Counter-Intuitive bench grip ideas.

[lehman906]

An interesting side conversation about grip width on the bench press happened in a shitposting thread. It started with this:

Touching point and grip widths in the bench press are not universal. The models sucks. Peeps with long arms likely bench more with closer gripwidths.

Leverages > reduced ROM. Especially in training. Fite me!

Wait, really? That seems counterintuitive, even though it’s always been true for me. I thought I was just weird because I spent so much time on triceps and overhead stuff. Why is a closer grip better for monkey-armed peeps like me?

And was followed by some of this:

Touching point and grip widths in the bench press are not universal. The models sucks. Peeps with long arms likely bench more with closer gripwidths.

Leverages > reduced ROM. Especially in training. Fite me!

Wait, really? That seems counterintuitive, even though it’s always been true for me. I thought I was just weird because I spent so much time on triceps and overhead stuff. Why is a closer grip better for monkey-armed peeps like me?

The first time I tried CGBP (index finger on the smooth portion), I hit 100% of my 1RM with pinky's on the rings that I did 1 week earlier (Bakers KSC-method). Grip further apart like middle finger on the rings and I'll lose about 10%. Doesn't really matter if Bench press, push-ups or DB-Bench press, a narrower grip feels more natural and smoother. Going wider puts a lot of strain on my shoulder and I can't do as much volume as
with a narrower grip. My sticking point with a wide grip is right on the chest, and with a closegrip I might get it up to 3/4ths of the rom.

Thinking about it, I don't feel my Pecs straining during max attemps with a narrow grip, but I still get massive pumps when doing volume. Same with the shoulder. It feels like both the Pecs and Ant. Delts have to work against a shorter moment arm. Like, the Muscles work a longer ROM, but the lever on the other side is shorter.

Regarding the touch-point: With pinky's on the rings, I have to touch just below the nipples and press "slightly back". Middle finger on the rings and I need to touch much higher, but my elbows end up in a weird angle and my Ant. Delts lose a lot of leverage but I still don't shorten the ROM significantly and my wrists get into Tendinitis inducing angles. I have to press "straight up" and don't get a lot of leeway with the bar path.

Pinky's an inch inside of the rings, index finger just outside the shoulder feels very stable and puts my Delts in a good position. I can touch on the nipples or on my belly, as long as I press backwards and flare my elbows half way up, I retain good control over the bar. Only the triceps become the limiting factor.

Does that make sense? I'm thinking out loud here.

I'm not even talking this close, but look at this guy. 5'11'' 85kg.

I found this counter-intuitive even though I'm 6’ with a 6’4” wingspan and my heaviest benches were always with my pointer just outside the smooth. Because I never got past 300 I figured I had to change my technique to bench like a normal human, but maybe not.

My sticking point is always 2-3” off the chest no matter what grip, though, I ASSUMED because my triceps are much stronger than my chest. But maybe it's leverages and such?

At this point @mgil politely asked us to take our non-shitposting upstairs.

Why would this be? I know @Hanley benches with a narrow grip because of cranky shoulders, but barring injury, why would someone be stronger with a close grip? It seems like someone having a stronger deficit DL than their regular pull from the floor (which I'm pretty close to as well, and if anyone has ideas that will tell me I'm not a complete weirdo, that'd be greeeaaaaaat).

[CtMcBride]

Based off that thread, I tried some heavier work with a narrow grip yesterday. My e1RM with index fingers 1" into the knurling is the same as with ring fingers on the rings (5-6 inch difference). That's without any real practice, awkward setup, and negligible leg drive. I'm going to play around with it over the next couple weeks and get some different video angles. Maybe I'll see something that explains it.

6'3" with a ~6'7" wingspan and long forearms

[damufunman]

I'm 5'10", unknown wingspan, but I think within 2" of height. My CGBP (index finger on smooth-knurl line) is pretty strong compared to having pinkies 1" in from rings. Though to be fair, I don't train Bench nearly as much as others here, cuz Weightlifting.

[Marenghi]

Hm, Nuckols says otherwise
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/why-y ... -benching/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/bench-press-bar-path/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/how-to-bench/

Ofc, it all depends on your goals: If you have strong triceps, weak pecs and want to have a short-term PR - well then a closer grip may be successful. Otoh, if you want to train your pecs, a wider grip may be more useful.

I also think that it depends more on upper arm length plus shoulder width than lower arm length - dunno if you really assessed that when claiming a "long wingspan".

[Marenghi]

double post

[mbasic]

wingspan measurement might not tell the whole story.
If you have broad shoulders, your arms might not be that long.
I'm 5'10" with a 6'2 3/4" wingspan....but IMO my shoulders are narrow/close together.
I have real trouble finding long sleeve shirts that fit.
Or if they shrink just a tad, they are junk.

I have never really pushed bench press much, because of a previously torn pec that never really healed right.
My bench grip width doesn't seem to matter all that much with me, outside of extremes.
My OHP is goodish. Deadlift is way way ahead of squats (of course). And I completely suck at chins.

You could have long arms, but its all forearm and short humerus....I'd imagine a closer grip on the bar where your forearms are vertical and stacked nicely on the humerus....the ROM may not matter so much. Probably higher bar speeds.

