No Full ROM Benching?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Bullshit. Actually touching your chest is not a requirement for that movement just like a squat doesn’t HAVE to be done with your ass touching the ground to be considered a squat. Beginners and most intermediates should probably focus on a full range of motion.

To tell someone who has done that movement for a lifetime that they suddenly aren’t because they no longer touch their chest is retarded…especially if they got huge from doing it that way.

This is an activity where you do what works, not simply what someone tells you to do. There is a reason many much larger lifters no longer touch their chest. Some skinny kid shouldn’t be copying it.[/quote]

So you are saying that you agree when someone half squats 500 and then they say they squatted 500 that is the same thing, it requires no clarification?

The great thing about lifting is that, compared to most other activities, it is very objective. You have a certain standard and you follow that. If you change that standard then you are no longer doing that exercise. Just like a smith machine bench is not a bench press, it is a smith machine bench press.

I said in my post that the exercise you are doing could still be effective. I am not saying that you not touching your chest is not an effective way to increase mass for you, what I am saying is that particular exercise you are doing is no longer a “bench press”, it is a partial bench press or an “elbows parallel bench press” or whatever you want to call it.

My definition (which I feel is basically the generally accepted definition) of a bench press is this: you lay down on a bench, hold a barbell, start with your arms straight, bring the bar down until it touches your chest lightly, press the bar back up until the arms are straight with a near equal extension, keeping your body on the bench and feet on the ground. If you have another definition of a bench press please feel free to share it.

22

[quote]nptitim wrote:

So you are saying that you agree when someone half squats 500 and then they say they squatted 500 that is the same thing, it requires no clarification?[/quote]

Are you seriously playing this game? Many people squat TO parallel or JUST PAST and it is still considered a squat. Everyone doesn’t even have the physical stature to do ATG squats well making the act of doing them a wasted effort for some. You don’t quit calling it a squat just because one person went 3 inches deeper beyond parallel. That isn’t called ‘a half squat’ when it is done to parallel. It is simply called “a squat”.

[quote]
The great thing about lifting is that, compared to most other activities, it is very objective. You have a certain standard and you follow that. If you change that standard then you are no longer doing that exercise. Just like a smith machine bench is not a bench press, it is a smith machine bench press. [/quote]

Like the example I just gave, or those who only bring the bar down to ear level on BTN shoulder presses, those are still the same exercises. People make changes to avoid injury in both instances. The only person claiming they are suddenly called something else…is YOU.

[quote]
I said in my post that the exercise you are doing could still be effective. I am not saying that you not touching your chest is not an effective way to increase mass for you, what I am saying is that particular exercise you are doing is no longer a “bench press”, it is a partial bench press or an “elbows parallel bench press” or whatever you want to call it.[/quote]

And to all that you are saying about name changes, I once again say, “bullshit”.

[quote]
My definition (which I feel is basically the generally accepted definition) of a bench press is this: you lay down on a bench, hold a barbell, start with your arms straight, bring the bar down until it touches your chest lightly, press the bar back up until the arms are straight with a near equal extension, keeping your body on the bench and feet on the ground. If you have another definition of a bench press please feel free to share it.[/quote]

One doesn’t need to be shared. Only instances where this is not the case make your comments worthless…like when doing a dumbbell press and you go BELOW that point. Let’s say your flexibility allows you to come down to a point well below the point at which a bar would touch your chest. Do you call it something other than a dumbbell press now?

Someone with 20" arms or larger might have an issue with coming down that low. Good for them they have you to yell out that they are no long doing that exercise.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you seriously playing this game? Many people squat TO parallel or JUST PAST and it is still considered a squat. Everyone doesn’t even have the physical stature to do ATG squats well making the act of doing them a wasted effort for some. You don’t quit calling it a squat just because one person went 3 inches deeper beyond parallel. That isn’t called ‘a half squat’ when it is done to parallel. It is simply called “a squat”.

One doesn’t need to be shared. Only instances where this is not the case make your comments worthless…like when doing a dumbbell press and you go BELOW that point. Let’s say your flexibility allows you to come down to a point well below the point at which a bar would touch your chest. Do you call it something other than a dumbbell press now?
[/quote]

In the squat example to me a squat is to parallel or just below. From there you have to ATG squats (exactly why they are specificed because they are harder), 3/4 squats, 1/2 squats, etc.

I believe I read where you said you snickered when a powerlifter using a shirt would say they benched 500 without qualifying they used a shirt. I agree they should qualify it because that lift (especially now a days with the super strong shirts) is a different exercise than a RAW bench press. But not touching your chest is just the same thing, you have changed the exercise.

If you don’t consider touching your chest to be necessary in a bench, how close do you need to get before it no longer is a bench press?

24

[quote]nptitim wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Are you seriously playing this game? Many people squat TO parallel or JUST PAST and it is still considered a squat. Everyone doesn’t even have the physical stature to do ATG squats well making the act of doing them a wasted effort for some. You don’t quit calling it a squat just because one person went 3 inches deeper beyond parallel. That isn’t called ‘a half squat’ when it is done to parallel. It is simply called “a squat”.

One doesn’t need to be shared. Only instances where this is not the case make your comments worthless…like when doing a dumbbell press and you go BELOW that point. Let’s say your flexibility allows you to come down to a point well below the point at which a bar would touch your chest. Do you call it something other than a dumbbell press now?

In the squat example to me a squat is to parallel or just below. From there you have to ATG squats (exactly why they are specificed because they are harder), 3/4 squats, 1/2 squats, etc.

I believe I read where you said you snickered when a powerlifter using a shirt would say they benched 500 without qualifying they used a shirt. I agree they should qualify it because that lift (especially now a days with the super strong shirts) is a different exercise than a RAW bench press. But not touching your chest is just the same thing, you have changed the exercise.

If you don’t consider touching your chest to be necessary in a bench, how close do you need to get before it no longer is a bench press?[/quote]

I don’t go grab a ruler in the middle of a set to judge the distance. I stop when I feel a stretch in my pectorals which is all I need. I know it is all I need because I can wear a XXXL shirt without swimming in it. As far as comparing this to using a bench shirt, you couldn’t be more off the mark if you tried.

Just because I may stop just short of touching my chest doesn’t erase the fact that I alone lifted the weight. We aren’t talking about partial reps here and no one has written that this is anything a newbie needs to worry about. If you don’t have arms bigger than 19", you may just not know there is a difference in feel when doing pressing movements. That means your opinion on the subject is lacking personal experience.

I would imagine some of these pro’s with arms coming in at over 22" have a much harder problem coming down that low consider their biceps would be flexed to some degree during the movement. That is why it is does not relate to someone much smaller.

25

To claim that you are able to bench something it needs to be full ROM. All powerlifting federations accept this. It needs to be lowered to the chest, pause for a second and then pressed to full extension without bouncing, uneven extension etc. If you want to do partial movements as part of a bodybuilding routine, or even do board presses to improve your bench that is fine, just don’t claim you can bench something if you can’t touch it and press it back up.

If I only go to about 90 degrees and (3 boards) I can do at least 50 pounds more than I can actually bench. And as far as talking about guys with large arms, does the name Ronnie Coleman ring a bell, he has fairly large arms, and he brings the bench down to his chest. He stops short of full extension so the muscle never gets a rest during the set, but every rep touches the chest.

26

[quote]PaulR wrote:
To claim that you are able to bench something it needs to be full ROM. All powerlifting federations accept this. It needs to be lowered to the chest, pause for a second and then pressed to full extension without bouncing, uneven extension etc. If you want to do partial movements as part of a bodybuilding routine, or even do board presses to improve your bench that is fine, just don’t claim you can bench something if you can’t touch it and press it back up.

