Bench Press and Squats

[Guest guest]

The title of this article intentionally lumps together these two exercises

because there has been considerable discussion lately on various aspects of

how to execute them. I will begin by showing why it is entirely logical to

discuss both of this lifts under one common umbrella.

We have read comments that a thumbless grip should be used for the bench

press and that the triceps alone are exclusively the " most important " muscle

in this exercise. We have also read that the shins should be vertical during

the squat and that the knees should not project beyond the toes during this

lift. How on earth are these issues similar? Well, the discipline known as

biomechanics comes to our rescue to enable us to apply conventionally

accepted definitions, the laws of statics and dynamics, mathematical

modelling and other well-tried scientific methods to bring some law and order

to the confusion and opinion.

OBJECTIVITY AND FRAMES OF REFERENCE

At the very outset, we have to recognise that science tries its best to elim

inate subjectivity and rely on standard proof. In this regard, I would

suggest that anyone who is interested in this fundamental aspect of science

(not " scientism " ) refer to our archives and read past letters on science,

critical thinking, persuasion, bias and General Semantics. It is also vital

to caution everyone that it is very common for people to offer opinions on

training based largely on their own experiences and all too often on the

basis of what we might call " auto-anthropomorphism " .

The process of " anthropomorphism " refers to the viewing of all things in

terms of human (or " man's " ) structure and function. Thus, man refers to

" God " as some sort of special superhuman (i.e. God is made in the image of

man) and attributes emotions and behaviour to animals on the basis of his/her

own human emotions. My neologism ( " new word " ), " auto-anthropomorphism " ,

refers to modelling things not simply on the basis of human terms in general,

but in terms of one's individual (auto) viewpoint (as Korzybski discusses at

length in his book, " Science and Sanity " ).

And so one discusses and teaches exercises in terms of one's personal

experiences and personal characteristics. This means that a sumo squatter

sees squats more like sumo squats for everyone, an Olympic lifter thinks only

in terms of full squats, a Pilates fan sees fitness in terms of long slender

muscles being done according to special Pilates guidelines, a professional

cardiovascular physiologist sees fitness in terms of 'cardio' exercise, a HIT

fan sees all explosive exercises as dangerous, a powerlifter sees all flared

elbow benching as " wrong " , an Olympic lifter sees the powerlifting squat as a

half squat, a football players sees male ballet as something for wimps and

weirdos, a rugby player sees American footballers as wimps for wearing

protective garb, a fashion model sees Meg as being seriously overweight,

a bodybuilder sees marathon runners and aerobics instructors as anorectic,

and so the list goes on.

Another word for this process of judging on the basis of personal standards

is also known as " prejudice " or " bias " . The difficult part about this, is

while many pay lip service to being unbiased, objective and open-minded, it

is extremely difficult to rid oneself entirely of such biases when discussing

every issue in life. Once again I interate the value of General Semantics in

this regard.

That having laid the foundations for creating a more aware and more open

approach to the subject, let us return to biomechanics and see how it can

help us to resolve all existing differences. In an earlier letter I

mentioned one of the most fundamental aspects of physical science, namely the

recognition of a standard " frame of reference " in the form of conventional

axes and planes, so that we can study all actions and objects relative to

these axes (mutually perpendicular lines) and planes. Without this accepted

frame of reference we could change the reference scheme every time that we

discuss a given exercise and this is precisely one of the reasons why some of

the arguments have gone around in circles. One refers to a squat using a

powerlifting frame of reference, another a weightlifting frame of reference

and nobody resolves anything. Everyone believes the other is wrong.

Another reason for this intellectual circumnavigation is that some people

feel that scientists know nothing about practice and others feel that

practitioners know nothing about science. Thus, if someone has not won an

Olympic medal in the high jump, then that person knows far less than someone

who has. The fact is that the greatest authority is the coaching system, not

just a single individual, which successfully manages to integrate and apply

both science and empirical/practical findings.

Now, if science is to analyse the squat, the bench press, the deadlift, the

curl, the press or any other specific exercise, the basic rules, definitions

and methods do not change at all. The " scientific method " (with its various

limitations) tells one how to set up an experiment or how to structure a

theory and the time-worn standard rules are applied to whatever the object of

interest may be.

