Benching....legs up or down...

[swordfish151]

I was pondering this subject this morning.....how many of you guys put your legs up on the bench while you bench?? how many put it them down on the floor while you bench? does it make a difference in your lift? or is it preference...?

 

[gstacker]

i usually keep my feet planted on the ground speacially when going heavy but every once in awhile with lighter weight i will put em up jus cuz i want to see how much balance and controll i have

 

[musketeer]

I was pondering this subject this morning.....how many of you guys put your legs up on the bench while you bench?? how many put it them down on the floor while you bench? does it make a difference in your lift? or is it preference...?

Makes not difference at all; if you're an idiot who puts his feet in the air, you are still and idiot when you put your feet on the floor because you will probably be doing something equally fugged up like benching with your elbows flared, or lowering the bar to your neck or stopping 4inches from your chest, etc.

In other words, don't have your feet off the floor, it's a bad thing!

 

[vin01]

For optimal drive, your feet should be on the floor. I prefer to bench with my feet as far back under my butt as I can get them, with the balls of my feet on the ground, and my shoulderblades and butt still on the bench. This gives me the best position and "spring" when lifting a heavy weight.

 

[swordfish151]

yeah i thought so..i always bench with my feet firm on the ground, but notice alot of guys in the gym that put there feet up in the air on on the bench...

 

[Madcow2]

It's about having a stable base. Would you squat on an elevated platform with springs to allow movement? Would you deadlift while balancing on a skateboard? For the purpose of building strength and size, there is no benefit. Granted I'm sure you'll here things like "I feel this isolates my pecs more" or some rubbish. Isolation is largely crap unless it is specifically needed. The bench press is not a great pec exercise despite the solid results most see in that area from getting better at it. The benefit of the bench press is simply heavily loading a large portion of the body's musculature (and the pecs are in here) through a fundemental range of motion. So, in putting those feet up, you defeat the real purpose and fundemental value of the exercise (i.e. ability to lift heavy weight and leverage more of the body's musculature). Granted I'm sure the bodybuilding world can come up with a whole bunch of creative extrapolated reasons they might want to employ this but I'd venture that in truth, the number of times it might actually be beneficial is generally very very small and the frequency with which it is used is far far higher than it should be.

 

[bignate73]

cause you can "focus more on your chest!"


hehehehehe.....

 

[INNOCENT]

i found it better to keep my feet planted on the ground for extra balance.

 

[cubuff27]

You don't take the wheels off a race car and you don't bench with your feet in the air!

 

[Lee]

I asked a guy I saw at my old gym in Alaska a few years back why he benched with his legs in the air. He told me it help him with balance and he was really into Tae Kwan Do. Not sure if it really did help him, but he was in good shape for his sport so I didn't question it. Personally, feet planted on the ground is the only way to go.

 

[gymtime]

Putting your feet up on the bench does have one advantage, assuming you're not going real heavy; that is it helps to prevent you from arching your back.

 

[markshark]

I was pondering this subject this morning.....how many of you guys put your legs up on the bench while you bench?? how many put it them down on the floor while you bench? does it make a difference in your lift? or is it preference...?

ive tried it and can use basically the same weights but i dont feel as balanced and with my feet planted on the floor i feel like i have more control and can push out extra reps. not talkin about cheating and usin my feet to push my back up and ass off the seat or anything/

 

[Madcow2]

Putting your feet up on the bench does have one advantage, assuming you're not going real heavy; that is it helps to prevent you from arching your back.

I don't know why one would not want to arch at least to a moderate degree. I think this falls under my "isolating the chest" explanation above and simply hurts the body's ability to perform on the exercise without providing anything substantial in return. If one doesn't like to arch, it's certainly still better to provide some improved margin of stability - frankly though, the body is made to use as a unit and taking everything else away is just crippling a person's ability to perform the press.

Arioch's write up on bench technique is here for anyone interested: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5124184&postcount=826

 

[gymtime]

So you're saying isolation is pointless in compound lifts?

 

[Guinness5.0]

So you're saying isolation is pointless in compound lifts?

isolation is impossible in a compound lift. It's oxymoronic to 'isolate' a compound movement.

 

[vin01]

What is the best iso exercise for chest then?

 

[Cynical Simian]

What is the best iso exercise for chest then?

Why do you want or think it possible to "isolate the chest"? Between dips and the various presses, your chest development should be fine. Or you could try to isolate it by doing a bunch of cable crap and wonder why the guy who never does any isolation exercises has a bigger chest than you.

 

[Guinness5.0]

What is the best iso exercise for chest then?

When I read that, I couldn't help but think "Who's the tallest midget?"

 

[Madcow2]

What is the best iso exercise for chest then?

