The Press 3.0: The Olympic Press Double Layback

[Karl Schudt]

Why people are complaining about this is beyond me. It doesn't hurt your back. I have 2 blown discs and endangering the remaining others isn't high on my priority list. If you want to get the most muscle mass involved in the press as possible then you may ought to think about trying this. But beware...you may surprise yourself.

Thanks for the write-up, David. I found this out myself when I was doing partial presses. I just couldn't get them to move, and then found out if I let myself lay back a little, I could lift with my body, as you say, and it flew up. I've been attempting to apply this to the full press, and it's been working pretty well. It takes some doing for me to get a consistent layback, but it allows me to move much more weight.

[tom4646]

For those of you who still have to see to believe:

The next time you find yourself without a shirt on in front of a mirror, stand side-on and imagine you're about to press with a barbell in your hands. Take a big breath and brace as you would for the press. Get those glutes, quads, and abs as tight as you can. Then shoot the hips forward to perform a layback. Try to get your back as horizontal as this action will allow - you should be able to get about as close as in the video. Watch your lumbar spine in the mirror.

[David Kirkham]

Not a ROM another of the lifts train because? Is it because the other 4 lifts don't train spinal movement under load?

The load is on the anterior side of your spine in a press. The load is on the posterior side of your spine in both a squat and a deadlift. Your spine isn't moving a load in a bench. Stop and think about what you are typing.

Anyway, I think it's not the best for long term strength development and health because it trades the final ROM of the arms and shoulders (which are not trained in another of the 4 lifts - only part of it on the bench) for a dynamic hip movement...

The final ROM of motion in Press 1.0, 2.0, AND 3.0. is the lockout of the bar directly above your glenohumeral joint. Hip extension simply can't lock the bar out. Stop and think about what you are typing.

(if done with minimal to zero spinal movement)...

We just waded through 10 pages of people screeching about spinal explosions from over extension and you think there is "minimal to zero spinal movement in Press 3.0?" I'm about positive now you have never tried this.

...again, in the context of a competition, maximal weights may lead to end of range spinal movement, which is not something I want to do for a lot of reps in my life.

Again...have you even tried this??? It didn't hurt my back--or anyone else's that I know who has tried it. My lifting partner tried it last night and was just as surprised as I was about how effective it is at moving the bar. It's a completely different movement. Isn't lifting maximal weights over the most effective ROM the entire goal here? Competition or not?

Keep pressing the way you like it, I keep pressing the way I like it. Not trying to convince anyone, just putting my thoughts into the discussion.

The only thing I am trying to convince anyone of is to try it. If we all want to argue without even trying it (with an empty bar if you think your spine is going to explode) then maybe we should all re-think our keyboard coaching.

[Greg Ruhl]

And in my opinion, taking an Olympic press from 225 to 300 makes a stricter press stronger too, since the support structure is handling another 75 pounds all the way down to the floor, the pressing muscles are in fact locking out 75 more pounds, and the lifter moves the 75 pounds overhead. Kinda like squatting 700 low-bar vs. 600 high-bar -- the lifter produces the extra 100 pounds of force and is therefore stronger, since strength is force production and the ROM is the same.

Yes, but the lifter is NOT pushing that extra 75# over the entire ROM with the shoulders and arms. The load is being held statically (it does not rise) as the back gets pushed down during the 2nd layback. At this point the arms are straight and the hips are used to straighten the body. In the first rep, this is very minimal. As the set progresses, we see the stall and the layback becoming more pronounced. I agree that this technique can be used to press more weight and doesn't hurt the spine. However, in your "The Overhead Press" article you say this:

And back then, shoulder injuries were essentially unheard of because the press made the shoulders strong – the whole shoulder, not just the front of the shoulder like the bench press does. The takeover of upper-body training by the bench press was an unfortunate development. The bench allows the use of heavier weights, but at the expense of the involvement of more of the body, and more balanced shoulder strength, front-to-back. As a general rule, more muscle mass working at the same time all over the body is much better for strength training than isolation exercises. The coordinated use of all the muscles while standing on the floor with a barbell in your hands produces the most useful strength adaptation – one that actually applies to all natural human movements.

