A new way scientific way to bench press A new way scientific way to bench press

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: A new way scientific way to bench press

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    366

    Default A new way scientific way to bench press

    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    • starting strength seminar june 2023
    Evaluation and comparison of electromyographic activity in bench press with feet on the ground and active hip flexion

    This study was shared in a group aimed at Physiotherapists that I couldn't resist sharing. I know Mark frequently references the study where bench pressing on a bosu ball was compared to a flat bench. Well so does this. Frequent citations are made to that research by these intrepid authors. The science has evolved. Bosu Balls are out, flat benches are back in, except now the floor is made of lava. They recommend benching with your legs held in the air.

    The bench press exercise with active hip and knee flexion at 90į significantly increased activation of the pectoralis major (clavicular portion, sternal portion, and costal portion), anterior deltoid, triceps brachii (medial head), forearm (flexor digitorum), rectus abdominis, external oblique, and rectus femoris muscles (quadriceps) muscles compared with the bench press exercise with the feet on the ground, with the same load (kg) in both positions. For this reason, to perform the bench press exercise with flexed hips could be recommended for training in sports where the upper limbs and hip flexor muscles are required.

    Fortunately there is still hope, they do caution against this new and improved bench press, but not for the reasons you think.

    "Therefore, considering these methodological premises, it would be possible to conclude that performing the bench press exercise with active hip and knee flexion at 90 ̊ could be discouraged due to body position instability and vertebral stress increases" They spend quite a few words agonising over the increased shear forces that the hip flexors place on the spine due to lifting their own leg.

    Apparently the journal charges by the word so the authors had to prioritise the important information. So they take great pains to detail the procedure taken to shave participants chests, however they were not able to specify the weights lifted.



    As laughable as this article is, I do have an actual question. I'm new in my career and have only really paid attention to "the literature" for the past year. My question is how often does crap like this come around? it is a cyclical fad every 5-10 years or is it a continual stream of crap of like this? And is it worth tilting at that windmill? In the group I saw it posted I mentioned that it was one of the dumbest things I've ever read, after a couple of dozen people had responded to it positively without comment. Presumably someone is going to ask me why it's so stupid and I would struggle to find where to begin. Is it worth trying to challenge silly shit like this or just ignore it and do my own thing?

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,542

    Default

    This is pretty standard stuff for PT journals. People who don't actually do the lifts themselves writing about the "research" they do on the lifts, it's hard to take them seriously. So we don't.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Fredericton, NB, Canada
    Posts
    105

    Default

    According to the article, they also hook gripped the bench press for some reason.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    This all comes back to the same critical stuff.
    1) What is strength?
    2) What is the best way to increase strength? In other words, what is the best way to train for strength?
    3) What selection criteria for exercises will best allow us to train for strength?

    These concepts are almost never addressed by these kinds of studies.

    Also, the sample size was 20 and the mean 1RM bench press was 187lb. Okay then.
    Sign up for the SS Indianapolis early-interest list for exclusive content.
    I answer all my emails: ALewis@StartingStrengthGyms.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    500

    Default

    So making the movement harder (by lifting the legs) results in increased pec activation to make up for it? Fascinating. Iíll just keep adding weight to the bar.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This is pretty standard stuff for PT journals. People who don't actually do the lifts themselves writing about the "research" they do on the lifts, it's hard to take them seriously. So we don't.
    Unfortunately I work in PT, so at some point I'm going to have to engage with it. I can't imagine any scenario where there's a point that benefits me, in your experience have you ever successfully argued against shit like this or is it a lost cause?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazzin View Post
    I’ll just keep adding weight to the bar.
    That hasn't occurred to them. And they just wanted the publication credit. This is probably some kids master's thesis, like most Exercise Science publication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    Unfortunately I work in PT, so at some point I'm going to have to engage with it. I can't imagine any scenario where there's a point that benefits me, in your experience have you ever successfully argued against shit like this or is it a lost cause?
    I have never been in a position where my job depended on winning a stupid argument like this. If arithmetic doesn't work, I guess you're in the wrong field.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Posts
    463

    Default

    I understand Fauciís book on science and the overhead press is coming out soon.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Subby thanks for posting this.
    I know Rip rolls his eyes at these journals but I love it when someone posts it with some good quotes. I really get a kick out of it in an entertainment way. So much there to make me chuckle. My job can suck at times but this makes me grateful that my profession does not require me to generate word salad of nonsense.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    234

    Default

    starting strength coach development program


    As laughable as this article is, I do have an actual question. I'm new in my career and have only really paid attention to "the literature" for the past year. My question is how often does crap like this come around? it is a cyclical fad every 5-10 years or is it a continual stream of crap of like this? And is it worth tilting at that windmill? In the group I saw it posted I mentioned that it was one of the dumbest things I've ever read, after a couple of dozen people had responded to it positively without comment. Presumably someone is going to ask me why it's so stupid and I would struggle to find where to begin. Is it worth trying to challenge silly shit like this or just ignore it and do my own thing?

    Thanks.
    These types of studies almost always have low sample sizes, poor controls, and use novice trainees. The best conclusions drawn from these studies are either too overly broad to be useful or too overly narrow to be almost tautological.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •