Theoretically it shouldn't be from a hypertrophy point of view
However it's just a more effective way to build strength and in my experience that has what made the difference in my chest size regardless of volume
Increased stability leads to much higher neural drive, aka your muscles are working harder, that's why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand. Same reason you can squat more on solid ground than on a balance board.
>That would mean machines are the best, after all you can lift more in a machine then a free weight.
If friction didn't exist then yes, but because machines have friction, the concentric (friction is working against you) is much harder then the eccentric (friction is making the eccentric easier). Since you're limited by the concentric to lift the weight up, during the eccentric (which at least is 50% of the work, most people think it is more important) you are slacking, as you have to resist less forces then you usually would.
>Increased stability leads to much higher neural drive, aka your muscles are working harder, that's why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand
Right, so it makes you better at exactly only that exercise. Same with deadlifts. There are better exercises for size and better exercises for functional chest strength. Benching is for dick measuring contests.
>Right, so it makes you better at exactly only that exercise
No, it lets more chest (and shoulders and triceps) muscle mass contribute in contraction. aka it trains your chest (and shoulders and triceps) more, what the frick are you even talking about.
more triceps involvement, easier to load and progress.
Theoretically it shouldn't be from a hypertrophy point of view
However it's just a more effective way to build strength and in my experience that has what made the difference in my chest size regardless of volume
>Theoretically it shouldn't be from a hypertrophy point of view
wrong.
Increased stability leads to much higher neural drive, aka your muscles are working harder, that's why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand. Same reason you can squat more on solid ground than on a balance board.
>That would mean machines are the best, after all you can lift more in a machine then a free weight.
If friction didn't exist then yes, but because machines have friction, the concentric (friction is working against you) is much harder then the eccentric (friction is making the eccentric easier). Since you're limited by the concentric to lift the weight up, during the eccentric (which at least is 50% of the work, most people think it is more important) you are slacking, as you have to resist less forces then you usually would.
>Increased stability [...] why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand
wrong. main reason is lateral force exertion from triceps, which isn't possible with dumbbells (because they're not attached to each other). stability is the second reason. same also applies to dumbbell vs barbell overhead press. >because machines have friction, the concentric (friction is working against you) is much harder then the eccentric (friction is making the eccentric easier).
wrong. friction is negligible in most gym equipment.
Excellent frame for the lift. Gives him a high starting point. If he stopped trying to win meets at the 65lb weight class and progressed the lift into higher weight class territory he would grow.
Kek
It's fricking hilarious because yes I've literally got tendinitis. Not from actual tippy toe walking but from power walking up hills which is similar
Try doing calf raises with a barbell on your back instead and just have your toes raised up on a plate or piece of wood. Will make you actually stabilize the weight and control the eccentric movement instead of just bouncing up and down. Gets my calves insanely pumped.
>Ehhhh, the triceps involvement is a bit higher but def never the limiting factor.
Not what I said. The person claimed that increased stability is the (main) reason why you can bench more than twice the weight per dumbbell. I think that the main reason is that barbell bench allows more triceps involvement than dumbbell bench. That doesn't imply that triceps are a limiting factor. Using arbitrary numbers, triceps involvement might go from 40% to 80%, which would increase the total weight used but wouldn't make them a limiting factor. >friction doesn't exist >Ahhh, disagree. Depends.
I didn't say it doesn't exist. I just said it's negligible. I can't think of an example where machine friction isn't negligible compared to the total resistance force, can you?
We've got a shitty smith machine and leg press at my gym and you definitely feel the friction. This type of thing really differs from gym to gym and from machine to machine. >negligible compared to the total resistance force
Weird you're making this point. Friction usually, similiar to a resistance bands, is a multiplying factor not one that is added on top of the weight. Obviously the eccentric makes a small difference with friction because no friction stops unlimited weight, but from personal anecdotes, the concentric gets sooooo much harder, which is kind of annoying considering the eccentric portion is considered to be more hypertrophic and we usually want more of it
I've never felt any friction with significant impact on resistance on any of the machines at the various gyms I've trained at. But I suppose there are some unmaintained shitty gyms. Friction isn't a straight multiplication factor though, and dry friction and lubricated friction (like in gym equipment) aren't the same. It could also be that some of the machines were designed in such a way that it provides more resistance in the concentric and that it's not due to lack of maintenance. >the eccentric portion is considered to be more hypertrophic and we usually want more of it
eccentric loading induces more muscle damage and typically has a worse stimulus to fatigue ratio. so concentric-focused training is more beneficial overall. eccentric hamstring training seems to prevent sprinting injuries better though, so a mix of both is probably best.
Post chest OP
I used to think the same thing and also that I just genetically had a shit chest
Turns out I was just a benchlet and I was wrong
Tell me how a bench press is better than dumbbell bench?
Theoretically it shouldn't be from a hypertrophy point of view
However it's just a more effective way to build strength and in my experience that has what made the difference in my chest size regardless of volume
Why do they always cope by bringing dumbbell press? I guarantee you suck at that as well.
Solid argument, thank you.
Increased stability leads to much higher neural drive, aka your muscles are working harder, that's why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand. Same reason you can squat more on solid ground than on a balance board.
>That would mean machines are the best, after all you can lift more in a machine then a free weight.
If friction didn't exist then yes, but because machines have friction, the concentric (friction is working against you) is much harder then the eccentric (friction is making the eccentric easier). Since you're limited by the concentric to lift the weight up, during the eccentric (which at least is 50% of the work, most people think it is more important) you are slacking, as you have to resist less forces then you usually would.
>Increased stability leads to much higher neural drive, aka your muscles are working harder, that's why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand
Right, so it makes you better at exactly only that exercise. Same with deadlifts. There are better exercises for size and better exercises for functional chest strength. Benching is for dick measuring contests.
