• ATTENTION New Members: Please take a few moments to introduce yourself, show your commitment to harm reduction, and chat with the community in the "New Member Introduction" subforum. This will help unlock access to additional forum features and privileges.

Comparing the Different Bench Press Angles- Flat vs Decline vs Incline

It's not the least effective one, it's at least better than incline based on the IEMG study cited before, which, with all its limitations, is far more solid evidence than forum lore.

No it's not since you don't understand the limitations to it. Once again for illustrative purposes, I will get higher EMG readings with a maximal isometric/static hold than a sub maximal bench press in any angle. Does that mean holding a bar with the max weight I can and elbows locked is more effective than even a decline press??? I mean bc that's the basic logic you're using here. Higher EMG activation means more effectiveness is your basic tenet at this point lol. Besides, you posted one single study done on 14 people that you can't even see the data for. You based your stance off not the study itself, but off the author who wrote it at ergolog.

Since you know nothing of the study itself besides the few pictures put up in ergolog, would it surprise you to know that you'll get different EMG readings for incline press at different angles? Do you know the optimal incline for the greatest EMG activation? What if they tested the least optimal angle of incline? I'll give you a hint since I read the full study, they didn't test the best incline angle...

Let's also not forget the Barnett et al. '95 study that shows flat and decline press have better sternocostal muscle head activation with a narrow grip but when done with a relatively wider grip, flat alone is superior and no significant differences found between decline and incline angles. Or how about the same researchers finding that the 40deg angle incline press is superior to flat and decline (even other incline angles) at the clavicular head activation?

Maybe the Trebbs et al. Study that found better clavicular head activation in 44 and 56deg inclines vs all other angles?

Maybe the Lauver et al '15 study that found 30 and 45 deg angles better than 0 (flat) and -15deg angle at clavicular head activation?

Or maybe the Glass and Armstrong '97 study that found no differences between incline and decline???

Let's go back to your original statement where you said the decline does everything the incline does and more and see just how wrong that is as well as your statement about decline not being the less effective angle.

The decline does work more sternocostal muscle head than incline but not more than the flat bench. So we know flat bench is better than incline in that aspect. We also know, the greater the incline the more the clavicular muscle head activation so decline is worse than both the flat and incline bench in that aspect. So decline doesn't do everything the incline does and better (clavicular) nor is it more effective than the flat for sternocostal activation. In other words you're batting 0 for 2 with 2 strikeouts.


I have not suggested anything that makes benching unsafer, quite the opposite, so I fail to see what you are talking about.

Ummmm, you suggested altering the ROM of the decline press to be closer to your throat so put your glasses on and re-read what you wrote.

Good tip, then why the hell do you proceed to describe a situation that can only occur when lifting without safety equipment? No barbell will crash down on your neck if the safety bars catch them first, and that holds for any bench variant.

Have you ever been to a gym besides the one you go to? Do all gyms have power racks or safeties for bench press and all the various angles?????

Because you say so? Should have signed up for the premium plan at my gym which includes dumbell access and not just a barbell.

Well myself, the science, and the respectable coaches out there all do but if you only want to acknowledge me then I'm flattered buttercups.

Or just do exercises that work just as well if not better and are less likely to injure you even if performed with a form that's not 100% textbook-correct. As a bonus you won't need safety equipment nor a spotter.

Maybe your not privy to some important information that others are but dips for example are also notorious for shoulder and elbow issues....

More weight on the bar, so more muscle is being used. More activation of the lower pecs and equal upper pecs activation to the incline bench. Multiple ROMs to choose from. It's also harder to cheat on, since your feet never touch the ground.

More weight in the bar bc of a SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER ROM AND TUT which basically reduces the point of more weight on the bar to nothing lol.

Quite frankly I haven't seen in this thread any evidence the decline bench is not the least worst variant of what is, all in all, a very skipable exercise. So some people find the position awkward, and others don't think the benefits outweigh the costs, but those are preferences, or opinions, if you don't think you can perform it safely or that is a waste of time then don't do it. For me training is a form of recreation, do the exercises you enjoy to do, not what others say you must do.

Great. I never told you what to do. I only corrected you where you were wrong about the science and facts :)
 
Lol

Thats quite a statement. Where did you find that statistic? For referencing purposes of course
quick tally in my head from my experience on the boarda.. same as the... ive been working out for 3-5 years and hit my genetic potential story... at 22 years old.
 
Had a guy at my old gym think he was the man for doing 2 plates a side on the decline. This was hilarious for two reasons:

1) 2 plates a side is nothing.
2) No-one gives a shit what you decline.

This became a running joke with him for well over a year. That year long joke is probably the most use I've ever gotten out of a decline bench.

The only thing 225lbs is impressive on is strict overhead press.
 