EDIT: Marenghi beat me to the wingspan thing by a minute

[gtl]

Idk my wingspan, but I'm a little over 6'1". I bench pinky on rings. My close grip isn't that far off. Close grip can still give me a chest pump, too. Wider than pinky on rings doesn't feel as strong to me.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

You are going to see a lot of things that might not make sense on bench - including all of the stuff above (and a lot more besides) remember that the style you see people using (especially Lifters who have been competing a while) is often a compromise due to previous injuries or a way of letting them use the Squat Form they want to use.

[Hanley]

Too many confounders for anything other than "try some shit and see what works".

That said, if I could go wider without pain and not have have a 430mm bench ROM...I would absolutely do that. Would I be weak in that untrained position at first? Of course.

[cgeorg]

I go middle fingers on rings. CGBP is usually much weaker than bench. Tried 1 set yesterday with ring fingers on rings and felt weak.

[mgil]

Too many confounders for anything other than "try some shit and see what works".

I agree, but, I think too much emphasis is placed on simply arm segment length without consideration of chest width and segment ratios.

A lot of this also stems from bench press models trying to nail down nearly universal touch points despite anthropometric uncertainty.

[Hanley]

bench press models trying to nail down nearly universal touch points despite anthropometric uncertainty.

Which models? Rippetoe's?

Who gives a fuck?

[mettkeks]

@Marenghi Nuckols is looking at it from a biomechanical pov. The conclusion you draw from it is a bit misguided, I think. In theory, the Low-Bar Squat is the strongest for everyone. Practically, it comes with a lot of caveats and yeah-but's. The Bench Press is not magically different.

**Side note: The guy in the picture in the first article you linked is James Strickland who benches 300kg with a 19" gripwidth. I remember him saying he put about 100kg on his bench in the last 6 years or so**

I'm not arguing that a narrower grip is the strongest for some peeps because of mechanics. "Just go wider..." just isn't the cure for lots of folks. Several record-holders feel more comfortable with a narrower grip. I'm arguing that it doesn't matter if you bench 3% more weight with your personal max comfortable gripwidth, if a slightly narrower grip feels more comfortable and might let you train more as a result. I'm also not arguing that you should train with this one grip only for the rest of your being, or that anyone should listen to me for that matter.

Ofc, it all depends on your goals: If you have strong triceps, weak pecs and want to have a short-term PR - well then a closer grip may be successful. Otoh, if you want to train your pecs, a wider grip may be more useful.

A closer grip puts more emphasis on the triceps, but you don't just stop using your pecs, or training them for that matter. It just shifts the emphasis a bit and some people just do better that way.

What a lot of folks that decided for a narrow grip will tell you, is that it just feels much better on the shoulders. I certainly found this to be true, my shoulders were the first to hurt doing more volume.

As to segment lengths: I'm 6', 6'3" wingspan, roughly 20" across the shoulders. My ROM is about 16-17'' and no matter how wide I grip, my elbows end up an inch below the surface of the bench. The grip I feel most comfortable, stable and strongest with is about 21''. Just outside the shoulder, plenty of pec activation. I still don't think you can draw any universal conclusions from this. I just like to keep everyone on the same page.

Too many confounders for anything other than "try some shit and see what works".

I agree, but, I think too much emphasis is placed on simply arm segment length without consideration of chest width and segment ratios.

A lot of this also stems from bench press models trying to nail down nearly universal touch points despite anthropometric uncertainty.

ALL of this.

bench press models trying to nail down nearly universal touch points despite anthropometric uncertainty.

Which models? Rippetoe's?

Who gives a fuck?

Uh, we have to argue about something, duh.

[Hanley]

Uh, we have to argue about something, duh.

Beyond "keep the lifter-barbell system in balance"...there's nothing to the models. It's all just hand-wave bullshit.

It's nice that the models have empowered a bunch of professionally-insignificant engineers who were picked last in kickball in their youth...but they're junk.

###

How is most muscle mass determined?

How is effective range of motion determined?

Can just feel/intuit these things? Look at some joint angles, bam done?

[mgil]

Who gives a fuck?

u do bb

[mettkeks]

Uh, we have to argue about something, duh.

Beyond "keep the lifter-barbell system in balance"...there's nothing to the models. It's all just hand-wave bullshit.

Agreed.

Wait, no. I mean Disagree!

[Hanley]

Who gives a fuck?

u do bb

I give a fuck that I was fooled and that - like so many others - I aped the unwarranted arrogance of a fraud. Shame on me.

[mgil]

Who gives a fuck?

u do bb

I give a fuck that I was fooled and that - like so many others - I aped the unwarranted arrogance of a fraud. Shame on me.

*hugs*

For real:

It's worth discussing the concept that there's no easy deduction to efficient form from one or two measurements for a multi-joint compound lift.

[lehman906]

Hm, Nuckols says otherwise
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/why-y ... -benching/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/bench-press-bar-path/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/how-to-bench/

Ofc, it all depends on your goals: If you have strong triceps, weak pecs and want to have a short-term PR - well then a closer grip may be successful. Otoh, if you want to train your pecs, a wider grip may be more useful.

I also think that it depends more on upper arm length plus shoulder width than lower arm length - dunno if you really assessed that when claiming a "long wingspan".

So what I'm hearing is that the mechanical breakdowns in this are not taking into account a number of individual variables? Is that it? I think his ideas about not over-tucking the elbows ("flare and push") and pushing back towards the face first instead of gradually moving back interesting. I should film some of my sets to check my (non-Jame Gumb) tuck-level and bar path.

[mettkeks]

/thread.