>Right, so it makes you better at exactly only that exercise
No, it lets more chest (and shoulders and triceps) muscle mass contribute in contraction. aka it trains your chest (and shoulders and triceps) more, what the frick are you even talking about.
>Right, so it makes you better at exactly only that exercise.
Why do you care if you're only lifting for hypertrophy?
>functional chest strength
?
That's a lot of wasted words, man. You can just say " more overload potential". If they don't get that then they can't be taught. Good post though.
It's more fun which is why I lift
Because benching a bar looks manly as frick.
db manlets coping hard
>arghhh im manly!!
>literally goes to the gym one hour at a time to look good
more triceps involvement, easier to load and progress.
>Theoretically it shouldn't be from a hypertrophy point of view
wrong.
>Increased stability [...] why you can bench WAY more than 2x the weight you're holding in each hand
wrong. main reason is lateral force exertion from triceps, which isn't possible with dumbbells (because they're not attached to each other). stability is the second reason. same also applies to dumbbell vs barbell overhead press.
>because machines have friction, the concentric (friction is working against you) is much harder then the eccentric (friction is making the eccentric easier).
wrong. friction is negligible in most gym equipment.
Size limits and constraints. Try finding 135lb dumbbells in most gyms and get them into benching position
Post 1 rep max of any real lift
.... we'll wait.....
>wake up at 6 am
>shitpost contrarian opinion on fit
>goes to lift
Based
Contrarian moron, post body.
isn't the bar too high?
shouldn't it be closer to mid pecs?
For a regular bench press, yes. But OP is talking about the guillotine press.
QRD on guillotine press
meme exercise
you dumb fricking moronic homosexual
For me it's just trying a movement for a couple weeks or a machine. If I don't like it I move on and try a different variation.
>trains gay muscles no one cares about
Deadlifts are for zoomers, women, and fat men
I did light weight RDLs last week that really made me feel it in my hammies. It's a week on and they are still sore.
gay muscles no one cares about
> posts image of 70% of human musculature being activated
t. probably gay and weak
yeah it trains 70% of your muscles. It's just that it's the 70% nobody gives a frick about
>t. posturelet
this. I saw so many people lifting heavy and still looking like complete dyels
Excellent frame for the lift. Gives him a high starting point. If he stopped trying to win meets at the 65lb weight class and progressed the lift into higher weight class territory he would grow.
BOOTA
>Does nothing
>mogs your path
y'know what else helps calves a lot (moreso than machine raises)?
running
For me I just do reps of tippy toe walking until failure. Running is for gays
there's a point where tippy toe walking doesnt work anymore anon
wouldn't this give you tendonitis?
Kek
It's fricking hilarious because yes I've literally got tendinitis. Not from actual tippy toe walking but from power walking up hills which is similar
hope you heal, anon
Thanks anon, getting there.
22 inches in diameter. Post calf
>cramps your balf
Nothing special at all
Does nothing because calves are fricking strong. You probably can't load this machine enough to stimulate your calves with slow reps.
The only way to build muscle in your calves is either an incredible time under tension (bicycling). Or maximal explosive exercises like jumping.
Doing clean pulls will do more than this machine will ever do.
Try doing calf raises with a barbell on your back instead and just have your toes raised up on a plate or piece of wood. Will make you actually stabilize the weight and control the eccentric movement instead of just bouncing up and down. Gets my calves insanely pumped.
why isn't that Black person doing bar to chest
Can I replace the Bench with Dips? (I'm scared of dropping the weight on my chest)
What sort of grip do you use on bench?
>does nothing
Stoic stands x F are god tier for gains.
Tell me you Dont lift without telling me you dont lift
why is he doing that behind his head?
wish this board would get post ID. guarantee this is a 1pbtid thread.
50% of the catalog at any point is "1pbtid" trash sadly.
>Ehhhh, the triceps involvement is a bit higher but def never the limiting factor.
Not what I said. The person claimed that increased stability is the (main) reason why you can bench more than twice the weight per dumbbell. I think that the main reason is that barbell bench allows more triceps involvement than dumbbell bench. That doesn't imply that triceps are a limiting factor. Using arbitrary numbers, triceps involvement might go from 40% to 80%, which would increase the total weight used but wouldn't make them a limiting factor.
>friction doesn't exist
>Ahhh, disagree. Depends.
I didn't say it doesn't exist. I just said it's negligible. I can't think of an example where machine friction isn't negligible compared to the total resistance force, can you?
We've got a shitty smith machine and leg press at my gym and you definitely feel the friction. This type of thing really differs from gym to gym and from machine to machine.
>negligible compared to the total resistance force
Weird you're making this point. Friction usually, similiar to a resistance bands, is a multiplying factor not one that is added on top of the weight. Obviously the eccentric makes a small difference with friction because no friction stops unlimited weight, but from personal anecdotes, the concentric gets sooooo much harder, which is kind of annoying considering the eccentric portion is considered to be more hypertrophic and we usually want more of it
I've never felt any friction with significant impact on resistance on any of the machines at the various gyms I've trained at. But I suppose there are some unmaintained shitty gyms. Friction isn't a straight multiplication factor though, and dry friction and lubricated friction (like in gym equipment) aren't the same. It could also be that some of the machines were designed in such a way that it provides more resistance in the concentric and that it's not due to lack of maintenance.
>the eccentric portion is considered to be more hypertrophic and we usually want more of it
eccentric loading induces more muscle damage and typically has a worse stimulus to fatigue ratio. so concentric-focused training is more beneficial overall. eccentric hamstring training seems to prevent sprinting injuries better though, so a mix of both is probably best.