[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Did those who object to using a range of motion that doesn’t necessarily have the bar going all the way to the chest ever stop and think about these factors?
- Your pecs do not know and cannot sense where the bar is. What they attach to is the upper arm. It is the angle of that that is relevant, not the height of the hands.
(Yes, for a given person the angle of the upper arm and the position of the hands are related, but for differing people, one might have their upper arm more sharply downwards with their hands still high enough that the bar is off the chest, than another person’s upper arm is when they have the bar on the chest.
- If a given person’s arms were an inch or so shorter, then wouldn’t the bar be lower for the same upper arm angle? Or if longer, then the bar is higher for the same upper arm angle? Including off the chest?
So you mean to say that if an invididual’s arms were an inch or whatever shorter, then the EXACT SAME MOTION of the upper arms would be good and proper bench pressing, but with the arms the length they are then the motion is useless?
C’mon. Recognize that individuals vary. Some can touch the chest with their elbows no lower than the bench. Others, to touch the chest, have to have their elbows way below the bench. The simplistic view is that both are doing the exercise the same way on account of judging by the simple method of “where is the bar relative to the chest,” but in fact these people are doing two different things. And if the elbows-level-with-bench position (for example) gives great results for Lifter 1, why would anyone be convinced it’s the wrong way for Lifter 2, who has longer arms and therefore the same upper arm position has the barbell higher, say an inch or two above the chest?[/quote]
That shouldn’t have needed an explanation.
Further, if someone is going to say I am training wrong, I would sure as hell hope they are MORE developed than me and way stronger.