T Nation

Military Press - Standing or Seated

When I’m doing Military Press. Should I stand or sit?

And why?

Generally, I prefer standing.
Standing engages more muscles for stability. I also think of it as a more “athletic” movement.

My basic “rules”, which I stick to 80-90% of the time:

free weight vs. machine = free weights
multi-joint vs. isolation = multi-joint
standing vs. sitting = standing
ground-based vs. rack = ground

Get off yer ass, pick up something heavy, and put it over your head. Repeat.

As far as what you should do, it depends on how it feels for you, previous injuries, available equipment. An overgeneralized answer is to include both, for functional reasons and for the sake of variety. Along the same lines, try the movement with both dumbells and barbells.

Seated presses offer two advantages- one, it takes pressure of your back, as the bench helps support and stabalize your spine. Two, it keeps your form strict.

Standing presses involves your core as you need to stabalize your body. It also allows you to use a little ‘body english’, a little swing to get past the sticking points. I feel this is also the more functional of the two excercises.

have to agree with nfisher…standing is the way to go…your weights will increase once you build up your core so if you want to do more weight do more core work.

I had two of the guys I train start with the seated press, while sitting at a precher curl bench, when you sit at it backwards the bench helps keep you back straight, but they both had wicked postural imbalances, so after 8wks of core, and back training they could handel the standing press.
My stance is that the standing is better onlyt if you can do it with excellent form, other wise spare your back and do seated ones.

standing

when given the standing/seated option with any exercise, almost always choose standing for the reasons cited by the other posters, and only use seated as advised by that last guy.

Bastard

[quote]crissi wrote:
When I’m doing Military Press. Should I stand or sit?

And why?[/quote]

Standing is better. If you want to do seated presses, do one-arm dumbbell presses while seating on the floor with your legs spread out. Or try the sots press. Do a full squat and press from the bottom position. Killer exercise for the shoulders.

Mike Mahler

Standing for above reasons of the core etc. and if I cant clean it under control into place I have no business pressing it IMO. need to work on that weak link.

Just more bang for your buck.

[quote]combatmedic wrote:
As far as what you should do, it depends on how it feels for you, previous injuries, available equipment. An overgeneralized answer is to include both, for functional reasons and for the sake of variety. Along the same lines, try the movement with both dumbells and barbells.

Seated presses offer two advantages- one, it takes pressure of your back, as the bench helps support and stabalize your spine. Two, it keeps your form strict.

Standing presses involves your core as you need to stabalize your body. It also allows you to use a little ‘body english’, a little swing to get past the sticking points. I feel this is also the more functional of the two excercises.[/quote]

As far as stabilizing the spine goes I would have to disagree. I would much rather have a load racked on my clavicle, as in the beginning of a military press, when standing than when sitting.

I don’t have any particular scientific reason as to why, other then my experience. Sitting just doesn’t seem like a good load bearing posture.

I vaguely (emphasise vaguely) remember reading something about this.

At any rate, doing some of each isn’t going to kill ya.

Standing is far better then sitting. Performing the exercise while sitting is really hard on your back. Doing the exercise while standing recruits your core muscles more effectively and takes the pressure off your back.

Standing.

I think I read in Supertraining that doing military presses seated puts all the pressure on our spine, while standing it is distributed on your hips, knees and ankles too.

What does the word “core” imply?

I do all my military pressing and behind the neck barbell pressing STANDING…

If I do them sitting…I get injured often(shoulder joint issues or pinched nerve in neck…)

Standing I have gone years with no injuries to those areas…

from my experience standing is the way to go…

I do things standing, for reasons given above.

[quote]crissi wrote:
What does the word “core” imply?[/quote]

Muscles such as the transverse abdominus and quadratus lumborum, which stabilise the lower spine among other things. Basically, the deep muscles in your lower abdomen.

[quote]crissi wrote:
What does the word “core” imply?[/quote]

Every muscle that stabilizes you, etc. The muscles not on the apendages (uter arms legs etc) but in the center/“core” of your body. Plus it activates legs etc. but thats just another benefit. By standing you are using damn near all the muscles of the body as a unified whole.

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
crissi wrote:
What does the word “core” imply?

Muscles such as the transverse abdominus and quadratus lumborum, which stabilise the lower spine among other things. Basically, the deep muscles in your lower abdomen.[/quote]

For a fuller list, plus program to strengthen these muscles, see this article.
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459822

BTW, just a pedantic point, but military presses are by definition done standing. The alternative is a seated overhead press. A strict military press is done “standing to attention” ie with heels together.

Standing. Cos I like it that way.

And cos it keeps the tension off your spine and makes it more of a ‘real world’ exercise.

Just to echo almost every one else on here -Standing, i like the option that every now again when i just cant push another one out i slighly bend the legs and push press one or two more out