Push Press and Bench Press Bridging - why aren't these preferred exercises?

[rhett]

Olympic press seems to be preferred over strict press in SS3 because it allows use of more weight and involves more muscles in the movement. If that is true, why isn't push press preferred over strict press since it involves yet more weight and more muscles? The book just says to treat them as different exercises but I don't see why push press isn't the preferred movement.

Same with bridging during bench. SS3 says we don't want to bridge because it takes weight off the target muscles. But earlier in the book it says we don't target favorite muscles because we don't have favorite muscles, we want strength in big general movement patterns. Since we aren't concerned with winning strict-form bench press competitions, and bridging lets us move more weight, why aren't we bridging?

[madmaxaus]

Olympic press seems to be preferred over strict press in SS3 because it allows use of more weight and involves more muscles in the movement. If that is true, why isn't push press preferred over strict press since it involves yet more weight and more muscles? The book just says to treat them as different exercises but I don't see why push press isn't the preferred movement.

Same with bridging during bench. SS3 says we don't want to bridge because it takes weight off the target muscles. But earlier in the book it says we don't target favorite muscles because we don't have favorite muscles, we want strength in big general movement patterns. Since we aren't concerned with winning strict-form bench press competitions, and bridging lets us move more weight, why aren't we bridging?

The push press reduces the involvement of the shoulders in the initial phase of the press. Sure you can use more weight but it is a different movement pattern and exercise than the standard or Olympic press.

The arch during the bench is traditionally for powerlifting, because it reduces the distance the bar needs to travel. While you're right that we don't have favourite muscles, we are also not powerlifting. The difference between training for strength and powerlifting is that powerlifting is a sport, and has rules. So it's not about how strong you are per say, it's about how you can move the most weight, within the rules.

We are trying to recruit the maximum amount of muscle fibres to induce the greatest gains in terms of strength. So we don't isolate the pecs like a bodybuilder, but we don't reduce their involvement like a powerlifter, make sense?

[Dwayne_KONG_Wint]

1st...arching on the bench is ~= bridging on the bench. Arch is referring to the position of your lower and upper back on the bench. Bridging means your butt is no longer in contact with the bench.

The reason why push press and bridging bench are not preferred exercises is the same reason that squatting high is not a preferred version of the squat. That is that these versions of the movements are not easily repeatable or measurable. In order for a lift to count, there must be constraints as to how the lift is made. This standardizes the movement performance and makes repeat performances measurable against past performances. This is important in training because making progress leans upon performing a skill within some constraints that allow progress to be measured.

Push pressing can be highly variable depending on the amount of leg drive applied. Very skilled push pressers have developed the ability to make the lift mainly a lift about leg drive and a little bit of lockout.

Bridging can vary as well. I've seen tiny bridges which were mostly negligible to really tall bridges which completely changes the movement. So this also messes with the ability to measure progress on the bench press.

If you are training, you will have standards that you hold yourself accountable for which allow you to measure your progress. Proper performance of a lift is very important in that regard. The only person suffering from incorrect performance is the trainee. Don't bridge your benches, don't push press your presses, and don't squat high. You will only let yourself down.

[rhett]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I don't find either of these explanations convincing, but I am just going to follow the the program - no bridging, no pushing.

[Nick Klemetson]

When I see videos of most people doing max benches on the Starting Strength program, I see most of them arching. I'm trying to incorporate the technique as well. I didn't think it was NDTP.

[rhett]

Arching the back is recommended and that is how it is taught in the book. Bridging (lifting butt off the bench) is considered a cheat and is NDTP but I haven't seen a coherent answer as to why.

[Milo's Ghost]

Arching the back is recommended and that is how it is taught in the book. Bridging (lifting butt off the bench) is considered a cheat and is NDTP but I haven't seen a coherent answer as to why.

Two reasons (since the above explanations apparently didn't sink in):

1. It shortens the ROM. It's like cutting your squat above parallel. No bueno.
2. It's not consistently reproducible. If you allow yourself to start doing it, as the weight gets heavier, you'll bridge a little more each time. So if your bench goes from 175-205, did you actually get stronger? Or is your bridge just higher?

Now, I know what you're going to say (because I'm a ghost): 'But doesn't arching/keeping the chest up also shorten the ROM??????' Well, yes. A bit, tho not nearly as much as bridging. But there are reasons the line is drawn where it is. The arch is reproducible in a way that the bridge is not. Also, the arch serves many other useful purposes - it keeps the back tight, engages the lats and hips to help keep the trunk solid, and allows the legs to help brace the torso as well. When you arch, you have a much more stable platform to press against. As in all things lifting, tightness and stability are good; looseness is bad.

If none of the above explanations (from myself or others) is 'coherent' to you, then lifting is probably the least of your worries. You may not agree - what with your decades of lifting experience and all - but it is what it is.

[Milo's Ghost]

When I see videos of most people doing max benches on the Starting Strength program, I see most of them arching. I'm trying to incorporate the technique as well. I didn't think it was NDTP.

Arch. Don't bridge. Butt stays on the bench, always. Pretend you're in prison.

[rhett]

Cool the jets, friend. I never said I had decades of lifting experience - you guys sure are quick to play that card around here. I also never said the advice is wrong. I am trying to understand why it is right. That' why I am asking the question.

My problem with your advice in 1 and 2, which is the same thing Dwayns_KONG_Wint said, is that the same thing could be said even more so of not arching. So bridging reduces the range of motion compared to arching? Arching reduces the range of motion compared to flat back. Arching is consistently reproducible? Flat back is even more reproducible. I have seen arches on this forum that look like they are being done by contortionists. So how do I know my advance from one week to the next isn't because I learned to arch better? A flat back is far more reproducible and repeatable than an arch. So by your points 1 and 2 (the same points Dwayns_KONG_Wint) made, it seems like strict form would be better.

You added that arching adds tightness and stability, and I think that might be an important difference. So maybe the arch is the most stable form that also meets 1 and 2 to some degree. But 1 and 2 by themselves don't explain why we are allowed to arch, but not bridge. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Two reasons (since the above explanations apparently didn't sink in):

1. It shortens the ROM. It's like cutting your squat above parallel. No bueno.
2. It's not consistently reproducible. If you allow yourself to start doing it, as the weight gets heavier, you'll bridge a little more each time. So if your bench goes from 175-205, did you actually get stronger? Or is your bridge just higher?

Now, I know what you're going to say (because I'm a ghost): 'But doesn't arching/keeping the chest up also shorten the ROM??????' Well, yes. A bit, tho not nearly as much as bridging. But there are reasons the line is drawn where it is. The arch is reproducible in a way that the bridge is not. Also, the arch serves many other useful purposes - it keeps the back tight, engages the lats and hips to help keep the trunk solid, and allows the legs to help brace the torso as well. When you arch, you have a much more stable platform to press against. As in all things lifting, tightness and stability are good; looseness is bad.

If none of the above explanations (from myself or others) is 'coherent' to you, then lifting is probably the least of your worries. You may not agree - what with your decades of lifting experience and all - but it is what it is.

It seems to me that in the power-lifting world, maximizing leverages and REDUCING range of motion is the #2 key strategy, after brute strength. Look at the range of power lifting squats and how about the extreme reduction of range brought about by a textbook PL sumo dead-lift.