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