Strength Imbalance - right arm stronger than left

[milesdyson]

Bullshit right there. Dumbbells are impractical from a loading standpoint. The barbell bench is superior in this regard. Your confusing this with what he said regarding weighted push-ups, which is that they train the abdominals and other spinal support musculature, as well as the muscles of the lower quarter, at the same time that they train the chest and triceps. They are difficult to load in a practical manner, same as the dumbbell bench press; therefore, again, bench is the superior choice.

However, before I get flamed or misinterpreted, I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever include dumbbell bench press in your routine. It's just another tool in the toolbox, and as such, it should be used at the right time and place.

-Stacey

orly?

From the first page of the bench chapter:

In fact, the dumbbell version of the exercise, which actually predates the barbell version due to its less specialized equipment requirements, is probably a better exercise for most purposes other than training for a powerlifting competition... Nevertheless, you will be bench pressing with a barbell, as the weight of history and precedent demands.

[George Noble]

Dumbbells are bad for linear progression but good for using on, say, volume day of a Texas Method like program. Personally my raw bench doesn't go up unless I used dumbbells.

[banthafodder]

Sure, for fixed hex-style (or similar) dumbbells, but I think a 2" handle you can load up with olympic plates would be perfectly suited for linear progression; just add little chains for microweights and make progress like normal.

[confuzzl3don3]

All good points guys. I don't want to fk with the program either, so maybe i'm just not focusing hard enough on pushing that left. We'll see how things go, but 99% of the time i fail a rep, it's because of the left arm not going up and then it throws me off which leads to the right side coming back down as well.

[nisora33]

orly?

Points taken. The barbell allows you to use more weight by comparison (practically speaking, the fact that the barbell comes from a racked position makes it more useful in this regard, as does the fact that both hands are pushing against the same weight), and while more weight isn't the only factor to consider in training, adding more weight means higher skeletal loading, and given proper form (i.e. full range of motion, medium-elbow flare ensuring both the pectorals and triceps get their fair share of work), I can't see how the dumbbells offer many advantages other than the unilateral nature of the work being performed. All things considered, the bench press will be a superior choice for much of one's early career until variation becomes absolutely necessary.

Trackjunkie, what's all the "extra shit" that's getting worked by using the dumbbells? Look elsewhere in BBT and you'll find the passage where Rip discusses the full-body nature of the weighted push-up, making it, in some ways, a better exercise compared to either the barbell or dumbbell bench due to the amount of muscle mass body-wide that's involved in doing it. It, however, fails to "pass the test," owing to the impractical way that one has to go about loading the exercise.

And Miles, that passage you quoted from Rip, I wonder if he still feels the same way given the number of time he's knocked down alternatives to the barbell back squat when they've been brought up, basically using the same litmus test that I myself just used to evaluate the barbell's usefulness against the dumbbell bench?

-S.

[TrackJunkie]

I can't see how the dumbbells offer many advantages other than the unilateral nature of the work being performed. All things considered, the bench press will be a superior choice for much of one's early career until variation becomes absolutely necessary.

I'm not sure that the dumbbell bench is unilateral, strictly speaking. I believe that the standard dumbbell bench is performed with both arms moving at the same time. They're not connected, but I don't think that makes the movement unilateral.

Trackjunkie, what's all the "extra shit" that's getting worked by using the dumbbells? Look elsewhere in BBT and you'll find the passage where Rip discusses the full-body nature of the weighted push-up, making it, in some ways, a better exercise compared to either the barbell or dumbbell bench due to the amount of muscle mass body-wide that's involved in doing it. It, however, fails to "pass the test," owing to the impractical way that one has to go about loading the exercise.

And Miles, that passage you quoted from Rip, I wonder if he still feels the same way given the number of time he's knocked down alternatives to the barbell back squat when they've been brought up, basically using the same litmus test that I myself just used to evaluate the barbell's usefulness against the dumbbell bench?