Tough one, some type of fly which tends to be pretty worthless unless you are a novice or intend to use a lot of drugs to get something out of a pretty poor stimulus.

The body is a system. It is best stressed as a system. It adapts best when treated as a system. The reason all the compound exercises are the big mass builders is because they allow the system to move a lot of weight through a basic range of motion. They load and stimulate the system. If isolation was in any way as good as most BBers seem to think it is, all those "curl boys" would have nice big arms yet it is the guys in the rack squatting and pulling who do a few sets of arm work a week who have guns. Isolation has a place but people would have a much easier time adding muscle if they dropped 80% of their crap exercises and just worked hard at improving the big blocks over a period of time. Maybe read that again.

 

[markshark]

Tough one, some type of fly which tends to be pretty worthless unless you are a novice or intend to use a lot of drugs to get something out of a pretty poor stimulus.

The body is a system. It is best stressed as a system. It adapts best when treated as a system. The reason all the compound exercises are the big mass builders is because they allow the system to move a lot of weight through a basic range of motion. They load and stimulate the system. If isolation was in any way as good as most BBers seem to think it is, all those "curl boys" would have nice big arms yet it is the guys in the rack squatting and pulling who do a few sets of arm work a week who have guns. Isolation has a place but people would have a much easier time adding muscle if they dropped 80% of their crap exercises and just worked hard at improving the big blocks over a period of time. Maybe read that again.

the time in my life when i was the strongest was when i was doing less small exercises and more big movements. for example, if i would do a chest & bi workout (ive always combined the 2) then a workout that takes only like an hour or 45 minutes that includes deadlifts, standing curls, pullups, bent over rows, preacher curls and reverse curls rather than a packed workout that includes tons of shit like preacher curls, pulldowns, isolation curls, hammer curls, one arm cable rows, seated one-arm fuck rows and ass-eat curls and 80 other things....fuck im getting ahead of myself here. im gonna go eat crab.

 

[vin01]

Currently I only do compound lifts (bench, squat, OHP, clean, dips, BB row, pullups, and maybe a few sets for bis and tris)

I was wondering about iso motions for the chest is because with all these compounds, my upper chest is lacking. I might switch to incline bench inside of flat.

 

[thelion2005]

I was pondering this subject this morning.....how many of you guys put your legs up on the bench while you bench?? how many put it them down on the floor while you bench? does it make a difference in your lift? or is it preference...?

I cross my legs over my hips.

Keeps my lifts very honest.
Don't use a spotter and have never rolled or failed.

 

[Guinness5.0]

vin01:

maybe you could cycle in some inc. db presses for a while, or sub out OHP for inclines for a bit. If it helps a lot, you could set up your programs to include such movements on a more regular basis.

 

[silver_shadow]

first off, you should have your feet on the floor:
1) balance
2) DOES help with drive if you know how to

having said that:
the equivalent for feet off the floor is NOT feet on the bench/in the air, it is floor presses.

hope that helps.

EDIT: floor presses are not for isolation (i should have mentioned this the first time)... they help strengthen the benching muscles since the lifter cannot use foot drive to help him with the lift.

 

[bignate73]

first off, you should have your feet on the floor:
having said that:
the equivalent for feet off the floor is NOT feet on the bench/in the air, it is floor presses.

hope that helps.

close comparison, except, a floor press has a pause that breaks the eccentric and the concentric. and actually, I arch a little on floor presses as well. not as extreme as a flat bench, but enough to get my shoulder blades back a bit.

 

[BiggT]

I would love to know where all this nonsense starts.....crap like benching with the feet on the bench helps isolate the chest; not doing a full range of motion keeps constant tension and is 'safer'; full squats hurt the knees; rolling the shoulders when you shrug 'hits the traps from behind'; deadlifts are dangerous; isolation movements 'cut' you up......I have never seen an activity quite like weightlifting that is littered with so much bullshit and ridiculous misinformation, all it takes to dispell these myths and lies is a quarter ounce of common sense, people who subscribe to this bullshit should think about it for a second, none of it makes an ounce of sense. The only 2 reasons on Earth this crap would work is if you're previously sedintary and the 'something is better than nothing' principle is working, or if you dump enough drugs in your body that masturbation provided enough stimulus for forearm growth.

I am being serious, you don't need a certification or a degree or anything but an ounce of common sense....think about what the bench press does and what it involves and how there is no way possible to make the movement a 'chest only exercise', then think about benching with the feet on the floor with correct form and think about putting the feet on the bench.......can everyone see how assinine of a concept raising the feet is?? It makes no sense to do so.

Next, look at the regular recreational lifter. When drug free or even using reasonable amounts of gear, guys doing iso crap are always smaller and have less muscle than the guys squatting, pulling, and pressing. Guys who do every type of flye ever conceived have smaller chests than guys who can flat out outbench them over any rep range......guys supersetting leg presses with leg extensions and then doing machine hack squats over a partial range of motion to 'keep tension' on the muscle will always have smaller legs than the guy who out squats them over any rep range.....guys whose trap workout consists of dumbell shrugs rolling the shoulders back and behind the back smith machine shrugs supersetted with seated cambered bar shrugs will always have smaller traps than the guy who can use more weight on jump shrugs over any rep range. Muscles respond to workload, they do not have a brain and do not understand any of the bullshit concepts Joe Weider et all espouse.....muscles recognize work, thats is.

 

[silver_shadow]

I would love to know where all this nonsense starts.....crap like benching with the feet on the bench helps isolate the chest; not doing a full range of motion keeps constant tension and is 'safer'; full squats hurt the knees; rolling the shoulders when you shrug 'hits the traps from behind'; deadlifts are dangerous; isolation movements 'cut' you up......I have never seen an activity quite like weightlifting that is littered with so much bullshit and ridiculous misinformation, all it takes to dispell these myths and lies is a quarter ounce of common sense, people who subscribe to this bullshit should think about it for a second, none of it makes an ounce of sense. The only 2 reasons on Earth this crap would work is if you're previously sedintary and the 'something is better than nothing' principle is working, or if you dump enough drugs in your body that masturbation provided enough stimulus for forearm growth.

I am being serious, you don't need a certification or a degree or anything but an ounce of common sense....think about what the bench press does and what it involves and how there is no way possible to make the movement a 'chest only exercise', then think about benching with the feet on the floor with correct form and think about putting the feet on the bench.......can everyone see how assinine of a concept raising the feet is?? It makes no sense to do so.

Next, look at the regular recreational lifter. When drug free or even using reasonable amounts of gear, guys doing iso crap are always smaller and have less muscle than the guys squatting, pulling, and pressing. Guys who do every type of flye ever conceived have smaller chests than guys who can flat out outbench them over any rep range......guys supersetting leg presses with leg extensions and then doing machine hack squats over a partial range of motion to 'keep tension' on the muscle will always have smaller legs than the guy who out squats them over any rep range.....guys whose trap workout consists of dumbell shrugs rolling the shoulders back and behind the back smith machine shrugs supersetted with seated cambered bar shrugs will always have smaller traps than the guy who can use more weight on jump shrugs over any rep range. Muscles respond to workload, they do not have a brain and do not understand any of the bullshit concepts Joe Weider et all espouse.....muscles recognize work, thats is.

amen

 

[gymtime]

isolation is impossible in a compound lift. It's oxymoronic to 'isolate' a compound movement.

OK fair enough. How about this then, is it possible then to adjust your form and body position to emphasize one muscle group over another in a compound lift?

Also, by this logic, there really is no such thing as an isolation movement. There's no movement we can make that truly uses one muslce.

I think when most lifters use the term "isolate," they really mean "emphasize."

 

[BiggT]

OK fair enough. How about this then, is it possible then to adjust your form and body position to emphasize one muscle group over another in a compound lift?

Before I get into it, the reason a movement is called a compound/multi-joint movement is because it involves many muscles doing the work.....it is a big bang for your buck so to speak.

While you'll NEVER isolate with compound lifts, your question is a good one....for example, close-grip benching uses more triceps.....front squats use more quads.....ultra-wide benching uses more shoulders.....however you'll never isolate with a compound lift. You'll never perform a bench press in any way, shape, or form that does not recruit the shoulders, triceps, and lats.

 

[gjohnson5]

isolation is impossible in a compound lift. It's oxymoronic to 'isolate' a compound movement.

I guess isolate is a bad word , but I think the word target is a better word.
I think you can infact target certain muscles in a bench by adjusting the grip, dropping the bar lower or higher on chest , etc

 

[Madcow2]

I have never seen an activity quite like weightlifting that is littered with so much bullshit and ridiculous misinformation, all it takes to dispell these myths and lies is a quarter ounce of common sense

Here is where I mention the word "musclehead" and say that in some cases stereotypes exist for a reason.

But you are right, I know of no other activity or interest with so much bullshit. You want to learn about photography and get a basic understanding, go to the newsstand buy some mags and visit a few internet forums/sites and you'll get a decent foundation within a couple weeks. Want to learn about resistance training - doing that same thing you likely get stupider than you were before from reading musclemags and forum bullshit.

I kid you not, there was a post on BB.com yesterday about working the "inner-lower pecs" and the first 15 posters all suggested various different isolation exercises to target the area. How bad is that.

 

[gymtime]

Before I get into it, the reason a movement is called a compound/multi-joint movement is because it involves many muscles doing the work.....it is a big bang for your buck so to speak.

