Read interesting bench theory by Charles Glass

[jeff.ben]

He has said that when you bench, (incline,flat,decline) and shoulder press, that there is no need to touch your chest, he suggest that you only complete only the top two-thirds of the range of motion, that it is more productive than touching. He say's that after so far that there is no more tension on the chest it relaxes at the bottom portion of the movement. Any time you loose tension you loose intensity and a greater risk for pec tear as you will all of a sudden go from no tension to full tension. This doesn't mean only doing partial's, you need to do Two-Thirds.
I would like to get other people's opinion on this, I have alway's used full range, but when I think about his theory it makes some sense.And we all know he is one of the best and knowledgeable people out there today in the industry.

Thank's Looking foward to more opinion's. jeff.ben

 

[guldukat]

He has said that when you bench, (incline,flat,decline) and shoulder press, that there is no need to touch your chest, he suggest that you only complete only the top two-thirds of the range of motion, that it is more productive than touching. He say's that after so far that there is no more tension on the chest it relaxes at the bottom portion of the movement.

I can't agree with Mr. Glass there. Yes, it's possible that one might relax in the bottom third--bounce pressers, as I call 'em, are basically doing this--but it is a leap to say "might" means "must."

If Glass means to propose something that might reduce pec tears, maybe that would help--I dunno. But anytime you reduce a ROM to try and make an exercise "safer," it doesn't seem to yield the same kind of benefits. It's trying to have the cake and eat it too IMO.

Any time you loose tension you loose intensity and a greater risk for pec tear as you will all of a sudden go from no tension to full tension. This doesn't mean only doing partial's, you need to do Two-Thirds.

The "loosing tension" idea doesn't make much sense. If we truly relaxed/lost tension in the bottom third, then how come we can even press a weight off our chests?

I'd also have to wonder why he decided on 2/3rds. Why not 3/4s?

I would like to get other people's opinion on this, I have alway's used full range, but when I think about his theory it makes some sense.And we all know he is one of the best and knowledgeable people out there today in the industry.

Thank's Looking foward to more opinion's. jeff.ben

Honestly bro, I can't go along with that

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Glass, but if we're going to use his rep as "proof" of his hypothesis (purely to nitpick, it's not a theory), I have to wonder about the efficacy of his muscle-building methods.

The important question becomes, what has he done that another hard trainer couldn't improve on? How much serious muscle has he added to already crazy-huge guys?

IIRC, Glass trained Flex Wheeler on and off since Flex's amateur days. Flex was undeniably awesome, but truly, how much did Flex really grow since he turned pro?

He came in heavier at the '98 and '99 Mr. Olympias, yes--but he was nowhere as shredded as he was at the '93 Arnold Classic. Indeed, people consider Flex's best shape his '93 and '98 ASC forms--15 lbs. lighter than his two second-place finishes to Ronnie.

Therefore, when Flex competed with the added bodyweight, we might not be looking at much muscle gain. Muscle doesn't obscure definition, so most of that weight would seem to be fat and/or water.

That's simple math: in over 5, 6 years of working with Flex as a pro, Glass didn't improve significantly on one of the most genetically gifted men to ever walk the planet. It's not just his "fault," of course, but you'd think someone who could apply this great knowledge would at least get the guy 10 lbs. bigger in top form, no?

Then there's Gunter Schlierkamp. Gunter was awesome at the 2002 Olympia. Again, in fairness, Glass definitely did probably help Gunter out there, though we don't know of Schlierkamp changed anything else in his regimen at the time. (Read: did he stock his medicine cabinet better in '02?)

However, even with a whole other year of working with Glass, he actually lost muscle and came in smoother at the 2003 Olympia. Contest prep is always tricky, but had they built a lot of new muscle on Gunter in the offseason (as Glass claimed they would), that probably wouldn't have happened.

Before Ronnie Coleman was Mr. Olympia, he also worked with Glass a little. SofaGeorge, a poster here of old, once noted that Glass had Ronnie doing Smith machine rows--rows with only 2 wheels/side when big Ron could probably do more than 6/side!

Could Ronnie have gained a solid 35 lbs. of muscle from '98 to '03 doing that kind of "feel" or pump-training? I doubt it. He did it with 750 lbs.-plus deads, up to 800 lb. squats, and 2,500 lb. leg presses. All the guys who improved significantly on a winning form, like Ronnie, Dorian, Mike Francois, did so by clawing and fighting to move more weight week after week.

Understand that this has little bearing on Glass bench presses, but if Glass' expertise is the "proof" of avoiding the bottom third...I'll have to risk being a dick and say I need real proof, LOL.

As I see it, Charles is great for helping gifted guys get into great contest shape; but for making monster-huge bodybuilders, I don't think he's the authority to whom most of us should look for that kind of advice.

 

[needsize]

I know glass is an expert, but I dont buy anything that reduces range of motion

 

[Sammy Sosa]

I was taught to bench that way for baseball to reduce rotator cuff strain. It works, as my chest is my best body part. But then when I learned to press properly I could go down all the way without discomfort. The only problem is that I had a major sticking point 2in off my chest and it took my 6 weeks to correct. Anyways I say full range is better overall for your upper body.