[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
While we’re talking about that lats, they actually will directly ‘push’ the bar up at the very bottom of the bench press. The lats will pull the arm to your body. Because of where your lats attach on your upper arm, that also means that when your upper arm is behind your shoulders, your lats are actually pulling your arm forward to your shoulder. Once the upper arm is at/above your shoulder on a bench press your lats still play a role in stabilizing and supporting the bar but they aren’t moving the bar directly anymore. [/quote]
This is always presenting as the pro argument for the lats, but doesn’t really apply to how most people bench…the elbows don’t get past the midline much if at all.[/quote]
The elbows don’t get past horizontal, but with an arch they get way below the horizontal plane of the upper torso. They also help maintain a hard arch, and they pull down on the scapula (through the humerus).
If I stand up and flex my lats as hard as possible my arms are probably about 15 degrees anterior. If I arch back against the wall it is 30 degrees plus.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
While we’re talking about that lats, they actually will directly ‘push’ the bar up at the very bottom of the bench press. The lats will pull the arm to your body. Because of where your lats attach on your upper arm, that also means that when your upper arm is behind your shoulders, your lats are actually pulling your arm forward to your shoulder. Once the upper arm is at/above your shoulder on a bench press your lats still play a role in stabilizing and supporting the bar but they aren’t moving the bar directly anymore. [/quote]
This is always presenting as the pro argument for the lats, but doesn’t really apply to how most people bench…the elbows don’t get past the midline much if at all.[/quote]
The elbows don’t get past horizontal, but with an arch they get way below the horizontal plane of the upper torso. They also help maintain a hard arch, and they pull down on the scapula (through the humerus).
If I stand up and flex my lats as hard as possible my arms are probably about 15 degrees anterior. If I arch back against the wall it is 30 degrees plus. [/quote]
Still doesn’t contribute much of anything. The lats are almost fully contracted in the position you are talking about, ergo they are in no position to apply force and the muscle has very little tension. Again, you’re talking about a tiny fraction of the force being applied against gravity if any. A drop in the bucket compared to what the pecs, shoulders and triceps are doing.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
While we’re talking about that lats, they actually will directly ‘push’ the bar up at the very bottom of the bench press. The lats will pull the arm to your body. Because of where your lats attach on your upper arm, that also means that when your upper arm is behind your shoulders, your lats are actually pulling your arm forward to your shoulder. Once the upper arm is at/above your shoulder on a bench press your lats still play a role in stabilizing and supporting the bar but they aren’t moving the bar directly anymore. [/quote]
This is always presenting as the pro argument for the lats, but doesn’t really apply to how most people bench…the elbows don’t get past the midline much if at all.[/quote]
The elbows don’t get past horizontal, but with an arch they get way below the horizontal plane of the upper torso. They also help maintain a hard arch, and they pull down on the scapula (through the humerus).
If I stand up and flex my lats as hard as possible my arms are probably about 15 degrees anterior. If I arch back against the wall it is 30 degrees plus. [/quote]
Still doesn’t contribute much of anything. The lats are almost fully contracted in the position you are talking about, ergo they are in no position to apply force and the muscle has very little tension. Again, you’re talking about a tiny fraction of the force being applied against gravity if any. A drop in the bucket compared to what the pecs, shoulders and triceps are doing.[/quote]
I’ll take making 315 feel like 300. Yea its 5%. You can take it or leave it I guess.
Biomechanically, the closer the grip, and the more the elbows are tucked, the more the lats can assist at the bottom portion of the bench. Most comments about rowing the bar or bending the bar are cues to get the elbows in the right position. Where the lats help the most is in the initial push off the chest, where you are trying to get as much bar speed as possible.
HeavyTriple is one of the strongest benchers on this sight, but he does it with a decently wide grip, and very little arch, so his humerus is barely below the midline of his shoulder joint. With that in mind, the way he benches will allow for the least lat engagement on his bench. He has found the setup that allows him to lift the most weight. Someone with a narrower bench and more arch will get more lat help, but will sacrifice for less pec, more anterior delt and tricep.
For the record I don’t do reverse band rows. I will do downward/reverse “shrugs” at the top dip position and straight arm partial pull-ups/straight arm pulldowns (plus shrugs and rows to chest).