You seem to be heavily emotionally invested with the bench press. I feel odd discussing this with you as I couldn't care any less about it. I use the bench as an accessory lift when I feel like it. As I am better described as an athlete than as a bodybuilder and hardly any athletic program uses bench pressing to any significant degree. But what makes you think I didn't read the study? For a start n = 15 not 14.

All subjects where performing movement (i.e. benching) so your argument about activation due to isometric hold is meaningless. And yes, I knew the impact of angle on activation because the author himself discusses it at length in the fourth page of the study. What you write is just paraphrasing his critique to his own study, without attribution.

I'm surprised you didn't also bring up the location of the electrodes, since that's the other reason, besides the inclination angle, he uses to explain the discrepancy between his results and Barnett's. But that's how science works, if an study cannot replicate the results of an earlier study, or if the results seem to be dramatically affected by relatively minor changes in inclination (+30° vs +40°) then perhaps the conclusions of the first study are not as solid as one may assume.

BTW, what angle does your bench have? I have no idea what mine uses.

The decline does work more sternocostal muscle head than incline but not more than the flat bench. So we know flat bench is better than incline in that aspect. We also know, the greater the incline the more the clavicular muscle head activation so decline is worse than both the flat and incline bench in that aspect. So decline doesn't do everything the incline does and better (clavicular) nor is it more effective than the flat for sternocostal activation. In other words you're batting 0 for 2 with 2 strikeouts.

You are jumping to conclusions. Badly. You use an earlier study whose conclusions were shown to not hold water or at least to be highly sensitive to the specific angle of inclination, grip and electrode positioning to support your claim, and you contradict the primary find of the study being discussed, with no seconds thoughts given.

And if the greater the incline the better, why not just forget about incline benching and do a standing press? (works for me, btw) What does incline benching achieve that flat + standing does not?

Ummmm, you suggested altering the ROM of the decline press to be closer to your throat so put your glasses on and re-read what you wrote.
So you are claiming benching higher up the chest increases its dangerousnes? Is that your claim? What about the incline? Should people avoid benching anything that is not directly above their nipples?

Have you ever been to a gym besides the one you go to? Do all gyms have power racks or safeties for bench press and all the various angles?????
Not my fault if you want to workout in a substandard gym. I've never claimed anyone should be doing decline bench on makeshift facilities.

More weight in the bar bc of a SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER ROM AND TUT which basically reduces the point of more weight on the bar to nothing lol.

By the study there's a 14.5% difference between weight lifted on the incline and decline benches. Can you increase your incline 1-RM bench by 14.5% by cutting short the ROM by a couple of inches? Why don't you give it a try and let us know how it goes? (better use a spotter for this one).

If you can't, doesn't that means you are recruiting more muscles / engaging the greatest amount of muscle while performing the decline bench press? That, and not EMG activation is ultimately what determines if an exercise is more or less effective than others.

Thinking a bit about the difference in weight lifted between incline and decline I just came up with an hypothesis: In an incline bench press you start the movement from a stretched position, which limits the amount of weight being lifted as a stretched muscle is weaker (and more injury-prone) therefore forcing you to use less weight leading to less muscle engagement. When flat or decline benching the muscle is not initially stretched, allowing you to use the maximum amount of weight the muscle group can press. Thus incline should lead to worse overall results compared to flat or decline bench.

I'm sorry if come across as argumentative, but I still haven't seen the case against the decline bench. The best evidence presented on this thread makes it equal or at worst second only to the flat bench. Whether bench pressing is altogether worth it is another matter.
 
The only guys that say bench pressing isnt worth it are the ones who are
A. Terribly weak at it
B. Makes it near useless for their particular sport application(tennis player, marathon runner, etc)

The bench press is THE ultimate determination of upper body strength and power and has been since the dawn of time. Not without reservation tho. Ive tried to come up with a better substitute for a REAL upper body strength demonstration. My preference is incline since its the hardest and a BIG incline lift is the most impressive over flat. The natural batter up would be a clean and press. But again thats a TOTAL body lift. Not a upper body lift. So thats out. Then you would have the military press which is a legitimate contender as a demonstration for total upper body strength output. But still...the bench press reigns supreme. When its done with a proper pause and lift it is an impressive feat to lower it, pause it and static press it back to the top.

Then you got those neck beards that will try to down play its significance which is ridiculous. If you play tennis or golf or run marathons then so be it. Bench presses are worthless to you. But if you play football, basketball or any contact sport it will have its practical application. And is legitimate in its role.
 
It's not the least effective one, it's at least better than incline based on the IEMG study cited before, which, with all its limitations, is far more solid evidence than forum lore.

I have not suggested anything that makes benching unsafer, quite the opposite, so I fail to see what you are talking about.



Good tip, then why the hell do you proceed to describe a situation that can only occur when lifting without safety equipment? No barbell will crash down on your neck if the safety bars catch them first, and that holds for any bench variant.



