cha, did you read the article Mikhel linked? The author notes something I sometimes think about your advice, which is that some of your current lifting advice might be very important to an equipped lifter, but for a raw lifter, not always so. For example, the author notes how vital the lats are in shirted benching simply because of how hard it is to get the bar down to your chest without them. This is not to say that the lats don't play a role in raw benching as well, but they aren't anywhere near #1 or #2 in importance.

I would give a friendly word of caution anytime you find yourself dismissing what the scientific evidence suggests on a topic... But maybe I misunderstood what you meant by this...

And this is why I consider charlatan59 the biggest moron on the board. Some may consider me wrong, but I will gladly engage in debate with him in any concept outside of the purvey of magical persons, cuckoldry, and suited lifting.

I've lifted with people stronger (and better athletes) than you will ever lift with. So the "Oh I saw this strong person doing thing" is idiocy. I literally just linked a video of a WR holder doing something most people consider super dumb. (It is dumb most people.) Yet somehow he is one of the best ever at his sport.

Beyond this, you are nowhere Nuckols or my intellectual equal. Nuckols is a brighter man than I am, and you are... lacking.

Again, I would heavily caution Aidan against the magical man theory you espouse. But atleast you've contained your stupidity to non-medical advisement. (Other than that recent dickhard, if you can still manage that, about inversion boards.)

Thanks man!

I did not ask for an explanation from Cha just to set up a classic Thremp burn, but if you're going to tell me lats are the #2 muscle group in benching, you're gonna have to do better than "well if you do it right you can get a pop out of the bottom with your lats." You have to explain what "it" is, you have to detail how to do "it", and you have to explain how it makes any sense physiologically.

And no one is saying lats aren't beneficial to pressing at all. They are just way down on that totem pole when compared to the prime movers. Im not as bright as Greg or Thremp but we're talking about meathead **** here, you don't need to be a genius to understand that triceps, pecs, and shoulders are all far more important to any pressing movement than lats are. All it takes is doing some push-ups.

I skimmed it and stopped when I saw Tim Henriques name.

Yeah, shirted benching is different than raw benching in a lot of ways. Lats do play a somewhat different role. Lats and other back muscles do play a huge role in keeping your back and shoulders in good position, whether benching raw or shirted. When I bench raw, I know what I feel. I'm sure arguments can be made that pecs or delts are more important than lats. I'm saying when I am locked in with my form, I feel like lats matter more than most other muscles. Regardless of whether they are 1st, 2nd or 5th most important, keeping them tight at the bottom gives you something extra that adds to your bench and helps keep your shoulders healthy.

Thremp - Your superior intellect and trolling ability must make your mom proud.

Proper pushup form is different than proper bench form. Some of feels similar, but the back activation is way different.

Apparently I'm not good enough at explaining this aspect of bench form online to make you understand it very well. I've been able to show people in person, and I think Aidan mostly gets it - he's very close. Its a difficult thing to do well.

Join the Axis. But no BSer allowed.

BPA atleast made a nusery rhyme with "Thremp" in there. If you'd like to try a burn lets go with this: You're a middle aged+ man on steroids who has repeatedly said such stupid **** that moderation has come down to call you out for it. You don't have a college degree and you barely make 100k at the ****ing tail end of your HS educated career.

Your turn.

But I'd rather focus on the fact that there is literally no evidence that there is any sort of lat "explosion" off the base. I'd be happy to engage in some sort of EMG testing with you and your "team" for a few hundred dimes. Loser pays the fees. But I'd assume your limited earning potential would be a limiting factor in taking that on. (Other than being wildly ****ing wrong.)

NB: All in good jest. You see like a decent dude and know a ton about geared lifting. You do get super off base and need to be reined in.

Your personal coaching record is beyond abysmal. Please stop. Again if you can manage to take a trainee and put them above 50% activation. Easy 100k for you.

Who can bench more, 170lb guy who can do 100 push-ups and 5 pull ups or 170lb guy who can do 38 push-ups but 25 pull ups?

I was hoping he'd do 100 pullups...

If the first guy benches enough with a back that weak, he's going to wreck his shoulders.

Isn't there a concept where moving from a state of contraction of an agonist muscle group to its antagonist results in a stronger contraction of that antagonist? Maybe this is where the spring comes from? I cba to look this up but I think it was mentioned in a Nuckols article somewhere.

I agree with the idea that some powerlifters are weak lat movements. I doubt if it someone who was directly training them 5-8 months ago at what most people would think at "reasonable" levels.

Cha's advice is objectively stupid. I've linked support. He's given his personal defense. I'm waiting for more. (NB: Have you trained with Scott? I think I got better in the "Guys who may have ****ed my wife?" pantheon.) But you're a known clown so w/e.