1) Does a significant lean back lessen the "balanced shoulder strength" benefit that you mention in your article?
2) Does the greater overall strength adaptation mitigate any concerns r.e. question 1?
3) Does an increasing amount of 2nd layback as the set progresses represent a form breakdown (just as we'd see with any large 5RM effort)?

[crookedfinger]

I made it to page 7 and had to stop.

All I can say is I'm glad I've read the books, learned the lifts and put enough time under the bar to not really give a fuck what anybody in the peanut gallery says.

225x5 is a damn good press.

Fuck em all with fucking no regrets.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yes, but the lifter is NOT pushing that extra 75# over the entire ROM with the shoulders and arms. The load is being held statically (it does not rise) as the back gets pushed down during the 2nd layback. At this point the arms are straight and the hips are used to straighten the body. In the first rep, this is very minimal. As the set progresses, we see the stall and the layback becoming more pronounced.

Why can you Training Forum people not understand that the Olympic press is not a bodybuilding isolation muscle group doing-delts bodybuilding exercise for shoulders day?

I agree that this technique can be used to press more weight and doesn't hurt the spine.

I feel relieved.

However, in your "The Overhead Press" article you say this:

I am again apprehensive.

1) Does a significant lean back lessen the "balanced shoulder strength" benefit that you mention in your article?

Why would it? Do the shoulders stop working in an Olympic press?

2) Does the greater overall strength adaptation mitigate any concerns r.e. question 1?

I appreciate that you're trying very hard to salvage your position here, but this makes no sense. Does a heavy low-bar squat leave out the quads?

3) Does an increasing amount of 2nd layback as the set progresses represent a form breakdown (just as we'd see with any large 5RM effort)?

No, it's a necessary part of pressing very heavy weights. Let me ask you a question: what is your PR 1RM press?

[David Kirkham]

Yes, but the lifter is NOT pushing that extra 75# over the entire ROM with the shoulders and arms.

Ughhhh...that's the point.

The load is being held statically (it does not rise) as the back gets pushed down during the 2nd layback. At this point the arms are straight and the hips are used to straighten the body.

Please go to 2:24 in the video when Coach Raghavan is as at his deepest extension. His arms are NOT straight. His arms do not completely straighten and lock out until 2:27 in the video. The hips, torso, and arms all straighten out--and lock out--together. You need to watch it again.

Something tells me you haven't tried this.

[Murelli]

The load is on the anterior side of your spine in a press. The load is on the posterior side of your spine in both a squat and a deadlift. Your spine isn't moving a load in a bench. Stop and think about what you are typing.

You didn't answer the question and I foresee ad hominem arguments pretty soon. I didn't ask what was the difference in loading, I asked which ROM is not trained by low bar squats, deadlifts, bench presses and power cleans but is trained by a double layback press.

The final ROM of motion in Press 1.0, 2.0, AND 3.0. is the lockout of the bar directly above your glenohumeral joint. Hip extension simply can't lock the bar out. Stop and think about what you are typing.

That's the final position, not the final ROM. If the arms and shoulders move without moving the bar, you are trading arm and shoulder useful ROM for something else. You are still locking out the weight, I never disputed that. But the point is, overloading the lockout can be done with many press variations. What I want you to answer, with logical argument or data, is which ROM is being trained by a double layback press which is not trained by press 2.0? And while we're at it, which ROM is trained by a double layback press and is not trained by a push press.

We just waded through 10 pages of people screeching about spinal explosions from over extension and you think there is "minimal to zero spinal movement in Press 3.0?" I'm about positive now you have never tried this.

Have you watched Jordan Feigenbaum's double layback press? I'm quite sure I can't see spinal movement there. You can see his hip moving and his back laying back (ha!), but if you can see his spine unlocking from a perfect extension, please show me (with pictures, preferably). Once again, please do not turn this into ad hominem arguments.

Again...have you even tried this??? It didn't hurt my back--or anyone else's that I know who has tried it. My lifting partner tried it last night and was just as surprised as I was about how effective it is at moving the bar. It's a completely different movement. Isn't lifting maximal weights over the most effective ROM the entire goal here? Competition or not?

I know of a few people who reported pain from spinal over-extension when doing layback presses.

I never disputed its effectiveness on moving the bar.