While you'll NEVER isolate with compound lifts, your question is a good one....for example, close-grip benching uses more triceps.....front squats use more quads.....ultra-wide benching uses more shoulders.....however you'll never isolate with a compound lift. You'll never perform a bench press in any way, shape, or form that does not recruit the shoulders, triceps, and lats.

Agreed. However, getting back to the legs up thing, I do believe that it is a simple matter of good form over bad. Of course good form is debatable depending on your goals, but I've always been under the impression, as a bodybuilder who really doesn't give a rip anymore about getting stronger, that arching your back on a flat bench press is bad. It's best to keep your back as flat on the bench as possible. This in turn helps to "emphasize" the chest and de-emphasize other supporting muscle groups. Is this wrong?

Now I'm not saying that legs in the air (and I have no idea why anyone would do that. When I do this, which is very rare, i put my feet up on the end of the bench so I do retain at least some stability) necessarily constitutes good form. However, I have found that when I put my feet up on the bench like that, my back "feels" more straight, and therefore it "feels" as if my chest is doing more of the work, moreso than if my back was arched.

OK I probably didn't explain that real well. Does that make any sense?

 

[Guinness5.0]

I guess isolate is a bad word , but I think the word target is a better word.
I think you can infact target certain muscles in a bench by adjusting the grip, dropping the bar lower or higher on chest , etc

Agreed. My point is that the words used need to be used properly. It's very easy to misunderstand things when one word has multiple meanings of varying accuracy.

And yes grip width etc. can shift emphasis to different parts, as BiggT mentioned above. But as he adequately stated, close-grips may emphasize the tris more, but they CERTAINLY don't isolate them.

A semantic point but important enough IMO to make the distinction so we're all on the same page.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Agreed. However, getting back to the legs up thing....

My take:

The extra weight you can use w/ your back arched and your feet on the ground to use leg drive will more than make up for the slight increase in pec emphasis that lifting the feet up and not using the arch allow for.

In other words, the diiference in load more than compensates for the difference in emphasis/'targeting'.

 

[gjohnson5]

i usually keep my feet planted on the ground speacially when going heavy but every once in awhile with lighter weight i will put em up jus cuz i want to see how much balance and controll i have

Benching with feet up is practiced in the gym all the time. I used to do it with an open grip jsut to learn balance. Stand inside a boat on a lake or ocean with some chop and you'll get better balance.

Now I can bench as heavy as I want max out with open grip and the weights don't fall out of my hand or one arm higher then the other or any of that other junk that jsut gets people hurt.

It may be seen as a bad habit but I believe it's helped me.

 

[Madcow2]

Agreed. However, getting back to the legs up thing, I do believe that it is a simple matter of good form over bad. Of course good form is debatable depending on your goals, but I've always been under the impression, as a bodybuilder who really doesn't give a rip anymore about getting stronger, that arching your back on a flat bench press is bad. It's best to keep your back as flat on the bench as possible. This in turn helps to "emphasize" the chest and de-emphasize other supporting muscle groups. Is this wrong?

Now I'm not saying that legs in the air (and I have no idea why anyone would do that. When I do this, which is very rare, i put my feet up on the end of the bench so I do retain at least some stability) necessarily constitutes good form. However, I have found that when I put my feet up on the bench like that, my back "feels" more straight, and therefore it "feels" as if my chest is doing more of the work, moreso than if my back was arched.

OK I probably didn't explain that real well. Does that make any sense?

It's a valid point but it depends on what the bodybuilder is trying to accomplish at a point in time. Hypertrophy is an adaptation to deal with increased demands on the muscular system - this is in the form of strength or workload (so not absolute strength but demonstrated over a period) so it's important not to separate hypertrophy from strength and think they are completely different activities. Same ballpark, one is trying to hit home runs and the other is happy with doubles and looking good rounding the bases (both have to be gain proficiency at hitting the ball or they strike out and sit in the dugout).

Now, if a bodybuilder is trying to add muscle to his frame and get bigger, then no, the additional load to the system and overall musculature will result in much better stimulus and gains (i.e. less building for the bodybuilder). If his primary goal is to rebalance, refine or better present what he has already built while maintaining overall musculature this might make sense (to not arch or drive on flat bench). That said, rather than hobbling the flat bench it might be a lot more advantageous to select a different exercise and perform it properly - incline comes to mind.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Benching with feet up is practiced in the gym all the time.

So are lots of bad ideas. This doesn't make it a good idea at all.

I honestly think that I see more bad things done in the gym than good, and not by a close margin either.