And I train flat back, with a medium grip and almost always pause on 2 boards, which uses almost no lats, but when I max on a real bench with an arch the pecs are far less involved.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
While we’re talking about that lats, they actually will directly ‘push’ the bar up at the very bottom of the bench press. The lats will pull the arm to your body. Because of where your lats attach on your upper arm, that also means that when your upper arm is behind your shoulders, your lats are actually pulling your arm forward to your shoulder. Once the upper arm is at/above your shoulder on a bench press your lats still play a role in stabilizing and supporting the bar but they aren’t moving the bar directly anymore. [/quote]
This is always presenting as the pro argument for the lats, but doesn’t really apply to how most people bench…the elbows don’t get past the midline much if at all.[/quote]
The elbows don’t get past horizontal, but with an arch they get way below the horizontal plane of the upper torso. They also help maintain a hard arch, and they pull down on the scapula (through the humerus).
If I stand up and flex my lats as hard as possible my arms are probably about 15 degrees anterior. If I arch back against the wall it is 30 degrees plus. [/quote]
Still doesn’t contribute much of anything. The lats are almost fully contracted in the position you are talking about, ergo they are in no position to apply force and the muscle has very little tension. Again, you’re talking about a tiny fraction of the force being applied against gravity if any. A drop in the bucket compared to what the pecs, shoulders and triceps are doing.[/quote]
I’ll take making 315 feel like 300. Yea its 5%. You can take it or leave it I guess.
[/quote]
I get where you’re coming from, I just think it’s majoring in the minors, obsessing over minutia, whatever you want to call it. It can give you a tiny edge in technique to maybe get you an extra five pounds, so it’s worth noting, I just feel that it should be a tertiary concern, know what I mean?
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
Biomechanically, the closer the grip, and the more the elbows are tucked, the more the lats can assist at the bottom portion of the bench. Most comments about rowing the bar or bending the bar are cues to get the elbows in the right position. Where the lats help the most is in the initial push off the chest, where you are trying to get as much bar speed as possible.
HeavyTriple is one of the strongest benchers on this sight, but he does it with a decently wide grip, and very little arch, so his humerus is barely below the midline of his shoulder joint. With that in mind, the way he benches will allow for the least lat engagement on his bench. He has found the setup that allows him to lift the most weight. Someone with a narrower bench and more arch will get more lat help, but will sacrifice for less pec, more anterior delt and tricep. [/quote]
Fair observation, and I’m definitely biased. I feel like I’m on a one-man crusade against the lats, haha.
I modeled my style after the big benchers of the pre-gear era and they almost all seem to bench this way. I would guess the reason is because it allows for maximal involvement of the biggest muscles in the lift. Big arches really limit what the pecs can do, which I think is a bad path to take when you look at the big picture. Relying on the lats for power off the chest greatly diminishes potential in that crucial first third, in my view. As I alluded to before, the lats are already shortened there and not in good biomechanicsl position to contribute force as they lack any stretch reflex. Conversely, the pecs are in the best position given the amount of muscle fibers they have to contribute and their stretch at the bottom…lots of potential energy there.
And thanks for the compliment. I have a solid bench, but I also have a master’s education in biomechanics. Viewing the lifts from that perspective is fun for me.
@heavytriple - My bench setup is quite similar to yours, and I also agree that no one will ever build a big bench by focusing on the lats instead of the true prime moves. I only point out the slight help in a very tucked position. When going for true PR’s any advantage is a great advantage. But people should not focus on it. I hate to hear people give advice that to build a bigger bench, do more barbell rows to build up the lats. That won’t work.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
How do you get any leg drive without an arch?[/quote]
Leg drive is not dependent upon an arch. For myself, due to my hip disease, I get zero degrees of hip extension in my right hip, therefor if I am trying to get my knee below my hip in my setup it is all coming from an anterior pelvic tilt and lower back hyperextension. I arch as far as I can without putting undue stress on my lower back. If I lifted in a fed that didn’t require heels flat, I could get a little more arch, and probably 5-15 lbs more.
By the way, I have an MS in kinesiology as well from way back, but I’ve taught highschool physics and anatomy for 20 years, so I’m hearing all the points here, and trying to ask myself why I train with minimal arch and closer grip (9 weeks out of 10) but max more with an arch, and also a wide grip. Also primarly wondering if I could be better off pressing more the way you do.