Because you say so? Should have signed up for the premium plan at my gym which includes dumbell access and not just a barbell.



Or just do exercises that work just as well if not better and are less likely to injure you even if performed with a form that's not 100% textbook-correct. As a bonus you won't need safety equipment nor a spotter.



More weight on the bar, so more muscle is being used. More activation of the lower pecs and equal upper pecs activation to the incline bench. Multiple ROMs to choose from. It's also harder to cheat on, since your feet never touch the ground.

Quite frankly I haven't seen in this thread any evidence the decline bench is not the least worst variant of what is, all in all, a very skipable exercise. So some people find the position awkward, and others don't think the benefits outweigh the costs, but those are preferences, or opinions, if you don't think you can perform it safely or that is a waste of time then don't do it. For me training is a form of recreation, do the exercises you enjoy to do, not what others say you must do.
Custom approves this post!
 
The only guys that say bench pressing isnt worth it are the ones who are
A. Terribly weak at it
B. Makes it near useless for their particular sport application(tennis player, marathon runner, etc)

The bench press is THE ultimate determination of upper body strength and power and has been since the dawn of time. Not without reservation tho. Ive tried to come up with a better substitute for a REAL upper body strength demonstration. My preference is incline since its the hardest and a BIG incline lift is the most impressive over flat. The natural batter up would be a clean and press. But again thats a TOTAL body lift. Not a upper body lift. So thats out. Then you would have the military press which is a legitimate contender as a demonstration for total upper body strength output. But still...the bench press reigns supreme. When its done with a proper pause and lift it is an impressive feat to lower it, pause it and static press it back to the top.

Then you got those neck beards that will try to down play its significance which is ridiculous. If you play tennis or golf or run marathons then so be it. Bench presses are worthless to you. But if you play football, basketball or any contact sport it will have its practical application. And is legitimate in its role.

The debate over whether decline or incline is better reminds me of the controversy over the back squat vs the front squat.

In the back squat you can lift a heavier weight, although with a somewhat
reduced ROM. You are weaker on the front squat, since some of the weight is
shifted from the hams, glutes and lower back to the quads and abs, but a true
a2g movement is easily achieved. You are clearly moving more weight / engaging more muscle performing the back squat, and as such, it's the superior exercise for strength and muscular development.

Yet, you may be surprised to know I mostly do front squats and only on rare
occasions perform a back squat. And the reason is simple, an exercise does
not stand in its own but as par of a routine. Since I am already deadlifting,
an exercise that greatly overlaps with the back squat I find it more
beneficial to front squat. I get better progress in both lifts that way, and this is very noticeable if you do both exercises the same day, or consecutive days.

As a bonus the front squat has more carryover to the clean and press. And I'm
delighted you bring it up as it is my favorite lift. It's also the reason I
also do standing presses (push presses).

So should I add a bench variant? Incline overlaps quite a bit with the
standing press so it seems logical to lower the inclination to flat, but by
the same logic I might go further and do decline instead.

But as mentioned before I do weighted dips and gymnastic ring push ups. These
exercises already heavily tax the shoulders, triceps and chest. Benching seems
like a somewhat useful accessory to them, but it fails miserably as a
replacement.

I might be useful to compare the bench to the dip, they use the same muscles
yet you can move more weight in a dip (and with greater ROM). Even a
body weight dip is already lifting practically your entire body weight. There might
be evolutionary reasons why humans can move more weight this way, something to
do with humans being apes and needing to climb and push their weight around.
And it's worth noticing that the decline is the bench variant that resembles
the body positioning of the dip the most, thus it's not surprising it's the
variant that allows us to engage the greatest amount of muscle to move the
heaviest weights.

BTW, science has repeatedly shown the most demanding sports of them all are
swimming, boxing and tennis. Benching is not part of the training of any of
those sports. And you'll be laughed at for asking about bench numbers in any
combat sports forum.

Benching heavy does not make you a better athlete. I'm yet to hear a fighter
say I could have won that fight if only my bench were 10 kg heavier. Benching
makes you better at benching, and competitive benching is a sport just in the
broad sense competitive hot dog eating is. Difference being competitive hot
dog eaters look leaner and overall healthier. Talk about neckbeards!

I don't know about you but I am far more impressed with a clean and press than
with a bench. And, all things being equal, if I had to pick for my basketball
or football team I'll take the guy who can clean and press x vs the one who
can bench 2x without hesitating for even a fraction of a second.

I'm also far more impressed by the kind of upper body strength
displayed in gymnastic ring work than by a heavy bench. Weightlifters and
gymnasts are just impressive in general. But I'm showing my biases there.
 
The debate over whether decline or incline is better reminds me of the controversy over the back squat vs the front squat.

In the back squat you can lift a heavier weight, although with a somewhat
reduced ROM. You are weaker on the front squat, since some of the weight is
shifted from the hams, glutes and lower back to the quads and abs, but a true
a2g movement is easily achieved. You are clearly moving more weight / engaging more muscle performing the back squat, and as such, it's the superior exercise for strength and muscular development.

Yet, you may be surprised to know I mostly do front squats and only on rare
occasions perform a back squat. And the reason is simple, an exercise does
not stand in its own but as par of a routine. Since I am already deadlifting,
an exercise that greatly overlaps with the back squat I find it more
beneficial to front squat. I get better progress in both lifts that way, and this is very noticeable if you do both exercises the same day, or consecutive days.

As a bonus the front squat has more carryover to the clean and press. And I'm
delighted you bring it up as it is my favorite lift. It's also the reason I
also do standing presses (push presses).

So should I add a bench variant? Incline overlaps quite a bit with the
standing press so it seems logical to lower the inclination to flat, but by
the same logic I might go further and do decline instead.

But as mentioned before I do weighted dips and gymnastic ring push ups. These
exercises already heavily tax the shoulders, triceps and chest. Benching seems
like a somewhat useful accessory to them, but it fails miserably as a
replacement.

I might be useful to compare the bench to the dip, they use the same muscles
yet you can move more weight in a dip (and with greater ROM). Even a
body weight dip is already lifting practically your entire body weight. There might
be evolutionary reasons why humans can move more weight this way, something to
do with humans being apes and needing to climb and push their weight around.
And it's worth noticing that the decline is the bench variant that resembles
the body positioning of the dip the most, thus it's not surprising it's the
variant that allows us to engage the greatest amount of muscle to move the
heaviest weights.

BTW, science has repeatedly shown the most demanding sports of them all are
swimming, boxing and tennis. Benching is not part of the training of any of
those sports. And you'll be laughed at for asking about bench numbers in any
combat sports forum.

Benching heavy does not make you a better athlete. I'm yet to hear a fighter
say I could have won that fight if only my bench were 10 kg heavier. Benching
makes you better at benching, and competitive benching is a sport just in the
broad sense competitive hot dog eating is. Difference being competitive hot
dog eaters look leaner and overall healthier. Talk about neckbeards!

I don't know about you but I am far more impressed with a clean and press than
with a bench. And, all things being equal, if I had to pick for my basketball
or football team I'll take the guy who can clean and press x vs the one who
can bench 2x without hesitating for even a fraction of a second.

I'm also far more impressed by the kind of upper body strength
displayed in gymnastic ring work than by a heavy bench. Weightlifters and
gymnasts are just impressive in general. But I'm showing my biases there.
Its a sport specific thing. Neither is better in and of itself. There specific for the intent. A gymnist would get folded in half by a man as strong as Brian Shaw. And a man as as strong as Brian Shaw could never be a gymnist. But both demonstrate strength in different ways. Brian Shaw demonstrating the absolute strength and the gymnist demonstrating the relative strength. As a marine ive never found the bench press to make me shoot better or knife fight better or run and drill better but it has its use for sure. Mostly in the full frontal choke position where the stronger man will be able to impose his will. And i dont care how much muhammed deadlifts or dips. Hes going lights out. Back against the wall. Against his will. Feet off the floor.
 
The only guys that say bench pressing isnt worth it are the ones who are
A. Terribly weak at it
B. Makes it near useless for their particular sport application(tennis player, marathon runner, etc)

The bench press is THE ultimate determination of upper body strength and power and has been since the dawn of time. Not without reservation tho. Ive tried to come up with a better substitute for a REAL upper body strength demonstration. My preference is incline since its the hardest and a BIG incline lift is the most impressive over flat. The natural batter up would be a clean and press. But again thats a TOTAL body lift. Not a upper body lift. So thats out. Then you would have the military press which is a legitimate contender as a demonstration for total upper body strength output. But still...the bench press reigns supreme. When its done with a proper pause and lift it is an impressive feat to lower it, pause it and static press it back to the top.

Then you got those neck beards that will try to down play its significance which is ridiculous. If you play tennis or golf or run marathons then so be it. Bench presses are worthless to you. But if you play football, basketball or any contact sport it will have its practical application. And is legitimate in its role.
You forgot the dreaded bum shoulder. (I'm not talking about real shoulder injuries).
 
You seem to be heavily emotionally invested with the bench press. I feel odd discussing this with you as I couldn't care any less about it. I use the bench as an accessory lift when I feel like it. As I am better described as an athlete than as a bodybuilder and hardly any athletic program uses bench pressing to any significant degree. But what makes you think I didn't read the study? For a start n = 15 not 14.

All subjects where performing movement (i.e. benching) so your argument about activation due to isometric hold is meaningless. And yes, I knew the impact of angle on activation because the author himself discusses it at length in the fourth page of the study. What you write is just paraphrasing his critique to his own study, without attribution.

I'm surprised you didn't also bring up the location of the electrodes, since that's the other reason, besides the inclination angle, he uses to explain the discrepancy between his results and Barnett's. But that's how science works, if an study cannot replicate the results of an earlier study, or if the results seem to be dramatically affected by relatively minor changes in inclination (+30° vs +40°) then perhaps the conclusions of the first study are not as solid as one may assume.

BTW, what angle does your bench have? I have no idea what mine uses.



You are jumping to conclusions. Badly. You use an earlier study whose conclusions were shown to not hold water or at least to be highly sensitive to the specific angle of inclination, grip and electrode positioning to support your claim, and you contradict the primary find of the study being discussed, with no seconds thoughts given.

And if the greater the incline the better, why not just forget about incline benching and do a standing press? (works for me, btw) What does incline benching achieve that flat + standing does not?


So you are claiming benching higher up the chest increases its dangerousnes? Is that your claim? What about the incline? Should people avoid benching anything that is not directly above their nipples?


Not my fault if you want to workout in a substandard gym. I've never claimed anyone should be doing decline bench on makeshift facilities.



By the study there's a 14.5% difference between weight lifted on the incline and decline benches. Can you increase your incline 1-RM bench by 14.5% by cutting short the ROM by a couple of inches? Why don't you give it a try and let us know how it goes? (better use a spotter for this one).

If you can't, doesn't that means you are recruiting more muscles / engaging the greatest amount of muscle while performing the decline bench press? That, and not EMG activation is ultimately what determines if an exercise is more or less effective than others.

Thinking a bit about the difference in weight lifted between incline and decline I just came up with an hypothesis: In an incline bench press you start the movement from a stretched position, which limits the amount of weight being lifted as a stretched muscle is weaker (and more injury-prone) therefore forcing you to use less weight leading to less muscle engagement. When flat or decline benching the muscle is not initially stretched, allowing you to use the maximum amount of weight the muscle group can press. Thus incline should lead to worse overall results compared to flat or decline bench.

I'm sorry if come across as argumentative, but I still haven't seen the case against the decline bench. The best evidence presented on this thread makes it equal or at worst second only to the flat bench. Whether bench pressing is altogether worth it is another matter.

" I don't bench because I consider myself an athlete." Pffffft...
There are athletes that do though just as there are athletes that don't/do dips and don't/do ring pushups.
There's some very lean powerlifters too and there's probably even some hot dog eaters who are better than you at your sport.
Guess what? People who powerlift like to bench press. I can bench press more than I can dip by the way. Ive never tried dips with 200lbs on my waist now that would be stupid. Instead of something tangible like benching more weight I guess I could do push ups for 100s of reps. Better yet I could grease the rings to make it harder.
 
You seem to be heavily emotionally invested with the bench press.

I'm a powerlifter so it's one of the competitive lifts for me :p. And yes, I know that gives me an inherent bias against decline pressing.

I feel odd discussing this with you as I couldn't care any less about it. I use the bench as an accessory lift when I feel like it. As I am better described as an athlete than as a bodybuilder and hardly any athletic program uses bench pressing to any significant degree. But what makes you think I didn't read the study? For a start n = 15 not 14.

Many athletic programs do use bench press significantly. It just depends upon the sport in question. I gather a marathon runner might not be as interested in bench press as a football or rugby player for instance.

Most people don't read studies or only glance through abstracts. You have shown you did read through it so I will eat my words and apologize to you for assuming things.

All subjects where performing movement (i.e. benching) so your argument about activation due to isometric hold is meaningless. And yes, I knew the impact of angle on activation because the author himself discusses it at length in the fourth page of the study. What you write is just paraphrasing his critique to his own study, without attribution.

All subjects did perform movement but that alone doesn't nullify the point I'm trying to make. You cannot base the superiority of a lift over another solely on EMG readings for the reasons I stated as well as a few others.

I'm surprised you didn't also bring up the location of the electrodes, since that's the other reason, besides the inclination angle, he uses to explain the discrepancy between his results and Barnett's. But that's how science works, if an study cannot replicate the results of an earlier study, or if the results seem to be dramatically affected by relatively minor changes in inclination (+30° vs +40°) then perhaps the conclusions of the first study are not as solid as one may assume.

Or the conclusions of the later study are not as solid. The point was, you're right, decline shows more muscle activation than incline in regards to the sternocostal muscle head but flat is either similar or slightly better than decline in that regard. Incline does fare better at the clavicular head than either flat or decline.

BTW, what angle does your bench have? I have no idea what mine uses.

I've never measured it but it looks dead center at halfway between 0 and 90 degrees so I would guess around 45deg.

You are jumping to conclusions. Badly. You use an earlier study whose conclusions were shown to not hold water or at least to be highly sensitive to the specific angle of inclination, grip and electrode positioning to support your claim, and you contradict the primary find of the study being discussed, with no seconds thoughts given.

