Bench Press Mechanics

[INTERNETWARLORD]

Hi Mark, I have a couple things I want to clear up with you.

First, you said the lats cannot contribute to the upward motion of the bar in the bench. However, every single elite powerlifter or bench specialist recommends a large amount of upper back work and insists that the lats, or at least the upper back, assist them in getting the bar off the chest. These are guys with enormous raw bench presses as well as enormous shirted benches. I was recently in Detroit and got to talk to Clay Brandenburg (he has a 675 raw bench and a 900+ shirt bench and is up there with guys like Mendelson), who told me that he believes that upper back training is the single most important aspect of his bench pressing strength, raw or shirt it doesn't matter (although he said it was even more important in the shirt). He told me that every weight he missed that day was a result of him losing tightness in his lats -- he was training raw that day. How do you explain that this advice of heavy and frequent lat training is so ubiquitous (and from top lifters!) if it is incorrect?

I am no anatomist, but after googling a bit I found an explanation that sounded pretty plausible to me:

Anatomically the lats insert on the front of the humerus, not the back like most people think. When the front of the humerus is behind the body (as it is in the bottom of the bench) contracting that muscle pulls the humerus back in line with the body (the first few inches of the bench). So the lats help the beginning drive off the chest. Normally if you bench and can't even budge your max off your chest, you have weak lats. They also help keep your elbows tucked in.

I also found this from http://www.texaspowerscene.com/artic...nchpress.html:

Many of us were probably unaware that the lats were even involved in the bench press. However, EMG studies do show that the lats are activated for a short period of time just prior to the start of the bottom phase of the lift.

The second thing I have trouble coming to terms with is the idea that the bench press is a straight line. It seems that most of the powerlifters moving the big weights these days disagree with that assessment. Again, when I was at Clay's gym, there were three top benchers sitting around talking and I asked them about this "bar moving in a straight line" deal, and they told me that the bar (in the raw bench press) only moves in a straight line until it stalls out, at which point the elbows should flare to lockout the weight. Jim Wendler and Dave Tate have been repeating this as well, and if you watch most of the best bench pressers they have this arc as well, so the question is, if it is optimal for the bar to be moving in a straight line, how come we never see it?

I am really interested to hear from you about this matter. Thanks Mark.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The origin and the insertion of the muscle pretty much determine its function. I know that the insertion on the humerus is anterior, but the origin is still along the spine from T7 down to the lumbar and iliac crest through the thoracolumbar fascia. So when the thing shortens -- as muscles are wont to do -- how exactly does this make the bar go away from the chest? I have never said that the lats do not help the bench press, as you have noted. You have not explained how they make the bar go up; you have just said that a bunch of guys that are stronger than me apparently think they do, but I'm not sure they think so either. And this: "When the front of the humerus is behind the body (as it is in the bottom of the bench) contracting that muscle pulls the humerus back in line with the body (the first few inches of the bench). So the lats help the beginning drive off the chest." does not explain what happens when the humerus gets past the frontal plane. Do the lats just relax at that point? I think my explanation that the lats maintain the isometric position of the arched back is more satisfying, and probably makes more sense that to say that since big strong guys believe a thing about lifting it must be true. We philosophers call this an ad hominem argument.

But I could be wrong.

Now, do you mean that I have said the bench was a VERTICAL line, or a straight line? Why don't you post here the things you don't like or understand, and I will see what I can do to exonerate myself or apologize.

[Roland83]

First, you said the lats cannot contribute to the upward motion of the bar in the bench.

He told me that every weight he missed that day was a result of him losing tightness in his lats --

I don't know much by my thoughts would be that the fact that keeping tightness in the lats contributes a huge ammount to the lift is different to the lats actually lifting the bar. I can miss a squat because i didn't have tight abbs and upper back and crumbled, but the driving muscular force creating upward motion on the bar is not directly from my abbs. And yet strong abbs contribute to your squat.

The second thing I have trouble coming to terms with is the idea that the bench press is a straight line. It seems that most of the powerlifters moving the big weights these days disagree with that assessment.

Jim Wendler and Dave Tate have been repeating this as well,

Also if you watch and read alot of dave tate, just using your example, i have seen him at one stage in his career (benching massive weights) ridiculing people who move the bar in a "j line" instead of straight, even using the whole a--b straight line conecpt (saw this in a video, search around) and at another stage in his career talking about the need to flaring your elbows and that it should move back. There are just differences, not right and wrong on this one i think. Someone who benched 700# or whatever isn't wrong, or if he is I wouldnt tell him lol.

