How does your grip width during the bench press affect which muscles you train?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- In this video, I dissect a new study on how your grip width affects which muscles you train with the bench press. The common idea of 'narrow grip for triceps, wide for pecs' is not quite accurate. This study is particularly cool, because it explores grip width and elbow position separately and looks at upper/middle/lower pecs separately as well. Enjoy it!
If you are interested in getting more science-based content, you can subscribe to my free e-mail course: MennoHenselmans.com/Subscribe/
You can also find my reviews on the most recent studies and research on my other social media channels.
Follow me on Instagram: Menno.Henselmans
Great review. I doubt a narrower grip only affects the bottom pecs. It also increases your shoulder extension ROM, allowing you to bring the arm lower than a wider grip, thus stretching the pecs (mostly the upper fibers) more. Since the ROM isn’t equal, the EMG wouldn’t be a fair comparison.
For me personally, shoulder rotation is much more determining for muscle emphasis than width. If I internally rotate my shoulders, with elbows out, I feel nothing in my front delts, and alot in my pecs. If tuck my elbows in, with a swiss bar neutral grip or even a reverse grip for example, my shoulders are way more externally rotated and I feel it waaay more in the front delt.
Amazing video. It was awesome to go through the article with you. It was very useful to learn how to interpret these data along the text.
This another amazing knowledge bomb and wealth of information Menno 👏 💯 Im curious about to see a similar study about Dips
Great content Menno! Subtitles are very useful. I'm waiting for another wideo :)
A demonstration of that would be appreciated
Great work Menno!
0:46 well ... explain to me, to a mechanical engineer, where do lateral forces come from if this is not a response to an external torque, and if so, what do people actually measure who talk about "lateral forces"? If the lateral forces were just a response, namely, they were created due to internal torques on the already existing external torque around the elbow and shoulder joint during the bench press, then reasoning about lateral forces does not matter, since this measurement is the result of other external forces. Then how to measure the external torque? Relative to the vertical reaction force and the perpendicular distance to the elbow and shoulder joint. Without listing the external forces acting on the object, any discussion about "lateral forces" is meaningless. Simply creating horizontal forces will not result in horizontal adduction. The question is, why then do people talk about these horizontal forces and the work of the triceps during a wide grip bench press if these forces do not contribute to horizontal adduction in any way? Take the stick with a wide grip, try to create horizontal forces (create an external torque around the elbow joint), the stick will not move a millimeter. Therefore, these forces have no meaning, they are simply a consequence of other forces. It seems to me that people who conduct such studies themselves do not understand what they measured. Moreover, the triceps will work in all variations of the bench press, since the bench press is a coordinated creation of torques around two joints, however, since the external torque during the wide grip press will be on the elbow flexors, the external torque on the triceps will be a consequence of coactivation ( that is, triceps activation will occur as a result of biceps activation) and as you can see, we do not need to bring any lateral forces to explain the triceps activation during the bench press with a wide grip.
Quote from Robert George Lockie research " CLOSE-GRIP BENCH PRESS ANDMUSCLE ACTIVATION As stated previously, the close-gripbench press was often used with thebelief that the triceps would be targetedmore within this exercise than the traditional bench press (28). Several studies have indicated that this is indeed the case(5,9,28)."
My normal bench press grip is pinkies on the first ring. It's not exactly close grip, but it seems a lot of people use a wider grip. My triceps get hit really hard with it, which is great.
Very interesting…
I think the stretch/ROM factor is actually quite big for triceps
Something interesting about this (to me at least). If you asked a gym-bro from the 60s what the effect would be with different grips, you would get the same answers that the study concluded. If you asked scientists in the 80s/90s the same question, they would tell the gym-bros they are wrong. Or, many of them would. Edit. They would stop reading at "abdominal head" and scoff at "clavicular head".
great content
what biases the middle pecs though over the lower pecs
For the algorithm!
Hi menno, have you noticed with clients that when training for high reps using a medium grip bench the triceps give out long before the chest gets stimulated, where as when using a wide grip high rep set the chest gets a much better stimulation if so could this be due to ticeps and chest having differing fiber types?
I think the real question is if you can subjectively determine which muscle is giving out first.
@@menno.henselmans of course you can. What a question.
is the triceps long head well trained in an overhead press?
Yes, especially if you goes begrund the head, for a deep stretch
Are dips better for triceps?
Could be, if you do them in a upright position
Just use the grip where You feel the pecs working more than delta n tris ,I use a good pump supp so I feel the the blood pumping the muscle I'm working for mind muscle connection
Great video, just wanted to note that biceps and triceps are plural.
They're singular in English. They just look plural.
@@Witchblade112 They are not
He's probably using it as a collective noun or something.
It's shorthand for 'biceps brachii', which is singular
😥 Promo sm.
First
is this a laptop microphone? lmao
It is endlessly amusing to me that you don't give the paper reference in your notes where it belongs. Wait, did I say amusing? I mean pathetic.
That way it's harder for people to check it and see where you, universally, misrepresent/misunderstand the data you're gibbering about. Your ability to get it wrong and/or subtly mis-state what was found is your true skill. It's sure as hell not statistics or you'd have agreed that Brad's volume paper conclusions were crap.
Have a great day.
You must have missed the big box in the top right at the start of the video.
The reference is in the video? Are you okay?
Never understood why someone watches something and feels the need to shit on it. I’m sorry you’re upset 😂
So you’re saying that you couldn’t pause, look at the reference and then type J Strength Cond Res 2022 Understanding Bench Press Mechanics in PubMed? Wow. Sucks to be you then…