. He’s a big boy he can speak for himself, let him. As for Tate, the times I’ve talked to him, he’s been very professional.

He might not be afraid to call somebody out on something, but he doesn’t have the little goofy ass junior high, my dad will whip your dad’s ass attitude.

60

case in point