 

[markshark]

I would love to know where all this nonsense starts.....crap like benching with the feet on the bench helps isolate the chest; not doing a full range of motion keeps constant tension and is 'safer'; full squats hurt the knees; rolling the shoulders when you shrug 'hits the traps from behind'; deadlifts are dangerous; isolation movements 'cut' you up......I have never seen an activity quite like weightlifting that is littered with so much bullshit and ridiculous misinformation, all it takes to dispell these myths and lies is a quarter ounce of common sense, people who subscribe to this bullshit should think about it for a second, none of it makes an ounce of sense. The only 2 reasons on Earth this crap would work is if you're previously sedintary and the 'something is better than nothing' principle is working, or if you dump enough drugs in your body that masturbation provided enough stimulus for forearm growth.

I am being serious, you don't need a certification or a degree or anything but an ounce of common sense....think about what the bench press does and what it involves and how there is no way possible to make the movement a 'chest only exercise', then think about benching with the feet on the floor with correct form and think about putting the feet on the bench.......can everyone see how assinine of a concept raising the feet is?? It makes no sense to do so.

Next, look at the regular recreational lifter. When drug free or even using reasonable amounts of gear, guys doing iso crap are always smaller and have less muscle than the guys squatting, pulling, and pressing. Guys who do every type of flye ever conceived have smaller chests than guys who can flat out outbench them over any rep range......guys supersetting leg presses with leg extensions and then doing machine hack squats over a partial range of motion to 'keep tension' on the muscle will always have smaller legs than the guy who out squats them over any rep range.....guys whose trap workout consists of dumbell shrugs rolling the shoulders back and behind the back smith machine shrugs supersetted with seated cambered bar shrugs will always have smaller traps than the guy who can use more weight on jump shrugs over any rep range. Muscles respond to workload, they do not have a brain and do not understand any of the bullshit concepts Joe Weider et all espouse.....muscles recognize work, thats is.

the most tired and sore i ever get is when doing basic compound movements til im light headed and ready to puke. ive puked doing squats before (barbell hacks actually) but never much but a bead of sweat from one-legged extensions for 4 sets

 

[gymtime]

My take:

The extra weight you can use w/ your back arched and your feet on the ground to use leg drive will more than make up for the slight increase in pec emphasis that lifting the feet up and not using the arch allow for.

In other words, the diiference in load more than compensates for the difference in emphasis/'targeting'.

OK that makes sense. But I think there has to be at least some control there. In other words, there has to be a point where you say, "yeah, you're arching your back too much."

 

[markshark]

OK that makes sense. But I think there has to be at least some control there. In other words, there has to be a point where you say, "yeah, you're arching your back too much."

when using heavier weights i was taught to keep my feet back as far as possible and planted flat, back arched with chest sticking out and ass flat to be most effective in repping with higher weights.

 

[BiggT]

I kid you not, there was a post on BB.com yesterday about working the "inner-lower pecs" and the first 15 posters all suggested various different isolation exercises to target the area. How bad is that.

BB.Com is beyond help for the most part, lol....I don't think I have ever posted there that I can remember, but just serfing through it can put a smile on your face, lol. Not only is it cluttered with BS info, but the providers of the info. are 17 year olds who weigh 170lbs soaking wet with a brick in their pocker on a full stomach and think they're big because their 13 year old girlfriend told them so.

 

[Guinness5.0]

OK that makes sense. But I think there has to be at least some control there. In other words, there has to be a point where you say, "yeah, you're arching your back too much."

Tell ya what - I'll get a vid of myself benching to show what I think 'proper' benching looks like. A picture's worth a thousand words so a vid must be worth billions

 

[blut wump]

I understand that an all-out PL style attempts to minimize the involvement of the chest and maximize that of the delts and tris. When someone has drifted all the way to a PL style bench workout and even donned a shirt to take the chest out of the lift even more then you might reasonably suggest that they're not working the chest enough for growth. At that stage I'd suggest taking a glance at a successful powerlifter and comparing your chest with his.

 

[BiggT]

Gymtime.....a traditional powerlifting bench with exaggerated arching and leg drive is not what a guy simply looking for some hypertrophy should be doing......on the same note, you shouldn't short change yourself by elevating the feet. A natural, subtle, unpronounced arch will not cause you to recruit less muscles...like was stated earlier by Madcow or Blut Wump, I can't remember, the insignificantly less recruitment is more than canceled out by the increased amount of weight you can handle, the muscles don't know what you want from them, they just respond to the workload.....I think you're confusing the advice, nobody told you to arch like a competitive powerlifter and drive the legs, just do a normal, athletic bench press with the feet planted and still.

 

[gymtime]

... If his primary goal is to rebalance, refine or better present what he has already built while maintaining overall musculature this might make sense (to not arch or drive on flat bench). That said, rather than hobbling the flat bench it might be a lot more advantageous to select a different exercise and perform it properly - incline comes to mind.