As did you in regards to the lift having the most EMG activity automatically being the best lift....

And if the greater the incline the better, why not just forget about incline benching and do a standing press? (works for me, btw) What does incline benching achieve that flat + standing does not?

That's a very good point and to be perfectly honest, if you're flat benching and overhead pressing, there's not much that you're not getting if you avoid the incline press. My training is mostly comprised of flat bench (and variants of that like floor presses, 1,2,3 sec paused bench, double paused bench, CG bench, etc) and various forms of overhead pressing. I do 1-2 incline bench sessions every 2weeks or so but I feel as if overhead pressing is an amazing lift.

So you are claiming benching higher up the chest increases its dangerousnes? Is that your claim? What about the incline? Should people avoid benching anything that is not directly above their nipples?

Yes that is my claim and I feel as where the bar touches the chest is dependent upon the lifter's anthropometry and shouldn't be changed just for shits and giggles.

Not my fault if you want to workout in a substandard gym. I've never claimed anyone should be doing decline bench on makeshift facilities.

my old gym was great. Had everything I needed. My coach's gym which I've driven 2.5hrs to lift at is rated as one of the 20 best gyms in the country (OLY platforms, multiple monolifts, power racks, chains, bands, everything you need for a serious lifter). I unfortunately moved to a new area last year and the options of gyms I have are dismal at best. 3 gyms that have nothing but cardio machines, 2 other gyms with cardio and some nautilus machines, 2 planet fitnesses, and some other shit holes. The gym I settled on is good enough that I can improvise when I need even though it's still lacking in many areas. Not everyone has their dream gym as a realistic option.

By the study there's a 14.5% difference between weight lifted on the incline and decline benches. Can you increase your incline 1-RM bench by 14.5% by cutting short the ROM by a couple of inches? Why don't you give it a try and let us know how it goes? (better use a spotter for this one).

If you can't, doesn't that means you are recruiting more muscles / engaging the greatest amount of muscle while performing the decline bench press? That, and not EMG activation is ultimately what determines if an exercise is more or less effective than others.

I have never maxed on incline bench bc it is an accessory movement for me. It is never a primary lift bc it's not a competitive lift (for me). But I do think I can increase my weight substantially by cutting a few inches off the ROM. It's not 100% equivalent but I can add more than 20% to my box squat with a few inches difference in box heights.

Thinking a bit about the difference in weight lifted between incline and decline I just came up with an hypothesis: In an incline bench press you start the movement from a stretched position, which limits the amount of weight being lifted as a stretched muscle is weaker (and more injury-prone) therefore forcing you to use less weight leading to less muscle engagement. When flat or decline benching the muscle is not initially stretched, allowing you to use the maximum amount of weight the muscle group can press. Thus incline should lead to worse overall results compared to flat or decline bench.

I'm sorry if come across as argumentative, but I still haven't seen the case against the decline bench. The best evidence presented on this thread makes it equal or at worst second only to the flat bench. Whether bench pressing is altogether worth it is another matter.

How do you figure the incline starts in the stretched position? Do you start the lift with the bar on your chest? Bc I start it from an elbows locked position...

It's cool. I was a bit of a dick myself. No hard feelings.
 
" I don't bench because I consider myself an athlete." Pffffft...
There are athletes that do though just as there are athletes that don't/do dips and don't/do ring pushups.
There's some very lean powerlifters too and there's probably even some hot dog eaters who are better than you at your sport.
Guess what? People who powerlift like to bench press. I can bench press more than I can dip by the way. Ive never tried dips with 200lbs on my waist now that would be stupid. Instead of something tangible like benching more weight I guess I could do push ups for 100s of reps. Better yet I could grease the rings to make it harder.

I do bench. Yes, decline bench counts. I'm not one of those who scoff at bench pressers, I wouldn't be in this thread otherwise.

I am definitely a minority, though for each one of us who benches there are 20 who don't, and that's probably an overestimate of the bench presser, as I spend my time with people who practice sports where the upper body plays a crucial role, if I include runners, cyclists, skaters, football players, etc. It's probably more like 100 to 1.

We've all seen the chicken legged gym rat who can bench more than he can squat, it doesn't mean he couldn't squat more than he can bench, as any human could, it just means his routine is unbalanced.

100 push-ups from a planche on the gymnastic rings is a feat of athleticism I would pay cash to witness. The amount of strength required to do something like that is superhuman.
 
How do you figure the incline starts in the stretched position? Do you start the lift with the bar on your chest? Bc I start it from an elbows locked position...

Perform the following experiment: stand with with your right arm relaxed and put your left index on your right anterior deltoid, now raise your arm up until it is perpendicular to your torso, as it is when performing a flat bench, notice how the tension increases as you go higher and the shoulder stretches, keep raising your arm until you reach the inclined bench position, compare with the decline bench position.