So, if one is to analyse the squat and bench press, one has to choose the

appropriate apparatus and this usually includes high speed video, force

plates, accelerometers, EMG and goniometers (to measure joint angle).

Subjects are carefully chosen and the exercise " protocol " (more correctly the

" procedure " ) is established so that everyone is performing according to some

valid comparable standard. There are many more details like this, but this

offers some idea of the analytical setting for the large group of top

weightlifters and powerlifters who have volunteered for our cyberspace study.

In brief, what I am describing here is a brief popularised aspect of a

conference presentation ( " Biomechanics as an Ergogenic Aid in Sport " ) that I

made at the Mathematics and Computers in Sport conference held in Australia

over a year ago. Its objective was to show how biomechanics may be used to

analyse and thereby enhance sporting performance in a way that is just as

compelling as the use of any other " supplements " .

BIOMECHANICS TO THE RESCUE?

Now for the meat of the issue. Let's begin by looking at the BENCH PRESS

within the conventional frame of reference. One lifter maintains that it is

nearly impossible and very painful to bench press with a thumbed grip;

another lifter says this is very simple and comfortable. Can both people be

right and wrong at the same time? To answer this question means:

1. Examining the physical (anthropomometric) characteristics of each person.

2. Examine the method of execution of the lift with reference to the

standard axes and planes

3. Apply the laws of mechanics/physics

Step 1 is applied and it is noticed that some lifters have limited ability to

rotate the arm, others have limited wrist flexibility, others are extremely

mobile in all dimensions, some are even hypermobile. Everyone has different

relative lengths of upper arm and forearm. Everyone has chests of different

width and depth. Nothing original here! Some have excellent

scapulothoracic mobility, others have limited shoulder mobility in several

planes.... and so on. This immediately suggests that there may be many

possible ways of optimally using one's individual strengths and weaknesses.

Every experienced coach knows this, anyway, so we move on.

Step 2: We now notice that some lifters are using a maximum width hand

spacing, while others are using a fairly narrow grip. One other unusual

powerlifter is using a reverse grip. We notice that several lifters have to

loosen or release the thumb from around the bar, especially those using a

wider grip and some limitations of arm and shoulder mobility. Some allow the

elbows to move away from the sides, even if they are informed that this is

not the strongest posture for benching - we investigate further and note that

they have limitations in the ability to externally rotate the shoulder.

Throughout our group of lifters we notice idiosyncrasies that explain why they

move as they do. Some were not even aware of their structural peculiarities

and thank the scientists for giving them new insights into how they might

improve their technique. They can hardly wait to go home to experiment on

their own!

The few scientists gathered together conclude that those using a wide hand

spacing and limited wrist mobility under loading often find a thumbless

stronger and more comfortable. They decide that the next step is enlarge the

sample studied to see exactly how arm angle, upper-lower arm ratios, lowest

position location, degree of arm rotation and other such features influence

benching efficiency and to compare it with the personal experiences of the

lifters in each case.

Since such a study will have to be done in the future, all that they can

conclude is that there is not single universal method of moving the bar

through all stages of the exercise, but that individual characteristics need

to be taken into account. The academics acknowledge that the experienced

coach by trial and error may optimise the process without any recourse to

scientific analysis, but add that this optimisation can be enhanced or

speeded up by combining the efforts of scientists and coaches.

The EMGs reveal that many muscles are active during the exercise. Even the

abs, the quads, the plantarflexors, teres major, rhomboids and the lats

appear to be involved, but they aren't helping to push the load off the

chest. Of course not! They are some of the many muscles playing a vital

role in stabilising or posture adjusting role to enable the mobilising

muscles to carry out their specific tasks. The EMGs show that, while some

muscles are carrying out the essential role of stabilising and optimising

body position during all stages of the lift, others are dominating at

different stages of the press as the bar moves from the chest to arm's

length.

The scientists are not really surprised that the anterior deltoids are active

throughout the movement because a major anatomical function of these muscles

is shoulder flexion. Neither are they surprised when the EMG shows that pec

major is dominant during about half of the movement from the chest, because

the anatomical functions of this muscle include shoulder flexion and

adduction. Another really obvious finding - so what else is new, Dr White

Coat?