And in the bench press video from Elitefts they describe both methods and mention elite lifter groups who use either one. I forget the name he gives it in the video but he describes the bar moving directly up and down, and that this is a valid method also.

[INTERNETWARLORD]

The origin and the insertion of the muscle pretty much determine its function. I know that the insertion on the humerus is anterior, but the origin is still along the spine from T7 down to the lumbar and iliac crest through the thoracolumbar fascia. So when the thing shortens -- as muscles are wont to do -- how exactly does this make the bar go away from the chest? I have never said that the lats do not help the bench press, as you have noted. You have not explained how they make the bar go up; you have just said that a bunch of guys that are stronger than me apparently think they do, but I'm not sure they think so either. And this: "When the front of the humerus is behind the body (as it is in the bottom of the bench) contracting that muscle pulls the humerus back in line with the body (the first few inches of the bench). So the lats help the beginning drive off the chest." does not explain what happens when the humerus gets past the frontal plane. Do the lats just relax at that point? I think my explanation that the lats maintain the isometric position of the arched back is more satisfying, and probably makes more sense that to say that since big strong guys believe a thing about lifting it must be true. We philosophers call this an ad hominem argument.

But I could be wrong.

Now, do you mean that I have said the bench was a VERTICAL line, or a straight line? Why don't you post here the things you don't like or understand, and I will see what I can do to exonerate myself or apologize.

Mark,

Thanks for getting back to me. As I said before, I am not an anatomist or expert in kinesiology, and I am not qualified to argue with you about the exact mechanics involved here. I am simply trying to reconcile the nearly ubiquitous belief amongst elite powerlifters and bench press specialists that the lats play some key role in the initial drive off of the chest in the bench press and a very important role in the bench press in general -- I have also heard it said that the lats are the "the steering wheel" in the bench press, with the lifter envisioning that they are guiding the bar path not with the hands, but with the elbows, and also as critical to overall stability.

All the top benchers that I am aware of incorporate a very high amount of upper back work -- and these guys dominate regardless of the equipment that they use. It seems very clear to me that there must be something to this. It doesn't make sense that they would all train this way if they were wasting their time and the lats only played a very minor role in the bench press.

You call this an "ad hominem", but an ad hominem is a personal attack used to discredit the other person in an argument. I think you are confusing ad hominem with ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority. But this is only fallacious if the authority's expertise is not relevant to the debate, and I would say that the opinion of elite lifters is relevant. I mean, if you were looking for techniques on how to improve your bench press, you wouldn't run to the high school kid who is doing 135. When you were promoting the idea that the scapula is lined up with the bar in the deadlift, you analyzed a number of videos of elite lifters doing just what you were talking about in order to provide corroborating evidence -- how is this any different?

With regards to the bench press... I was under the impression that you thought that the bench press was to move in a vertical line, straight up and down through the shortest possible ROM. Do you believe the bar should move in a straight diagonal line towards the rack? From what I understand the current recommendations from Wendler, Tate, Chris Clark, as well as the guys I have had the opportunity to train with at Detroit Barbell, the bar goes straight up and flares back to lockout, which would be more of a curve. There are videos up where they talk about this.

Anyways, it's great to hear your opinion. I hope I am not coming across as some kind of internet troll, I honestly just want your input here. Thanks again.

[quadancer]

This thread got me to doubting as well, and studying muscle anatomy charts, I see that the upper lat does connect to the humerus anterior. I would expect, if anything, that the pulling of the lats would pull the humerus back, rather than forward, as the muscle pulls to the rear, not the front.
What I think is happening, is that in the case of men with actual muscle to work with, is that the lats are flexed at the initiation of the lift along with the triceps, and that they provide a base platform for the tricep to push off of.
I'm not saying that a muscle can push; it cannot, but there is only so much room to occupy and a muscle expands when it flexes.
This would precipitate movement of the bar, while holding the elbows in.

[JLascek]

It's important to note that an analysis of a movement and a cue to induce a movement that fits into the model of how that movement is performed are two different things.

This may or may not be relevant in this case.

[Mark Rippetoe]

All the top benchers that I am aware of incorporate a very high amount of upper back work -- and these guys dominate regardless of the equipment that they use. It seems very clear to me that there must be something to this. It doesn't make sense that they would all train this way if they were wasting their time and the lats only played a very minor role in the bench press.