Exactly. This is where I'm at in my training. I'm content with the size and strength I've attained over the years, and my emphasis now is on refinement. So yes, where you are at physically and what your goals are, as always, will be a large determinant here.

So I'm not sure where the original poster here is at with that. I'd never suggest doing that sorta thing to a newbie, or even to someone more advanced but was still looking to gain size and strength.

I think it's good to keep in mind that there are precious few absolutes in weight training. Goals, experience, and success levels will always vary. If there's one thing I've learned in over 12 years of training, is that what might appear useless to me, is very beneficial to someone else.

 

[gymtime]

Gymtime.....a traditional powerlifting bench with exaggerated arching and leg drive is not what a guy looking for hypertrophy should be doing......on the same note, you shouldn't short change yourself my elevating the feet. A natural, subtle, unpronounced arch will not cause you to recruit less muscles......I think you're confusing the advice, nobody told you to arch like a competitive powerlifter and drive the legs, just a normal, athletic bench press.

I've just always been told to keep my back as flat or straight as possible, which of course will always involve the back's natural arch. I'm not debating that.

I'm also not at all suggesting that anyone elvate their feet as a normal practice. I do it every now and then on a warmup for no other reason than to remind myself not to arch my back too much. That's it.

 

[BiggT]

Exactly. This is where I'm at in my training. I'm content with the size and strength I've attained over the years, and my emphasis now is on refinement. So yes, where you are at physically and what your goals are, as always, will be a large determinant here.

So I'm not sure where the original poster here is at with that. I'd never suggest doing that sorta thing to a newbie, or even to someone more advanced but was still looking to gain size and strength.

I think it's good to keep in mind that there are precious few absolutes in weight training. Goals, experience, and success levels will always vary. If there's one thing I've learned in over 12 years of training, is that what might appear useless to me, is very beneficial to someone else.

Tis clears things up greatly.

That being your goal though, if I were you, I'd do incline dumbells or inclines or some other movement correctly the way it was meant to be done for the reason it was meant to be done, rather than butcher an existing one to try to make it fit a goal it was not designed to meet and performing it in a way it was not meant to be performed.

kind of like the guy's who say benching hurts their shoulders, so they stop half-way down.....I say don't ass rape the movement, just do something else correctly that doesn't cause pain.

 

[gymtime]

Tell ya what - I'll get a vid of myself benching to show what I think 'proper' benching looks like. A picture's worth a thousand words so a vid must be worth billions

Billions huh???

OK that I gotta see

 

[Madcow2]

Tell ya what - I'll get a vid of myself benching to show what I think 'proper' benching looks like. A picture's worth a thousand words so a vid must be worth billions

We'll estimate the value of your video after viewing it .

 

[gymtime]

Tis clears things up greatly.

That being your goal though, if I were you, I'd do incline dumbells or inclines or some other movement correctly the way it was meant to be done for the reason it was meant to be done, rather than butcher an existing one to try to make it fit a goal it was not designed to meet and performing it in a way it was not meant to be performed.

kind of like the guy's who say benching hurts their shoulders, so they stop half-way down.....I say don't ass rape the movement, just do something else correctly that doesn't cause pain.

I think I might have been unclear before. I would never do a full set of bench press with my feet up. I've done it on a warm up simply remind myself not to arch my back too much, that's really the only reason.

All this being said, I haven't done flat barbell bench in months. It's all been db and bar incline, and db flat, that's it, for bench anyway. Plus I do some other chest stuff.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Billions huh???

OK that I gotta see

Well my camera shoots at 30 frames/second and the clip would be ~30 seconds.

30x30x1000=900000 so I exaggereated

 

[gymtime]

Well my camera shoots at 30 frames/second and the clip would be ~30 seconds.

30x30x1000=900000 so I exaggereated

OK feeling a little cheated now, but fine. 900,000 it is.

Guys, just remember, it's possible to be an experienced, intelligent weight lifter who doesn't necessarily want to gain strength or size anymore. It's not always about that. I spent ten years going for that. Now it's more about being fit, which means I don't really do the heavy stuff anymore. I don't care about adding 20lbs to my bench or adding another 1/4 inch to my arms. I'm a few years away from 40 now and I just wanna not look like a doofus in a tshirt

In other words, my goals are simply different from yours. So I'd be careful in criticizing too harshly those people who chose to do things differently. That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[BiggT]

I think I might have been unclear before. I would never do a full set of bench press with my feet up. I've done it on a warm up simply remind myself not to arch my back too much, that's really the only reason.

All this being said, I haven't done flat barbell bench in months. It's all been db and bar incline, and db flat, that's it, for bench anyway. Plus I do some other chest stuff.