You can actually reduce the pressure on your shoulder by bending the elbow to a right angle, but this halves the ROM, in practice I see this done quite often, i.e. people half-repping the incline bench. This is completely unnecessary on the decline bench. Another reason to prefer it.

Benching is not a core part of strength training for rugby, pushing the prowler is far more useful and common (and great fun!), and it's not even that great as pushing heavy weight does not develop the explosiveness required in the actual game.

As is the case with basketball, boxing or martial arts, throwing medicine balls against a wall is far more helpful to develop an strong and explosive upper body.

It's not even a particularly good choice as accessory work, as the kind of full-body movement used in rugby requires strength coming from the hip, thus squats and deadlifts are far more useful for it. Even as an upper body accessory lift it's an inferior alternative. The seated chest press is better, not only it trains the movement in the horizontal plane of motion where it has to take place, it also allows for full ROM and is inherently safer than benching.

You are absolutely right, EMG readings have their limitations, but it's the best science we have. As limited as they are, it's what we got, and we have to make do. Should we just ignore them altogether? And if methodological flaws are found in one study its conclusions cannot be trusted. The newer study does not have these flaws hence its conclusions carry more weight, they are not equally valid. That's how science works.

And I do not base the case for the decline bench solely on it, it's another piece of evidence showing it's a good, solid lift with a place in many people's routines.

Even if the only advantage the decline bench could offer is reduced strain on the shoulder that would be enough to make it my variant of choice. Between clean & press, overhead press, cleans, pull-ups, push-ups, dips, deadlifts, ring work, bag work, mitt work, etc. my shoulders don't need any more attention. If I can reap most of the benefits of the bench, with reduced shoulder load that's good enough for me.

And logic indicates, if we take the shoulder from the movement something else (chest? triceps?) has to be doing the work. You couldn't move the same weight otherwise (well, actually more weight...)
 
Ive never tried dips with 200lbs on my waist now that would be stupid.

What's stupid about it? Ross is seen doing with 5 plates at the start of this video (sorry for the crappy music). He's not a huge guy, but you still have to add his weight to that.



How can someone be more impressed by bench pressing x weight than by pressing x weight overhead? The latter is vastly more difficult. And how can someone be more impressed by bench pressing x weight than by dipping the same? The dip is harder, since you are also lifting your body weight, which should be a good couple of plates more.

I find nothing of what this guy does stupid.
 
Bench press has a number of variations that can increase the intensity level and target specific muscle groups, but how do you know which variation is the best choice for you? In order to determine this you will need to compare the varying angles that can be used while you are performing this form of training. This will help you decide whether to stick with one version or change it up and use each of the variations regularly. You can choose to perform your bench presses flat, at an incline, or at a decline.

When you compare the different bench press angles you will need to look at all of the possible benefits that each one offers, and also make a note of any drawbacks that may be included. If you have any injuries or weakened muscle groups then one or more versions of the bench press may not be right until these complications are resolved. For most weight lifters and bodybuilders each variation can help change up the muscles that are worked out though, and help you get improved results and better gains. Some of the bench press versions may target certain muscles that are not fully utilized with other variations.

Reasons Some Prefer a Flat Bench Press
A flat bench press is a common preference, and there are reasons for this choice. The angle chosen for your bench presses will determine which part of the chest muscles you workout, and the flat version offers an effective workout for the entire chest area. Your pectoralis major has two different heads, the sternocostal head and the clavicular head. When you perform bench presses from a flat position this works out both of the muscle heads at the same time, but neither one is targeted more than the other. That makes the flat bench press an excellent choice for overall chest development and growth. When your position is changed to an incline or a decline then this may be more effective with one of the two muscle heads but less effective with the other. A recent study performed by Barnett et al in 1995 showed that the flat bench press actually works out the lower pecs more effectively than any other variation, even though many weightlifters do not realize this.

The Inclined Bench Press is a Popular Favorite
The upper and lower pecs both need to be worked out completely if you want to get the best possible gains and see a larger increase in size without appearing uneven. The inclined bench press tends to target the upper pecs or clavicular head of the pectoralis major muscle group. In the study the electrical charge generated showed that the inclined bench is slightly more effective than the flat bench press when it comes to working out your upper pecs. While the increase may be small and many consider it insignificant if you are trying to gain in this area then the inclined press may make a big difference in the outcome.

Decline Bench Presses Also Offer Certain Benefits
Performing your bench press at a decline may also offer certain benefits, and change the focus and targeted muscles of your workout. The decline bench press is believed to be more effective at working on the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major, and this routine is used by many weightlifters and bodybuilders who want to see better growth and strength in the lower pecs. Is the decline really more effective though, or is this just a mistaken belief that has been passed around the gym for so long that it is now believed to be fact? The 1995 Barnett et al study showed that the electrical activity in the lower pecs was not highest during the decline bench press. In fact the flat bench press produced the highest electrical charge in the lower pectorals. When you use the decline bench press the focus is mainly placed on the pecs and the triceps, but the strain that you place on the joints that are affected can be increased. This can place you at more risk of a joint injury. The decline bench press also allows you to lift maximum weight, but your body can only be effective as long as the weakest joints and tissues hold up.