If I only go to about 90 degrees and (3 boards) I can do at least 50 pounds more than I can actually bench. And as far as talking about guys with large arms, does the name Ronnie Coleman ring a bell, he has fairly large arms, and he brings the bench down to his chest. He stops short of full extension so the muscle never gets a rest during the set, but every rep touches the chest.[/quote]

Who here is discussing powerlifting or using boards? I don’t go to full extension either for the same reasons. According to some here, that alone should disqualify it as a benchpress because he doesn’t lock out. No one needs your new definitions when discussing bodybuilding. Some do and some don’t. If it WORKS, quit trying to take away its significance.

Since no one has said that a newbie should train like this, you don’t have much of a point. Controlled cheating is often used as well and not one person is trying to take away the credit for doing the movement because of it. Since we are NOT talking about a powerlifting meet, what is the issue?

In bodybuilding, if it makes you bigger and stronger without injury, there is no reason to avoid it assuming the person doing it has been lifting long enough to know what works and what doesn’t.

27

I think you guys are arguing past each other. All that the other guys are saying, prof, is that if you unracked 400 lbs, brought it down, and then pressed it to lockout, but never touched it to your chest, it would be dishonest to then go and say “I can bench 400 lbs.”

That doesn’t disqualify the 400 lb semi bencher from being a strong mofo, or make the exercise non legitimate.

28

[quote]Professor X wrote:
nptitim wrote:
I don’t go grab a ruler in the middle of a set to judge the distance. I stop when I feel a stretch in my pectorals which is all I need. I know it is all I need because I can wear a XXXL shirt without swimming in it.
[/quote]

You are big, I get it, we all get it. I respect the hard work and effort you have put into working out and achieving your goals. However just because you are good size doesn’t mean you are always right.

Not knowing where you stop also means you stop shorter on heavier weights than lighter weights, that is human nature. I have never seen anybody stop a bench short the exact same place every time.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Just because I may stop just short of touching my chest doesn’t erase the fact that I alone lifted the weight. We aren’t talking about partial reps here .[/quote]

Actually we ARE talking about partial reps, the very definition of a partial rep is not doing the full natural ROM for an exercise.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you don’t have arms bigger than 19", you may just not know there is a difference in feel when doing pressing movements. That means your opinion on the subject is lacking personal experience. [/quote]

I don’t have 20 inch arms but my experience is not lacking. I have competed and attended many different powerlifting competitions and never seen a big dude have a problem getting the bar to their chest. Have you seen Ronnie Coleman’s or Dorian’s training videos where they touch their chest every rep, Dorian even does it on the incline. Arnold was famous for full ROM benches and even more so when he used DB’s, so I don’t think big biceps getting in the way is a good excuse.

I think the thing that is most ironic is the bigger you get the EASIER it is to touch your chest, not harder. The people that have a tough time touching their chest are basketball player types who are thin with long arms. Having a thick chest makes touching it much easier, that should be common sense, and arm size isn’t that big of a deterant when you come down on the press.

We can debate this all you want. To me we are debating a fact, touch your chest and it is a bench press, don’t and it is not. You haven’t presented any argument to make me think otherwise. If you are wondering what a general consensus is on this I am happy to start a new thread with that very question and see how it plays out.

But every text book that I have seen, from Arnold’s Encyclopedia up to the NSCA’s text, along with every powerlifting federation there is, says touch your chest or it is not a bench. You don’t run 35 yards and call it a 40, why would you do a partial on the bench and not call it that?

29

[quote]Professor X wrote:
In bodybuilding, if it makes you bigger and stronger without injury, there is no reason to avoid it assuming the person doing it has been lifting long enough to know what works and what doesn’t. [/quote]

Just to be clear because it seems like the point is getting confused, no one is saying that not touching chest is a bad exercise. Personally I think that partial squats and partial leg presses are great for building up the thighs. The whole point is (at least my whole point) call it what it is, a partial movement.

If somebody says to me I half rep 1000 lbs for 10 reps on the leg press, I give them props for being accurate and not trying to pass that off as a real leg press. It is the same with bench or any other exercise. Identify what you are doing accurately and I have no problems with it.

30

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
I think you guys are arguing past each other. All that the other guys are saying, prof, is that if you unracked 400 lbs, brought it down, and then pressed it to lockout, but never touched it to your chest, it would be dishonest to then go and say “I can bench 400 lbs.”