The observation that the triceps do not play a major role during this stage

is also not unexpected to the scientists, since the triceps serve to extend

the shoulder (and thereby oppose what the deltoids and pecs are trying to do

at this time), although they do assist the pecs in adducting the shoulder.

Some lifters try poking their fingers into their triceps while they execute

imaginary bench presses into space to check for themselves. Not a bad idea,

because muscle tensiometers do much the same sort of thing, only with a lot

more accuracy! One of the scientists encourages all the lifters to poke

fingers into some of the muscles of a lifter who is doing a bench press while

the others talk. The scientist attaches electrodes to measure the EMG and

the lifters are curious to see if they can accurately estimate muscle

activity by prodding the muscles with their fingers.

The scientists conclude that, despite the apparent attempts of the triceps to

oppose the positive efforts of the pecs and delts to move the load upwards,

the net collaboration must be for a good reason, although it might not be

immediately obvious. They offer this as paradox for some student lifters to

resolve.

Nobody is at all surprised that the triceps become very strongly active

during the last stages where elbow locking out becomes the prime and terminal

objective of the lifter - after all, this is the well-known function of the

triceps at this stage - because the pecs and deltoids play no role at all in

extending the elbow. What interests most of the lifters is the observation

that the biceps are also quite active during some stages of the press,

because the biceps are supposed to be " antagonists " to the triceps.

However, an anatomist there points out that the biceps help to extend the

shoulder, while the short head of the biceps also assists the pecs in

adducting the shoulder, even though its long head does the opposite.

Step 3 produces numerous different curves involving displacement, velocity,

acceleration/ force, EMG and joint angles and so forth to show how factors

such as force, power, RFD and velocity change with respect to time, joint

angle and electrical activity of the major muscles involved in moving the

bar. Most of this information finds its way into learned journals and rarely

reaches the coach unless one of the scientists is an active lifter or coach -

or is willing and able member of the Supertraining list who reads and

summarises the relevant information for the rest of us.

Without lingering on the complexities of the bench press, we now all move

onto the SQUAT and apply the same methods of analysis. Lo and behold, we

find that the efficiency, pattern and comfort of squatting also depends

strongly on individual characteristics of each lifter and the type of squat.

Degree of shin and trunk inclination is determined by major variables such as

the width of foot spacing, the depth of the squat, the height of heels on the

shoes, individual thigh, leg and trunk length ratios, and degree of external

rotation of the legs.

Immediately it is noticed that the knees do not protrude beyond the toes if

the squat is performed to about 90 degrees of knee flexion with a very wide

foot spacing with the buttocks pushed firmly backwards. On the other hand,

if the feet are shifted much closer together, as done by Olympic lifters,

and the squat is taken to a rock bottom position, the knees move way beyond

the toes and the knees may even tend to " knock " inwards to enhance pelvic and

knee stability during the concentric ascent phase. The weightlifters and

powerlifters look at one another and again acknowledge that their respective

squats are technically very different and that it is a very ignorant for any

fitness expert to refer to the squat as if there is one universal standard

sort of beast called the " squat " . They even conclude that the scientists

didn't even have to prove this to them because they had both struggled to

use one another's squatting styles and found that they had to undergo a whole

new

learning and adaptation process to become competent in the other's style of

lifting.

CONCLUSION

After spending a long day in the cyber-laboratory, all of the powerlifters and

weightlifters who offered their bodies for this research project proceed to a

nearby eating and drinking hole, and talk on into the night wondering where

all the original arguments came from and why some people had been at one

another's throats for so long. Yes, it was obvious - the problem was that

everyone was using a different mental and physical frame of reference. Once

each method of squatting and benching was analysed according to a universal

frame of reference, as suggested by the biomechanists, it became pretty

obvious that one could only talk about certain guidelines and that trial and

error methods by an experienced coach, sometimes assisted by biomechanical

analysis and advice, served to optimise technique to suit each individual.

End of story? Not quite! The powerlifters moved into their private huddle to

argue which hand spacing and elbow position is best or worst for the bench,

while the weightlifters butted their heads as to whether one should pull

flatfooted or extend onto the balls of the feet during the pull.... Ah

well - you can't win them all, can you?

Step 4: ....... ?

----------------

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

Supertraining/