Agreed that it's a completely different movement. Push press is also a different movement. Sumo deadlifts, hitching and ramping conventional deadlifts (strongman or crossfit) and conventional deadlifts are also different movements

And regarding maximal weights, not every general strength trainee is interested in lifting maximal weights (some people don't even want to test RMs).

The only thing I am trying to convince anyone of is to try it. If we all want to argue without even trying it (with an empty bar if you think your spine is going to explode) then maybe we should all re-think our keyboard coaching.

You convinced me and I will be putting up a video of it.

[John Petrizzo]

At this point, I doubt that I can add anything productive to this conversation that has not already been beaten to death by others, but I will make one observation. The interesting thing to me about all of this is that Bill Starr wrote an article on the Olympic-Style Press for this site in 2010 and Tommy Suggs made a platform video on the topic back in 2011, so this is not the first time that this movement has been highlighted here so I don't really understand why everyone is just now losing their minds over the topic. Where was the outrage in 2010 and 2011?

The press 2.0 (which as Rip pointed out in one of the first posts on this thread is different from the Olympic press and is not what is taught at SS camps and seminars) has been used since 2011 as well and again did not seem to cause too many waves at the time of SSBBT3's release. Based on my coaching experience and experience working as a PT, from an injury standpoint, the idea that laying back during a press will somehow predispose one's spine to injury any more than anything else we do in the gym is being grossly overstated.

I personally don't perform the Olympic press myself or use it with my clients (and I would bet that most of the people who are freaking out about this stuff do not either), but I don't see it as being much of an issue for an advanced lifter who wants to incorporate it into their program. I personally perform the press 2.0 as described in SS and teach that to my clients and have not had any issues with it at all.

In my clinic, of the few lifters that I do see with spinal pathology, the far majority of them that injured themselves under the bar have done so through loading the spine in flexion, not extension. That does not mean that people cannot injure themselves in extension, because they obviously can, and pathologies such as advanced spinal stenosis, spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis will make even very "strict" standing presses challenging to perform without occasionally flaring up one's back. How much layback someone can use will vary from person to person for a variety of reasons and what constitutes "too much" layback is a very subjective thing. If your back is sensitive to extension or you just don't like the idea of laying back during a press, then don't do it, but you also should accept the fact that you will be sacrificing some weight on the bar in order to adhere to your more rigid standards.

With all that being said, I really don't understand the hysteria that this video has caused. I suspect that not all of it is actually related to the Olympic-style press.

[Greg Ruhl]

I appreciate that you're trying very hard to salvage your position here, but this makes no sense. Does a heavy low-bar squat leave out the quads?

I have no position (except a lack of understanding) and am not claiming to be an authority, I am trying to learn. The tail end of this thread was probably not the place to do it. LBS does not leave out the quads.

the Olympic press is not a bodybuilding isolation muscle group doing-delts ...<snip>... Why would it? Do the shoulders stop working in an Olympic press?

No, of course not. I believe my lack of understanding stems from thinking that 1) the musculature in the front of the shoulder is going to get more stressed when moving the bar while in an inclined position and that 2) working all parts of the deltoid equally is important for shoulder health (otherwise we'd just bench or incline press). Olympic pressers of the 60s and 70s obviously didn't have weak posterior deltoids (or debilitating muscle imbalances) so I'm either not understanding something in the model or something from anatomy/biomechanics.

No, it's a necessary part of pressing very heavy weights. Let me ask you a question: what is your PR 1RM press?

I wasn't questioning the need for the 2nd layback for efficient movement of heavy weights. Is the difference in 2nd layback depth between rep 1 and 5 a similar situation to increased upper thoracic rounding on a heavy set of DL, i.e. it is showing a near-max 5RM effort and would be expected? I'm hung up on the word "necessary" in relation to seeing the form change.
My SSC has not prescribed a 1RM effort yet. My last heavy press day was 175 for reps but we've since deloaded and are adding more volume. So yes, a lot more to learn and experience.

Please go to 2:24 in the video when Coach Raghavan is as at his deepest extension.

I'm not talking about his first rep... I'm talking about the 5th rep. His deepest extension is at 3:32... his last rep. The extension is significantly more than the first rep. The arms push the back down until the elbows are ~135 degrees open. The shoulders/arms are then used to press the weight the rest of the ROM. Please re-read my previous comment that you snipped... I've already agreed that this is more efficient than a strict press in moving the weight up.