What About the Grip Used?
Another consideration with any form of bench press is the grip that you are using to perform the routine. Proper grip placement can have a big impact on the results that you get, and the muscle growth and size that you see from your fitness efforts and lifting routines. Studies performed with EMG tests have shown that a wide grip is usually the most beneficial but this may not be true in every case. A narrow grip lessens the intensity and does not workout the maximum muscles possible. Carefully examine your grip the next time you are in the gym and determine if it is wide, narrow, or in between. The use of a wide grip during a flat bench press can target both the upper and lower pecs very effectively, and it also offers benefits for other muscle groups as well. One concern is the risk of shoulder injury though. If a wide grip is used this places more weight and an increased intensity on the shoulders and chest. If your grip is to wide then this will affect the stability of your shoulder joints and could increase the stress these tissues are under during your weight training.

Which Bench Press Angle Should You Use?
Choosing the right bench press angle is a personal decision, one that should be based on facts and scientific studies and not just on gym myths or advice that you received from a friend. Look at the objectives that you have for your training sessions, and consider which muscle groups and body areas that you are trying to target and focus on. Then decide whether you want to bench flat, on an incline, or on a decline. You may decide to stick with just one variation or you may include two or more versions in your weekly training sessions
I don't ever do flat it kills my shoulder. Incline decline and Flys ,all I ever needed and my chest is well formed.
 
What's stupid about it? Ross is seen doing with 5 plates at the start of this video (sorry for the crappy music). He's not a huge guy, but you still have to add his weight to that.



How can someone be more impressed by bench pressing x weight than by pressing x weight overhead? The latter is vastly more difficult. And how can someone be more impressed by bench pressing x weight than by dipping the same? The dip is harder, since you are also lifting your body weight, which should be a good couple of plates more.

I find nothing of what this guy does stupid.

I've been lifting 20+ yrs and have done heavy dips, heavy overhead press, high rep push-ups and chins, etc. I've never tried ring pushups though. I believe doing dips with 450-500lbs(including bodyweight) would be much more dangerous for me than benching it.
 
I've been lifting 20+ yrs and have done heavy dips, heavy overhead press, high rep push-ups and chins, etc. I've never tried ring pushups though. I believe doing dips with 450-500lbs(including bodyweight) would be much more dangerous for me than benching it.
Dips with that much weight would rip the shit out of my shoulders
 
And there is a reason why the big 3 are part of PL and not weighted dip, weighted pull up and pistol squat. Even if I like weighted pull, chin up etc. it is not a 1 rm exercise nor is the dip doesn't matter if harder or not.
 
And there is a reason why the big 3 are part of PL and not weighted dip, weighted pull up and pistol squat. Even if I like weighted pull, chin up etc. it is not a 1 rm exercise nor is the dip doesn't matter if harder or not.

The best measure of lower body pulling is the deadlift, since that's the lift where you can engage the most muscle to pull the heaviest weight.

The best measure of lower body pushing is the squat, since that's the lift where you can engage the most muscle to push the heaviest weight.

The best measure of upper body pulling is the pull up, since that's the lift where you can engage the most muscle to pull the heaviest weight.

The best measure of upper body pushing is the dip, since that's the lift where you can engage the most muscle to push the heaviest weight.

The bench press is more like the upper body equivalent of the leg press, only a fool would consider the leg press "the ultimate determination of lower body strength" just like only a fool would consider the bench press the ultimate determination of upper body strength.

Being easy to test is the best argument I've heard in favor of using it as a benchmark, however when it comes to effectiveness to build upper body strength this is not an argument at all. Furthermore, it's only useful as a benchmark against yourself, as comparisons between people are rife with problems.

Wikipedia tells me Brian Shaw is 203 cm (6 ft 8 in) tall. That means his ROM in the bench press is around twice as long as the ROM of the pudgy men with short arms who dominate benching competitions. So he would need to do twice the work (since work = force x displacement) than one of them to be considered equally strong in a benching contest, therefore the bench press fails miserably as a measure of absolute strength. If the world's strongest man would fail the bench press benchmark, then it's not a good benchmark at all.

Moving a locomotive the longest distance on a given time, as they do in strongman competitions, is a fair benchmark of absolute strength. The 5'6" tall man is not awarded a victory over the 6'8" man by moving the locomotive half the distance.
 
Since we are on the subject of dips, if one were to Measure strength on dips, should the total amount lifted + body weight count as a total? If one guy weighs 200lbs and another 150lbs and both have 90lbs for example , who would be considered stronger in that lift?
 
Top