Makes perfect sense.

This does bring up another point to guys who train for appearance looking to refine what they built. You'll still need various training phases throughout your training calander. In a perfect world, you could build muscle, keep it forever, then just refine it, but there will come a point where the size does decrease considerably from not doing the heavy compound work and the refining will be pointless because there will be nothing left to refine. Just something I thought worth bringing up in terms of various phases of training.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Point taken gymtime.

BUT, I still don't see why one would do an exercise improperly (or less than ideally) despite 'modest' goals. Maybe use db's or different rep ranges or whatever. But I still can't see changing an exercise just for grins. IMO the point is, regardless of the goal, to train smart. Modifying solid movements b/c of psuedo-science and assumptions as to changes in effectiveness isn't likely to further any goal.

 

[BiggT]

Point taken gymtime.

BUT, I still don't see why one would do an exercise improperly (or less than ideally) despite 'modest' goals. Maybe use db's or different rep ranges or whatever. But I still can't see changing an exercise just for grins. IMO the point is, regardless of the goal, to train smart. Modifying solid movements b/c of psuedo-science and assumptions as to changes in effectiveness isn't likely to further any goal.

I could not agree more. I feel that to meet a goal you should do things correctly, the way they were designed, for the goal they were designed for, and not try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[gjohnson5]

Point taken gymtime.

BUT, I still don't see why one would do an exercise improperly (or less than ideally) despite 'modest' goals. Maybe use db's or different rep ranges or whatever. But I still can't see changing an exercise just for grins. IMO the point is, regardless of the goal, to train smart. Modifying solid movements b/c of psuedo-science and assumptions as to changes in effectiveness isn't likely to further any goal.

I think what weight lifting needs are some standards so we can all know what "properly' and 'improperly' mean in terms of benching. Those words are subjetive in this conversation.

 

[Madcow2]

I think outside of recreational lifting there are standards (powerlifting, olympic lifting) and some leeway for a lifter to better customize a lift (i.e. squat vs. split clean, amount of arch, flat back, depth on squat). It's bodybuilding and recreational fitness that has changed exercises around sometimes for the better, often for worse. I see trainwreck stuff every time I walk in the gym. I can't tell you the last time I saw someone deadlift without making me cringe and hold my spine (and you see this in magazines too that demonstrate technique with models and photographers that don't have a clue). The problem is that there's really no need for benchmarks or standards in these endevours. They are largely about qualitative aesthetics or some general activity to get their bodies moving than they are about performance on given exercises even in a non 1RM setting. It seems very few even track their lifts over time.

I had a conversation with a moron a few weeks ago on another forum. We are talking about training for optimal strength in a pure elite strength setting and he is telling us his program is great for it because he took his best set of ezbar curls from Y for 20 reps to performing this drop set with 3 different tiers. Kind of eliminates the possibility of having a reasonable discussion without apples to apples. Generally people understand this but that guy seemed to not get it and reallize how absurd it sounded.

 

[BiggT]

Madcow is right, in specific strength-related endeavors there is more of a 'standard'. Olympic lifters tend to lift in the purest form in my opinion, over the years and due to the inreased use of equipment, powerlifting has evolved a lot, but still, there are standards that would be considered good, fair, and poor form all across. The only differences are individual leverage and proportion issues and personal strengths and weaknesses like pulling conventional or sumo, squat or split snatching, split or power jerking, etc.....

With bodybuilding, there has been all sorts of different things done over the years, and with no performance criteria, things have gotten blurred. Throw in widespread and increased use of anabolics to enhance the shittiest of stimuli and you get utter garbage like the Weider Principles, Gym Lore, and Pseudo Science. Add in the fact that people who do not have performance criteria will try to dance around heavy squats, pulls, and to a lesser degree presses and avoid olympic lifting like the plague, and you get the reason most Bodybuilders train the way they do.

Now, Bodybuilding publications are readily available in news stands, while things like MILO are not. The recreational lifter will follow what is readily available and will assume since strength is not his primary goal, that that other stuff is not needed and is just specific to competitive strength athletes. When the crap they read about and then do in the gym doesn't work, they assume that they are maxed out on their potential and that the only way to growth is through steroids or supplements. IF steroids are not accessible, people tend to buy whatever supplement is being heavily advertised. The supplement companies (many of which were founded on money made from steroid sales) pay millions and millions a year to run ads in magazines because that is where all their business comes from. And just in time for people to realize something didn't work, something new and better PROMISING results comes out, and because they can't just say 'squat, pull, press, that simple' and continue to keep selling mags, the magazines keep churning out ridiculous, assinine training info, and in conjuction with the supplement companies they create the lie that has become bodybuilding and recreational lifting. This lie is that training alone and getting good at compound lifts won't yield results, but there IS a magic combination of sets/reps/exercises/supersets/foods/drugs/supplements/cadences/tempos/angles/arcs/planes of motion, and once you find it by reading the mags for the LATEST discovery, you will magically be on the road to growth. The proof is in the pics. Guys like pro bodybuilders, juiced to the gills, who are huge because they are on enough gear to make signing your name cause enough stimulus for forearm growth are in in the pics so this MUST mean this info is legit.