I remember reading something about this too, but IIRC applies more to situations where there is active contraction in both. The hamstrings are not actively contracting in a squat. They are being shortened but not under controlled contraction. You really don't want to do that or try to do that because you don't want to pull yourself down while fighting not to be pushed down...

Civility and decorum is required, or you'll be asked to post elsewhere. No more ad hominems, thanks.

Nuclear what I mean is when you contract muscle A, then antagonist muscle B. Not both at the same time.

Vids from last night

TnG Bench:
120x1, 130x1, 105x5, 105x5

Pause Squats:
180x1, 160x3

---

Day 8: 2362 cals, 145g protein
Day 9: 2275 cals, 176g protein
Day 10: 2227 cals, 163g protein
Day 11: 2137 cals, 162g protein
Day 12: 2493 cals, 163g protein
Day 13: 2261 cals, 174g protein


Weigh in tomorrow.

How? And that's not what I asked. Who do you think benches more? How do you think they achieved it?

Watch the bottom of your 120 bench. You stayed tight. Then watch the bottom of 130. A few inches before the bar touches your chest, you let loose with your back before the weight drops and bounces off your chest. One of the biggest things staying tight at the bottom does when you are in a meet is it makes it easier to start moving the weight up after pausing. Does that make sense?

You can achieve a big bench by focusing on making your pushing muscles strong - if you dont blow out your shoulders. If you want to do that, you'll probably be able to bench heavier with your elbows out, rather than tucked, because that recruits your pecs and delts more, and it takes your back muscles out of the movement. A lot of bodybuilders like to do that. Show me a guy who benches using more pecs and delts like the 100 pushup guy with the weak back in your example, and he's far more likely to mess his shoulders up. A long time ago, I used to be that guy, before I learned how to bench well. It led to surgery on my right shoulder and a partially torn tendon on my left one. Creating a strong base with your back and using your lats a lot allows you to handle heavier weights more safely on a regular basis.

So I did some anatomy look ups on the lats, learned something.



Consider this: the attachment of the lat is on the front of the upper arm bone, albeit very near the top. Therefore once the attachment point passes a certain point as the upper arm goes behind the body what was a muscular contraction creating a pull does become a push - it simply has to be. It is a unique muscle in that regard. But so are others in the hip that are both external and internal rotators depending on factors like femur angle. In this case its humerus angle relative to the T spine attachment starting point.

But because the attachment is so high on the arm bone, the point at which it is no longer a push is a tiny fraction of time at the beginning of the press. So I can see it that depending on "elbow depth" it is 100% within reason that the lats can actually aide in the push, albeit for a small fraction of time at the very beginning of the lift.

Personally I've felt my lats have a slight pump after bench. Definitely not every time nor even regularly, but I have. Was it explicitly only the bench or things done the previous workout? Shrug. I'm simply relating an anecdote of what *I* felt and I'm pretty sure you can find *a lot* of people saying the same thing.

FWIW I'm not defending an insistence on how important they are over any of the prime movers, merely stating what I see as an anatomical possibility. EMG's are of course going to record barely anything because of how short of a period of time the lats actually would "push", if at all if the elbows were dropped enough. It would also seem that the degree of arch also would also play into how much lat can actually 'push' because it changes how far the elbow has to drop before the attachment drops below the attachment on the spine.

*technically it would still be a pull, not a push since it would be pulling the upper arm forward, but asdflaksfjalsdjkf

Good post. So the lats help in getting speed out of the bottom. The bolded explains the "loaded spring" feeling I get out of the bottom when I am benching well.

I am fairly certain that that small insertion is to aid in adduction and internal rotation. You can't just look at the insertion, you have to look at the force vector.

Official Weigh In: 83.9 kg

Yes, I did. There was just something about that weight in my hands that I couldnt really grip it hard, which made bending the bar really hard especially once my elbows had started to bend. Probably just more familiarity with the cue at increasingly heavy weights will help.

--

I don't have anything to add to the anatomical discussions, but I am reading and finding it interesting!

You're absolutely right that you have to look at the force vector. The internal rotation and adduction is the primary reason it is there though. And as you said the force vector matters, and that force vector isn't strictly in the frontal plane of motion because of the angular pull. If the insertion point on the humerus has fallen below the origin insertion line of the upper part of the lats then any contraction of the muscle will result in a transverse plane motion anteriorly.

Every muscle involved in rotation is active in both transverse and frontal plane, it has to be.

This helps explain to me why I dont feel the same lat explosion out of the bottom when I do board presses that I feel when I take the bar to my chest.