So wide grip bench press is completely pointless then
actually the triceps graph shows above 0.7mV.s activation whereas the graphs for both upper and lower pecs have a max of about 0.55mV.s so triceps are always worked more than pecs. also only your lower pec is worked more with wide grip and only 7% more, your upper pec is worked 31% more by using narrow grip.
>also only your lower pec is worked more with wide grip
which is arguably the most important as far as aesthetics are concerned
yeah but only 7% more, so almost the same. but upper is 31% more with narrow grip, more than 4 times more. so why do wide grip when you can work lower pecs pretty much the same using narrow + grow triceps and upper pecs so much more?
Def not useful at all
Did not help this man achieve his physique in any way
max load for wide is like 5% higher at most. also you would have an even higher max load for decline but that shit isn't optimal for anything.
>taking advice about lifting from a dyel faggot
If his 'studies' contradict what actually strong people say I'll just assume his methodology is shit and he's a shit scientist on top of being a shit lifter.
2pl8 1RM is nothing and is just indicative of shit pressing strength in general, not to mention what form, if any at all guidelines were used other than
we're talking about potential max loading, and if you think the 5% carries far past the beginner stage then you are mistaken.
and decline isn't relative in this situation. we're talking about hand spacing, not a different exercise.
The graph clearly shows both wide and narrow grip max load increase when going from horizontal to decline so it is relevant.
Also do you have a source for your claim that these scientists research methods are wrong or is this just your broscience?
decline is not relevant because the discussion is between wide and narrow grip for the horizontal press. why don't you actually watch the video.
>source a rudimentary methodological criticism
lol ok m80 you can stop pretending your all academic now
the video is about wide vs narrow but you were talking about max load and i was responding to you.
ok well how do you know then, how do you know that 5% doesn't carry past beginner stage? and yeah, that graph showed that your actual max load will be higher for wide grip so if you do powerlifting then ok, but if you are growing muscle? and trying not to get injured? use narrow obviously (unless you REALLY want to target lower pecs i guess).
I was talking about max load in conjunction with the other variables that have already been discussed, ruling out incline and decline as non-competitors.
>how do you know that 5% doesn't carry past the beginner stage
1) empirical evidence. ask anyone whos not a weakfag to max bench and max cgbp. observe.
2) simple biomechanical analysis - same reason you can squat more lowbar than highbar: because physics.
stimulation is not everything - one factor is being discussed literally right now (i.e. max load)
>and trying not to get injured?
more weight =/= injuries.
its like saying we're more likely to die in a car crash then bumping into people while walking so we shouldn't drive.
observing people in the gym is not empirical evidence. its not the same as many people going through the same motion in a controlled scientific study. great, show me this simple biomechanical analysis source you have, or maybe your own workings.
as ive said, if you want max load then yes wide will give you a slight advantage, but the optimum compound movement for activating the most muscles to the highest extent? that would be narrow grip.
i didnt say more weight means injury, i said wide grip bench pressers are more likely to get injured than narrow grip bench pressers. and yes, i have a source http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Abstract/2007/10000/The_Affect_of_Grip_Width_on_Bench_Press.1.aspx
empirical evidence doesn't mean it comes from a study. an empirical study utilises empirical evidence to guide it's hypothesis. pay attention in class.
>asking for sources for basic topical knowledge
you think asking and providing 'sources' makes you appear more learned and credible, but to anyone who knows when/where sources are actually relevant, you look like a complete retard.
you want a source? read a physics book.
>reading obscure abstract
let alone the fact that it says "may" increase injuries, it doesn't detail anything about form, training history of the participants, training advancement of the participants, literally ANYTHING that would be useful to this conversation.
in fact - that abstract doesn't follow any of the basic academic guidelines that entails a 'useful' abstract - probably demonstrative of how good of a study it is. good job trying to appear intelligent though.
>bench hits chest
My chest gains. Who cares about a video you made using unsourced infographics?
EMG also says barbell bench and dumbbell bench are identical. Other EMG studies say decline bench has more activation. This study says nothing about the number of muscles recruited for the movement which is far more important. EMG activity might be higher, but only because small sets of muscles near the sensors are being taxed to a greater extent due to an inefficient movement.
I don't really care what lift type -> EMG says unless EMG -> gains. Right now, based on hundreds of years of experience, lift type -> gains says normal grip (wtf is wide grip? when I hear wide grip I think of people cheating and ruining their ROM on bench) is best.
If you had any clue about how it works and how it doesn't cover the whole physiology of muscle contraction, you'd know that EMG measurements are complete and utter bullshit. Actually, typical for med students: They take shit they don't understand, use it in inappropriate contexts and publish it on journals nobody gives fuck about. Mix in some complete lack of knowledge about statistics and data analysis, and you have your average med dissertation. Jesus, they might be good for saving lives, but they are easily the shittiest scientists I've ever worked with.
>taking bait thread from a dyel seriously
come on guys