That doesn’t disqualify the 400 lb semi bencher from being a strong mofo, or make the exercise non legitimate. [/quote]

Actually, that is exactly what I am disagreeing with. That is because I doubt that many people exist who are bench pressing 400lbs for several reps but stopping just short of touching their chest…who for some strange reason can’t actually do the weight one time in a powerlifting meet to specification.

Most of the weights bodybuilders claim ARE FOR REPS, not one rep max movements making this argument pointless.

If I can press 405lbs for 8-10 reps just short of touching my chest, why would it be false to say that I bench press that much? Like I somehow couldn’t perform them one time to qualify in a powerlifting meet?

Is that honestly what some of these guys are arguing? And that makes sense to you?

31

Professor X:

One of the reasons for going all the way down is to better work the pec by getting a full ROM/stretch on the muscle. the shorter you go the more the lift works the tricep and less chest is involved. and I believe I read this in a magazine article (FLEX)which was written by an IFBB pro, not a powerlifter.

32

I agree with everything X is trying to get across. I have extremely long arms and have a hard time getting the bar to my chest(especially on inclines). I started stopping the bar about 1-2 inches short of bottom to keep the pressure off my joints a little and have noticed great gains in size and strength in other lifts. I have increased in pressing strength but never cared how mush weight I could lift in the first place.

My goal has always been to add size and if I can do it by partials or 3/4’s or whatever than so be it. If you are competing than do it the way the judges want it, if you are bodybuilding than do it whatever way works best for you.

33

[quote]PaulR wrote:
Professor X:

One of the reasons for going all the way down is to better work the pec by getting a full ROM/stretch on the muscle. the shorter you go the more the lift works the tricep and less chest is involved. and I believe I read this in a magazine article (FLEX)which was written by an IFBB pro, not a powerlifter.[/quote]

My chest is involved just fine with this movement. No one here is discussing stopping the weight miles above the chest which is the only way your triceps would suddenly take over the movement. Not to mention that HAND PLACEMENT is a much larger factor as a close grip works the triceps while a wider grip involves the pectorals more. If my chest wasn’t growing well from this, you might just have some kind of point.

Since it responds just fine from stopping just short of my chest, how can you tell me my chest isn’t being worked?

34

[quote]ocn2000 wrote:
I have been noticing in my gym lately (24 hr fitness) that the guys I see benching do not lower the bar to their chest. They stop 4-6 inches above the chest. I saw I few guys do it, and now it seems that they all do it. Even the guys with spotters. WTF is up with this? I am assuming it must have been a “cool tip” in Muscle in fitness or something for it to be such a trend.[/quote]
This thread is really getting away from what the original poster was asking. If professor x wants to do partial reps, so be it.
I’ve witness the 4 to 6 inch press at my gym and I’m sure that some trainer told them to do it. The same people that do the 4 to 6 inch press are also flaring their elbows really wide, bringing the bar down way too high, and not having their lower arms perpendicular to the floor. I can see how trying to bring the bar down to the chest using that “form” could stress the shoulders.
In my opinion the only way to bench and maintain shoulder health is to tuck the elbows, take a grip that keeps the lower arms roughly perpendicular to the floor and bring the bar low on the chest.

So, to answer the original posters question- the partial bench was, in my opinion, “developed” to keep further stress off the shoulders of those who don’t know how to bench using proper form. then others see it and soon see that they can suddenly bench more weight not bringing the bar all the way to the chest. when asked why they don’t bring the bar down- they say, “I don’t want to injure my shoulders”.

meat

35

Someone needs to show these fools how to BP properly!

36

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
I think you guys are arguing past each other. All that the other guys are saying, prof, is that if you unracked 400 lbs, brought it down, and then pressed it to lockout, but never touched it to your chest, it would be dishonest to then go and say “I can bench 400 lbs.”

