The Press 3.0: The Olympic Press Double Layback

[John F Musser]

Thank you very much Sully

[quikky]

You're beginning to understand. Look at her hip position compared to theirs. Look at the position of the bar relative to her body compared to theirs. Perhaps this is beyond your ability to understand.

In Carl's video, you can see extra lumbar extension happening after the hips are pushed further forward during the second layback. After the hips establish their forward position, you can see the distance between the pelvis and the thoracic spine shortening, which to me would indicate further lumbar extension. It's hard to tell whether this would be classified as over-extension, but there seems to be extra extension happening compared to the starting neutral lumbar position.

What is criterion #3? Who lifted the weight? How? Muscles used, maybe?

I would think the second layback is bringing more pectoral involvement into the movement, and is also reducing the amount of work the triceps and deltoids have to do, by both, placing the body under the bar to involve the hips, as well as allowing the deltoids and triceps to extend more in the process as the distance between the shoulder and the bar is rapidly increased. In a way, the second layback is sort of like a jerk, in the sense that the body is rapidly placed lower under the bar to allow the arms to extend more under the bar, thus allowing the lower body to then contribute to lock-out.

By the way, I am not the one you were responding to, Rip.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I would think the second layback is bringing more pectoral involvement into the movement, and is also reducing the amount of work the triceps and deltoids have to do, by both, placing the body under the bar to involve the hips, as well as allowing the deltoids and triceps to extend more in the process as the distance between the shoulder and the bar is rapidly increased. In a way, the second layback is sort of like a jerk, in the sense that the body is rapidly placed lower under the bar to allow the arms to extend more under the bar, thus allowing the lower body to then contribute to lock-out.

How much does the second layback "reduce" the work Chase does with his 300 pounds?

Well, I'm outvoted. I guess you guys are right.

[DirtyRed]

The "stance" would be the geometry of the feet against the floor. You want his feet motionless during a dynamic press with over 200 pounds?

So if I pick my foot entirely off the ground, but place it down in the exact same position, the "geometry" of my feet against the floor (apparently only measured in two dimensions) would not have changed?

I would think it easier to keep your feet flat on the floor with a lot of weight on them.

The fact that his heels and toes are rocking off the ground suggests that the center of mass of himself+barbell has left his midfoot.

How does the double layback press differs from the sumo deadlift?

1.) You lift weight overhead with one of them
2.) You still do the full range of motion with one of them.

A layback press is more analogous to doing a touch'n'go bench press instead of a paused bench press. It's not a PERFECT analogy, but a better one.

"Excessive layback" and the inability to properly judge it always seemed to me a poor excuse for eliminating the C&P from the Olympics.
If that's how the human anatomy best raises heavier weights overhead, then so be it.

Yes. And one can only lay back SO FAR before the knees start to flex to accommodate further layback. Look at any limbo-er for an example. I would guess it has something to do with center of balance needing to be moved forward by the knees flexing as the torso gets closer to horizontal in order to avoid taking a back bump.

So just requiring that the knees stay locked is a MUCH better way of regulating the amount of layback used (and also keeping active knee extension out of the lift) than some really hard to eyeball anatomical landmarks in relation to one another.

So, Cody, what's your point here? We put up a video showing a beautiful Olympic press. We don't teach it this way, in either the book or the seminar, or in the gym. We just point out that it's the terminal development of a competitive press, and you guys lose your fucking minds.

You know, a lot of this butthurt might have been avoided if you said as much in the video or its description. Maybe if you put a sheer moment into communicating better, people wouldn't have to attempt to read your mind over the internet.

For fuck's sake, the video description even says "The reason for the double layback is up for debate. Discuss in the forum at www.startingstrength.com" Did you think something OTHER than a horde of morons descending on the board was going to happen?

From where on the internet has this foaming frenzy been imported?

No doubt a combination of mostly r/fitness and partly /fit/.

Just to be clear, this back position is unhealthy and dangerous and weird and gross only on the press but not on the bench where this position is almost standard? I want to know from all the experts in this thread who seem like they'd know, what with all the confidence in their objections.

The weight in the bench press rests on the scapulae against the bench. The force transferred along the spine is created by the body's own musculature.

The weight in the standing press rests on your feet, having traveled down your spine.

More importantly, the spine will not explode because it is loaded slightly asymmetrically. You can see so in Strongman competitions with Atlas Stones. It's impossible to lift those without rounding one's back, and they generally do not need a medivac. You can also see it with about ever other idiot that tries to deadlift in the gym I go to and miraculously walks away. Given that your back can withstand MUCH greater loads than what you are pressing with, as demonstrated by the weights you squat and deadlift with, any potential slight overextension in a standing press won't cause injury.