If I train wide, and flat backed, I get bicep tendinitis. If I keep my grip 1-hand in from the rings, and also use 2 boards with a pause, I don’t develop shoulder issues, I don’t stress my lower back and neck, I can train and get stronger with 80-90% of the weights that I would use if I trained wide and arched, and when I go medium, slight arch and 2 boards I get the same ROM as going wide with an arch.
Basically arching with a max attempt protects my shoulders with heavier loads. The sternocostal head of the pec actually has a line of force probably 45 degrees below horizontal or more (as it is thickest along the inferior boundary). The clavicular head is important too, but it also extends the humerus (upward in the standing position). If you put the massive sternocostal head pointed up, plus the lats pointed up almost like ramps (they provide direct resistance against the humerus just like wearing a bench shirt, but also my lats point up 20 degrees or so, you basically get a big heave with the sternocostal pec and the lats. With max weights of course you transition back to a lockout but I feel that the leg drive actually mechanically presses the scapula into the bench and tilts the entire shoulder girdle forward to extend the arms.
Anyway, I can press 90% as much without an arch, and basically pressing with the pecs. So maybe I am underutilizing the clavicular head but I just don’t feel as “shoulder safe” pressing in the anatomical horizontal plane off the chest. I had a couple slight pec tears that way. My arms naturally want to come together in a plane about 45 degrees below anatomical horizon. BUT maybe its just that i’ve trained with an arch for so long prior to recent changes that the sternal head has developed the most.
In fact the clavicular and sternal head can actually oppose each other in the horizontal plane as the c head pulls up slightly and the s head pulls down 45 degrees or more.
But yea I get a bar in my hands with weight in it and try to bring it to my chest then lock it out… That doesn’t sound complicated enough so it’s probably dumb and will never work…
Heavy, do you have a write-up anywhere on the site on your thoughts on benching? Particularly the part about how most big lifters in the pre-gear era managed?
I am particularly interested in this as bench is a very weak lift for me!
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
Biomechanically, the closer the grip, and the more the elbows are tucked, the more the lats can assist at the bottom portion of the bench. Most comments about rowing the bar or bending the bar are cues to get the elbows in the right position. Where the lats help the most is in the initial push off the chest, where you are trying to get as much bar speed as possible.
HeavyTriple is one of the strongest benchers on this sight, but he does it with a decently wide grip, and very little arch, so his humerus is barely below the midline of his shoulder joint. With that in mind, the way he benches will allow for the least lat engagement on his bench. He has found the setup that allows him to lift the most weight. Someone with a narrower bench and more arch will get more lat help, but will sacrifice for less pec, more anterior delt and tricep. [/quote]
Fair observation, and I’m definitely biased. I feel like I’m on a one-man crusade against the lats, haha.
I modeled my style after the big benchers of the pre-gear era and they almost all seem to bench this way. I would guess the reason is because it allows for maximal involvement of the biggest muscles in the lift. Big arches really limit what the pecs can do, which I think is a bad path to take when you look at the big picture. Relying on the lats for power off the chest greatly diminishes potential in that crucial first third, in my view. As I alluded to before, the lats are already shortened there and not in good biomechanicsl position to contribute force as they lack any stretch reflex. Conversely, the pecs are in the best position given the amount of muscle fibers they have to contribute and their stretch at the bottom…lots of potential energy there.
And thanks for the compliment. I have a solid bench, but I also have a master’s education in biomechanics. Viewing the lifts from that perspective is fun for me.[/quote]
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
But yea I get a bar in my hands with weight in it and try to bring it to my chest then lock it out… That doesn’t sound complicated enough so it’s probably dumb and will never work…[/quote]
That IS simple. What’s complicated is the need to post about it.
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
But yea I get a bar in my hands with weight in it and try to bring it to my chest then lock it out… That doesn’t sound complicated enough so it’s probably dumb and will never work…[/quote]
That IS simple. What’s complicated is the need to post about it.[/quote]
It’s to show that you guys are way over-thinking this IMO. If you use your lats to a large degree in the bench great if you don’t fine, just lift heavier than you did last time. Not everything has to be about biomechanics and physiology. There’s a lot of people with impressive benches on both sides of the argument which should show us that it isn’t really pressing issue. Pun completely intended.