-S.

Why do we do back squats instead of the smith rack? The smith rack allows heavier weights to be used, at the expense of leaving the stabilizing muscles inactive, but I'll just let Rip's words answer you.
"Dumbbells - being not tied together between the hands as with a barbell - require more active, conscious control, are harder to do, and are therefore less commonly done."
So why does the smith rack get the axe while barbell bench remains? One reason is that the barbell bench is a contested lift in powerlifting meets. Another reason might be that the benefits of benching with dumbbells(the increased involvement of small muscles around the shoulder) are outweighed by the fact that it's harder to coach people to do it right and, as you mentioned, harder to load in small increments, since most dumbbells increase in 5 lb increments.

[nisora33]

Why do we do back squats instead of the smith rack? The smith rack allows heavier weights to be used, at the expense of leaving the stabilizing muscles inactive...

So why does the smith rack get the axe while barbell bench remains?

So you think the barbell bench doesn't require work on behalf of the stabilizing muscles?

And on a further note, "because they're harder" doesn't make the dumbbell bench a superior exercise. Because by that rationale, a bosu barbell back squat would sure as fuck be much "harder" to do than one executed on solid ground, yes? You're going to have to come up with more criteria than that.

The barbell bench allows for superior ease of racking and unracking and ease of loading, involves a full range of motion in its proper form, spreading the work across the pecs and triceps and associated musculature, and requires a high level of stabilizing activity to boot. So again, other than the fact that each arm must work independently, what's the "extra shit" we're talking about here?

Again, I'm not denying that the dumbbell variant of the exercise isn't useful, just so we're clear.

[TrackJunkie]

So you think the barbell bench doesn't require work on behalf of the stabilizing muscles?

No, that's not what I think. I'll explain better in a moment.

And on a further note, "because they're harder" doesn't make the dumbbell bench a superior exercise. Because by that rationale, a bosu barbell back squat would sure as fuck be much "harder" to do than one executed on solid ground, yes? You're going to have to come up with more criteria than that.

Bosu ball squats are too light to be useful. Sumo squats allow more weight to be used, but aren't in the program either. There are benefits and drawbacks to the various similar movements.

The barbell bench allows for superior ease of racking and unracking and ease of loading, involves a full range of motion in its proper form, spreading the work across the pecs and triceps and associated musculature, and requires a high level of stabilizing activity to boot. So again, other than the fact that each arm must work independently, what's the "extra shit" we're talking about here?

Your praise of the barbell bench is all correct.
However, the dumbbell version also has a full range of motion in proper form, spreads the load, and it requires a HIGHER level of stabilizing activity. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a muscle that gets worked by the dumbbell version that doesn't get worked by the barbell version, possibly because I don't know enough about anatomy, possibly because such a muscle might not exist. The benefit is from the freedom of motion of the hands, and the greater emphasis on stability that comes from cutting the link between the hands.
So yes, there IS a trade off between emphasis of stabilizers and the ability to load a movement, but coach Rippetoe clearly states in SS that the dumbbell version of the bench is probably a better exercise for anyone who isn't a powerlifter, which suggests that he considers the tradeoff worth making if you can properly execute both movements, and aren't a powerlifter.
Sorry for the appeal to authority, but fortunately if you want to know more, he has his very own Q&A board around here. Search first, ask questions later I suppose.
In the meantime, check out this video of rippetoe showing proper dumbbell racking form. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM5Nw_QBA9A

[nisora33]

...fortunately if you want to know more, he has his very own Q&A board around here. Search first, ask questions later I suppose.

Real cute, Mr. "Join date: Dec 2009."

[TrackJunkie]

Real cute, Mr. "Join date: Dec 2009."

Acknowledging that my argument reduced to an appeal to authority, and then directing you to a place where you can freely consult with that authority and a video of that authority demonstrating proper technique is cute around here? Clearly I need to lurk for another few months.