You call this an "ad hominem", but an ad hominem is a personal attack used to discredit the other person in an argument. I think you are confusing ad hominem with ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority. But this is only fallacious if the authority's expertise is not relevant to the debate, and I would say that the opinion of elite lifters is relevant. I mean, if you were looking for techniques on how to improve your bench press, you wouldn't run to the high school kid who is doing 135. When you were promoting the idea that the scapula is lined up with the bar in the deadlift, you analyzed a number of videos of elite lifters doing just what you were talking about in order to provide corroborating evidence -- how is this any different?

My apologies on the misuse of the term. You are right about that. You are wrong to say that I use the same argument to make my case for the standard pulling model, as we call it now. At my seminars I explain in great detail the biomechanical analysis, and then I use video to demonstrate the point. The videos are of lifters of all levels of proficiency and from both powerlifting and Olympic lifting, and the use of the videos is illustrative rather than an appeal to authority. I shall refrain from contrasting this with your comments.

With regards to the bench press... I was under the impression that you thought that the bench press was to move in a vertical line, straight up and down through the shortest possible ROM. Do you believe the bar should move in a straight diagonal line towards the rack? From what I understand the current recommendations from Wendler, Tate, Chris Clark, as well as the guys I have had the opportunity to train with at Detroit Barbell, the bar goes straight up and flares back to lockout, which would be more of a curve. There are videos up where they talk about this.

You are under the wrong impression. I spend quite a bit of time in the seminar explaining why the bar path is not vertical, I have written about it on this board, and nowhere in BBT does it say that the bar path is vertical in the bench. As has been pointed out by Roland, there is disagreement about this amongst The Elite. I train primarily novices, and I teach them that a vertical bar path -- while mechanically ideal -- is not a good idea for anatomical reasons.

[Rich_S]

I have the Westisde Barbell and Elite FTS DVDs where the role of the lats in the bench press is discussed. What they show is if you bring a loaded bar to your chest, while maintaining tension in your pecs/front delts/triceps, and then forcefully contract your lats, the bar will pop up an inch or so off your chest. This is what they're talking about. I've tried it personally and it does work. I don't think it has anything to do with your lats raising the humerus (which as Mark points out is impossible). It's more likely due to the sudden expansion of the contracted lat muscle lifting the rib cage up which then gets transmitted to the bar (sort of like a mini push press in the horizontal direction).

As for the bar path (directly vertical versus sliding backwards) - referring back to the same folks mentioned above, it's clear their thinking on this has changes, and the change likely follows changes in bench shirt technology which alter the groove of an equipped bench. Again, as Mark notes, not particularly relevant to novice/intermediate lifters or anyone who lifts raw in general.

[JLascek]

Mark,

Thanks for getting back to me. As I said before, I am not an anatomist or expert in kinesiology, and I am not qualified to argue with you about the exact mechanics involved here. I am simply trying to reconcile the nearly ubiquitous belief amongst elite powerlifters and bench press specialists that the lats play some key role in the initial drive off of the chest in the bench press and a very important role in the bench press in general -- I have also heard it said that the lats are the "the steering wheel" in the bench press, with the lifter envisioning that they are guiding the bar path not with the hands, but with the elbows, and also as critical to overall stability.

There hasn't been any response that denies that the lats contribute to the bench press. However, it is anatomically impossible for them to actually contribute to the upward motion of the bar since their primary function is to extend the shoulder.

The elite powerlifters and bench pressers are not knowledgeable in anatomy and physics in the same way that Rip is not a world class bench presser.

[matclone]

Mark...it's great to hear your opinion. I hope I am not coming across as some kind of internet troll, I honestly just want your input here. Thanks again.

Why anyone would imagine that someone with a name like INTERNET WARLORD could be a troll is beyond me. Oh, wait. YOU said that.

I was recently in Detroit and got to talk to Clay Brandenburg (he has a 675 raw bench and a 900+ shirt bench and is up there with guys like Mendelson), who told me that...

Again, when I was at Clay's gym, there were three top benchers sitting around talking and I asked them about this "bar moving in a straight line" deal, and they told me that...

Jim Wendler and Dave Tate have been repeating this as well...

I am simply trying to reconcile the nearly ubiquitous belief amongst elite powerlifters and bench press specialists that...

From what I understand the current recommendations from Wendler, Tate, Chris Clark, as well as the guys I have had the opportunity to train with at Detroit Barbell...

You're obviously in elite company and have been given their sage advice. So why are you on this board asking leading questions and making misleading statements about Rip's teachings for no apparent reason? I think we know.