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
It’s to show that you guys are way over-thinking this IMO. If you use your lats to a large degree in the bench great if you don’t fine, just lift heavier than you did last time. Not everything has to be about biomechanics and physiology. There’s a lot of people with impressive benches on both sides of the argument which should show us that it isn’t really pressing issue. Pun completely intended.[/quote]
I agree that the distribution of muscle usage may vary from person to person depending on body type and that it isn’t necessary to understand all the science behind it but it’s good for people to at least know the basics of what muscles are involved. It’s important to know how to maximize your leverages while also utilizing as many muscle fibers as possible to their full potential, like HeavyTriple said. If a lifter doesn’t use their lats at all, they should probably learn how. It doesn’t need to be overemphasized but it at least needs to be involved. This applies to all the lifts to create tightness and stability throughout the entire body.
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
It’s to show that you guys are way over-thinking this IMO. If you use your lats to a large degree in the bench great if you don’t fine, just lift heavier than you did last time. Not everything has to be about biomechanics and physiology. There’s a lot of people with impressive benches on both sides of the argument which should show us that it isn’t really pressing issue. Pun completely intended.[/quote]
I agree that the distribution of muscle usage may vary from person to person depending on body type and that it isn’t necessary to understand all the science behind it but it’s good for people to at least know the basics of what muscles are involved. It’s important to know how to maximize your leverages while also utilizing as many muscle fibers as possible to their full potential, like HeavyTriple said. If a lifter doesn’t use their lats at all, they should probably learn how. It doesn’t need to be overemphasized but it at least needs to be involved. This applies to all the lifts to create tightness and stability throughout the entire body.[/quote]
I can see the merit with that but most people will find their strongest position naturally when trying to move the most amount of weight. I also think the idea that should be emphasized is just overall body tightness, not the lats specifically. I think my main issue was that this specific thread went on for much too long when as far as the OP is concerned it could have and probably should have ended after Ecchastang’s first post.
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
It’s to show that you guys are way over-thinking this IMO. If you use your lats to a large degree in the bench great if you don’t fine, just lift heavier than you did last time. Not everything has to be about biomechanics and physiology. There’s a lot of people with impressive benches on both sides of the argument which should show us that it isn’t really pressing issue. Pun completely intended.[/quote]
I agree that the distribution of muscle usage may vary from person to person depending on body type and that it isn’t necessary to understand all the science behind it but it’s good for people to at least know the basics of what muscles are involved. It’s important to know how to maximize your leverages while also utilizing as many muscle fibers as possible to their full potential, like HeavyTriple said. If a lifter doesn’t use their lats at all, they should probably learn how. It doesn’t need to be overemphasized but it at least needs to be involved. This applies to all the lifts to create tightness and stability throughout the entire body.[/quote]
I can see the merit with that but most people will find their strongest position naturally when trying to move the most amount of weight. I also think the idea that should be emphasized is just overall body tightness, not the lats specifically. I think my main issue was that this specific thread went on for much too long when as far as the OP is concerned it could have and probably should have ended after Ecchastang’s first post.[/quote]
The problem is that the strongest position when you start isn’t necessarily the strongest position when you are trained. And if you train the position you naturally would start in, your long term max may be limited.
[quote]tylerkeen42 wrote:
It’s to show that you guys are way over-thinking this IMO. If you use your lats to a large degree in the bench great if you don’t fine, just lift heavier than you did last time. Not everything has to be about biomechanics and physiology. There’s a lot of people with impressive benches on both sides of the argument which should show us that it isn’t really pressing issue. Pun completely intended.[/quote]
I agree that the distribution of muscle usage may vary from person to person depending on body type and that it isn’t necessary to understand all the science behind it but it’s good for people to at least know the basics of what muscles are involved. It’s important to know how to maximize your leverages while also utilizing as many muscle fibers as possible to their full potential, like HeavyTriple said. If a lifter doesn’t use their lats at all, they should probably learn how. It doesn’t need to be overemphasized but it at least needs to be involved. This applies to all the lifts to create tightness and stability throughout the entire body.[/quote]
I can see the merit with that but most people will find their strongest position naturally when trying to move the most amount of weight. I also think the idea that should be emphasized is just overall body tightness, not the lats specifically. I think my main issue was that this specific thread went on for much too long when as far as the OP is concerned it could have and probably should have ended after Ecchastang’s first post.[/quote]
The problem is that the strongest position when you start isn’t necessarily the strongest position when you are trained. And if you train the position you naturally would start in, your long term max may be limited.[/quote]
Totally agree here. I was stuck at 410 for 7 years, then got to 450 in two because I took a long look at everything in my training and overanalyzed it from top to bottom.