Anyway, thats what happens, and thats why although there are 'standards' in EVERY other sport, bodybuilding and recreational lifting (because it is tied to bodybuilding) remains one of the most frustrating and mysterious pursuits for many. This, along with there being no interest in performance, and the fact that drugs can enhance shitty stimuli, are why so many people do so many bone-headed things in the gym. People will see some dumbass with 36'' thighs doing little sissy quarter squats that resemble more of a courtsey than an actual squat (The Markus Ruhl video comes to mind) and think this guy is HUGE, maybe for bodybuilding purposes you don't need to do full squats.....so people pass this info on to their friend who passes it on to his dad who passes it on to the guy at work looking to 'tone up' and you get a bunch of people with misinformation, where if the guy who saw the Ruhl video rationalized that Rhul has freaky drug receptors and an ability to tolerate massive amounts of gear, thus allowing him to look the way he does while training like a turd sandwich, then the misinformation wouldn't have been spread by him, possibly allowing everyone he talked to who believed him to to actually make progress in the gym.

 

[gymtime]

Makes perfect sense.

This does bring up another point to guys who train for appearance looking to refine what they built. You'll still need various training phases throughout your training calander. In a perfect world, you could build muscle, keep it forever, then just refine it, but there will come a point where the size does decrease considerably from not doing the heavy compound work and the refining will be pointless because there will be nothing left to refine. Just something I thought worth bringing up in terms of various phases of training.

Very true. It would probably be wise for me to look at a strength program for a certain portion of the year. If there's one thing I'm guilty of, it's repetetiveness in my workouts. While I do mix up my excercises each week, the basic workout has been the same for longer than I care to admit.

I think though, from what I've read, we are all on much the same page in terms of basic training philosophies. And while I already practice most of what you two are preaching, I've still learned a lot here guys, thanks to both of you.

 

[Madcow2]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to BiggT again.

-Nice rant, and sadly right on the money. Too bad I can never give Karma when I want to.

 

[silver_shadow]

BB.Com is beyond help for the most part, lol....I don't think I have ever posted there that I can remember, but just serfing through it can put a smile on your face, lol. Not only is it cluttered with BS info, but the providers of the info. are 17 year olds who weigh 170lbs soaking wet with a brick in their pocker on a full stomach and think they're big because their 13 year old girlfriend told them so.

LMAO.... i've actually heard that "big" cat is a 150lb teenager... so much for their mentor!
anyway, i've seen and heard so much BS wherever i've worked out... alot more then u'd find in bb.com, i've come to the conclusion that folks WILL not change their mindsets about training unless they are one of the rare ones that are willing to change things up. for example, in my present gym i'm the only guy who does sets under 5 (unless it is some skinny asshole who tried to lift a heavy weight for 10 but gave up before he could reach that), i'm the only guy who does DLs & the only guy who knows what a GM is (and obviously the only guy who does it too), i'm the only guy who doesn't seem to be doing each body part 1x wk. i've seen chicks who stubbornly come in week after week to do aerobics, never change the way they look and still insist that free weights (and even cables) will make them look like men and won't help them burn fat. i've seen assholes looking at the pics of ronnie and the other guys hung up in the gym and say that they don't want to go heavy because they don't want to look as "gross and muscular" as them, they just want to look something like brad pitt! i've seen dicks look at competitive PLs and OLs & say the guy is all fat and must be pretty weak. i've heard skinny guys wish they started out fat so that they can "convert" it to muscle and fat guys wish they were skinny because it makes it easier to gain muscle from there. and finally, i'm not exactly a monster now nor have ever been (now at 5'10" 212 15% bf, best was 230 @ around 8-10% over a year ago) but i have had some anaemic assholes and some fat bastards tell me that i'm overweight and should be careful about my health!

the general lack of knowledge is truly apalling >:[

 

[musketeer]

If I had read and believed this thread and a handfull of others when I was 13 years old then I'd be fuggin huge...

 

[blut wump]

Look on the bright side, Musketeer: I'm 48. It's never too late to be on the right path.

 

[silver_shadow]

i consider myself very lucky that i stumbled on these boards very early. so i'm only 26 and have already learnt a considerable amount. lots more to learn though...