How much does the second layback "reduce" the work Chase does with his 300 pounds?

Well, I'm outvoted. I guess you guys are right.

Since you put the effort into responding, why not put the effort into actually reading his post and responding to what he actually says?

He claims not that Chase does less work, but that the technique used shifts the work done from the triceps and deltoids to the muscles that bring the torso back to an upright position.

I don't know if he has a point or if he's stupid, and I don't desperately care, as I'm going to keep performing the standing press with as much layback as locked knees will allow, as any IRL situation where I might used the strength gained from that will likewise benefit from using my torso to transfer force through my shoulders. But your response (which you spent time typing up, mind) didn't clear it up, or even address his actual post.

[Mark Rippetoe]

He claims not that Chase does less work, but that the technique used shifts the work done from the triceps and deltoids to the muscles that bring the torso back to an upright position.

And who did the work, and who got stronger as a result of having done the work with more muscle mass used over the whole ROM with heavier weight?

I am not going to repeat myself again. Press any way you want to.

You know, a lot of this butthurt might have been avoided if you said as much in the video or its description. Maybe if you put a sheer moment into communicating better, people wouldn't have to attempt to read your mind over the internet.

Since you put the effort into responding, why not put the effort into actually reading his post and responding to what he actually says?

And I've have enough of this disrespectful shit from you people.

[John Watson]

Yes. And one can only lay back SO FAR before the knees start to flex to accommodate further layback. Look at any limbo-er for an example. I would guess it has something to do with center of balance needing to be moved forward by the knees flexing as the torso gets closer to horizontal in order to avoid taking a back bump.

So just requiring that the knees stay locked is a MUCH better way of regulating the amount of layback used (and also keeping active knee extension out of the lift) than some really hard to eyeball anatomical landmarks in relation to one another.

Just some observations;
The center of balance definitely changes, we can see the bar path moving horizontally here as body mass moves forwards;

https://j.gifs.com/oYEwkj.gif

His knees look damn close to being fully locked.

It's a very heavy lift, and there's a sublime beauty to the rhythm of the double layback, I suspect that's the reason it was posted, definitely a thing of wonder, and certainly worthy of analysis.

It certainly stands in contrast to Wolf's amazing 290 press with a very vertical back;

290 Press - YouTube

If they both conform to the Strengthlifting rules of competition, I see no issues at all. They're both getting the weight overhead with knees locked, despite using different proportions of different muscles.

I think that understanding how and why the different approaches come about would be good, whether it's anthropometry, training approach, natural flexibility etc. But I see no reason to get emotionally invested in either approach.

[Sean Herbison]

Just to be clear, this back position is unhealthy and dangerous and weird and gross only on the press but not on the bench where this position is almost standard?

You're asking why an arched back is okay in bench but not overhead press? Think about the difference in spinal loading between the two movements.

Better yet, is no-one going to ask Carl about his experience performing this movement?

We have. Here's his reply from December. I know it's a long thread, but it's worth reading through. Parts of it are pretty good.

[Entire post]

That was a good summary of a whole lot of things. Well written.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

You know, a lot of this butthurt might have been avoided if you said as much in the video or its description. Maybe if you put a sheer moment into communicating better, people wouldn't have to attempt to read your mind over the internet.

Maybe. Or maybe it was completely obvious from the git-go, to anybody even remotely familiar with the foundational materials, that this is an advanced technique being displayed by an advanced athlete, and it made no difference, because for some people that wasn't the point. Who knows?

(Well, I do. But I'm a misanthrope these days.)

[George Christiansen]

For fuck's sake, the video description even says "The reason for the double layback is up for debate.

Discuss in the forum at www.startingstrength.com".

For fuck's sake, indeed.

On what planet do literate people not realize that the first statement is not an endorsement?

On what planet do literate people not realize that the second statement is an invitation to reasonable discussion?

Did you think something OTHER than a horde of morons descending on the board was going to happen?

Yes. Rip somehow does manage to think a bit too highly of the humans.

Hope does seem die a rather slow death sometimes.

Has anyone suggested a pay site?

[Jeremy King]

I guess I haven't learned a thing from being a competitive strongman for the past 17yrs. I watched the video and my only thought was, hmmm, I should give that a try. If you decide to post another video after this Rip, I will try my best to ask numerous silly questions.