That doesn’t disqualify the 400 lb semi bencher from being a strong mofo, or make the exercise non legitimate. [/quote]

I agree with Cap. No one is arguing that partials don’t work. Nptitm conceded that point a long time ago. He is arguing that the PL terminology for a bench press, which is pretty much universally accepted, requires touching the chest.

X is arguing that touching the chest isn’t important for chest development, and that he could easily bench 405 (or whatever) in a meet if he wanted to because he does partials with 405 for reps.

What are you guys arguing about? Is is the definition of a bench press (as defined by whom?) or whether partial benching has a benefit?

If someone does a 600lb rack pull and calls it a deadlift, I’m sure he would be corrected on his terminology. He’d also still receive the benefit of doing the movement.

37

Modi - good post. If X’s logic is that he can do 405x8 (or whatever) but since they aren’t touching his chest they are easier but since he did 8 reps it is harder, so he goes with that weight as his estimated one rep max, I don’t have much of a problem with that. I have seen people who could not do their 8 rep max stopping short for 1 rep because they were very weak off the bottom, but then again I have seen people only lose 10-20 lbs off their bench by going all the way down (which would be a lot more than their 8RM).

I guess the issue is I have seen very few guys who stop short on a bench and acknowledge that, if X does this then I give him for credit for that. Most people who would do 405x8 would then do 470x1, probably not even as deep as their 405, and then say “I benched 470”, when to me it was not a full bench. And then if you asked that person to really do 470 (or whatever they were claiming) for a full rep they would almost always fail, and often fail hard. I would much rather hear that person say it was 430 and do it for real then say it was 470 but have it stop short.

38

The only thing this thread proves is that powerlifters are different from bodybuilders. (I’ll use prof X as an example but he same holds true for any experienced trainee who presses this way)

Does the risk of X touching his chest give him any extra benefit compared to the possible risk?

Do these “partial” presses restrict his chest growth in anyway?

Has he not been training long enough to know where the best point for him to stop the bar is? (and does it matter if it’s in the same place everytime?)

Should a newb train this way?

Has anyone ever seen X make a claim about how much weight he can move and how that makes him stronger than another person?

39

[quote]nptitim wrote:
Modi - good post. If X’s logic is that he can do 405x8 (or whatever) but since they aren’t touching his chest they are easier but since he did 8 reps it is harder, so he goes with that weight as his estimated one rep max, I don’t have much of a problem with that. I have seen people who could not do their 8 rep max stopping short for 1 rep because they were very weak off the bottom, but then again I have seen people only lose 10-20 lbs off their bench by going all the way down (which would be a lot more than their 8RM).

I guess the issue is I have seen very few guys who stop short on a bench and acknowledge that, if X does this then I give him for credit for that. Most people who would do 405x8 would then do 470x1, probably not even as deep as their 405, and then say “I benched 470”, when to me it was not a full bench. And then if you asked that person to really do 470 (or whatever they were claiming) for a full rep they would almost always fail, and often fail hard. I would much rather hear that person say it was 430 and do it for real then say it was 470 but have it stop short.[/quote]

Your entire post doesn’t show much aside from the fact that you don’t actually know many people who really train with over 400lbs for reps on this movement every single week. If you did, you would realize how ridiculous it is to believe someone that strong would somehow be unable to complete a full rep for a competition.

We aren’t talking about beginners or even most intermediate lifters here. Someone truly lifting above 400lbs as a true working weight for several reps is stronger than most people in most gyms. You are relating this to people much weaker and the same rules do not apply.

If it helps you sleep better to believe that bodybuilders are somehow incapable of doing a full rep for a competition and that they are weaker, so be it. The truth will be sitting on the other side of the room waiting for you.

Stopping just short of my chest does not make this movement easier. It keeps constant tension on my pecs and takes away any rest positions. The same goes for locking out. If anything, that makes doing several reps HARDER, not easier. But of course, you simply want to believe otherwise.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Stopping just short of my chest does not make this movement easier. It keeps constant tension on my pecs and takes away any rest positions. The same goes for locking out. If anything, that makes doing several reps HARDER, not easier. But of course, you simply want to believe otherwise.[/quote]

Just do the full press, ya homo.