Barbell To arch or not to arch

[silveraw]

The latest SF newsletter posed a question as to whether you should arch or not arch your bench press.

Citing this article: Flat-Back vs. Arched-Back Bench Press: Examining the... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

They postulate that flat back bench allows more power, while the arch allows more weight to be lifted.

My personal experience is that the arch allows me to be more stable, which allows me to exert more force, which allows me to be more powerful and lift more.

But I'm kind of a weird lifter. I'm all power and if I can't lift it explosively it doesn't seem to go. Grinding isn't something I've ever been good at. Plus I have a touchy shoulder that gets upset if I leave my special angle of bench.

I'm curious if I'm an outlier and others find that they can do more power from a flat back bench rather than an arched.

Also I did find it funny that the article mentioned limited ROM floor presses when @Hung recently quipped that my floor presses have the exact same ROM as my bench press.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Personally, the arch is nothing more than a DIY decline bench designed to reduce the travel. It allows more weight with less motor unit recruitment.

Studies show that flat/neutral bench recruits more anterior and more pec, with the military bench press being the highest. There is more of a stretch at the bottom of the ROM with a flat bench.

I also feel that training posterior recruitment for the arch, paired with anterior push is absolutely 180⁰ from how a big push is executed in the wild. Aside from competitive prep it is inferior to a flat back press.

 

[Antti]

I'm not subscribed to the newsletter, do haven't read it.

I would hesitate to draw too many conclusions based on one study. I'm not saying anyone did.

I suppose there's more range of motion and time for acceleration with less of an arch.

I'd say the arch is more than just a shorter range of motion, it's more stretch on the pecs, safer on the shoulders, more stability on the whole, etc.

Even if there's more power with a specific technique, what is it for and why?

 

[silveraw]

I'm not subscribed to the newsletter, do haven't read it.

I'll copy paste it over. (Worst case scenario some people sign up for it, they have some good stuff in there such as the Mark Valenti piece semi-recently)

The arched bench press has become a staple technique in powerlifting. Even in the SFL and StrongFirst Barbell Fundamentals online course, this technique is taught, along with drills to increase the arch. And for good reason.

The arch decreases the distance the bar must travel and allows for a stable position for the entire shoulder complex. In theory and practice, this can result in a safer and stronger bench press.

But what about the flat-back version? Bodybuilders and physique athletes use different angles, such as decline, incline, and flat bench variation, to “target” different areas. But is there a performance benefit to the flat bench?

A recent study by Bartolomei et al. shows that the difference between the arched and flat bench press may not be as dramatic as previously thought.

“For example, the new arched-back BP allows greater load to be lifted, thus may be chosen when this is the main stimulus of the training cycle or session. By contrast, the flat-back BP favors higher barbell velocity to be reached, possibly aiming for improving explosive tasks.”

It is also interesting to note that the difference between the load lifted between the two styles was not great: “We found greater 1RM for the arched-back vs. flat-back BP, although the difference was small. (+4.2 Kg, 95% confidence intervals + 0.0/+8.4, effect size [ES]: 0.22)”

So, while the arched bench may lift a few more kilos, the greater velocity of the flat bench may benefit explosive tasks. As usual, the answer is “it depends,” depending on what adaptation you would like from the lift performed.

 

[Pavel.Kosenkov]

To arch or not to arch should be answered by thinking about the other question: what is safer for the shoulder, and what reduces the stress on the shoulder joint?

 

[bluejeff]

To arch or not to arch should be answered by thinking about the other question: what is safer for the shoulder, and what reduces the stress on the shoulder joint?

I might be a little out of my lane here, since I don't bench, but just a thought: it seems like either case could be made. I know that the arch is supposed to produce stability, as is "pinning" the shoulders down and back, but both of these motions run contradictory to normal shoulder motion/scapulohumeral rhythm, so......?

I am more in the "movement quality" camp as opposed to the "lift as much as possible" camp, so if we are talking about the latter, I am happy to be corrected here.

 

[metaldrummer]

Arching protects your shoulders and allows you to lift more weight safely, so why someone wouldn't is beyond me. And it doesn't have to be anything extreme, but yeah, arch all day every day. Benching with a totally flat back is just nasty and asking for shoulder problems imo.

 

[John K]

so why someone wouldn't is beyond me.

Well, let's say you want to target the muscle better. A lot of folks have found that arching makes it really hard to work the pecs as well. Getting a slight mechanical disadvantage might make you use less weight but could also provide a better stimulus to the muscle - and that is a win-win, as now there is also less stress on your joints and whatnot due to the less weight.

You can bench safely and without injury potential without arching.

 

[North Coast Miller]

When I did a lot of bench, it was military bench press with feet up. My lower back couldn't have been more neutral. My pecs def developed.

Argument for arching on a bench press to me sounds like telling someone it is better for pushups to let your hips sag. Or that you should arch your back when pushing a car or sled instead of firing your abs/anterior chain.

I get that it is mandatory for competitive lifting but for generic strength and size there will be no convincing me. Not that its a big deal, just my opinion...

 

[Steve Freides]

As I lower the bar to my chest, I am pulling the bar apart and trying to push the center of my chest up into the bar both by arching and by pulling my shoulders back and together. All part of trying to create maximum tension at the bottom.

-S-

 

[Pavel.Kosenkov]

I might be a little out of my lane here, since I don't bench, but just a thought: it seems like either case could be made. I know that the arch is supposed to produce stability, as is "pinning" the shoulders down and back, but both of these motions run contradictory to normal shoulder motion/scapulohumeral rhythm, so......?

I am more in the "movement quality" camp as opposed to the "lift as much as possible" camp, so if we are talking about the latter, I am happy to be corrected here.

Can you please help we - where exactly can I read about the bench press and the normal shoulder motion? I am curious, where does this information come from?

 

[Tjerr]

As Steve is saying: I have been taught by Kelly Starett that you want to break the bar (like breaking the handle in the swing) to create torque in the shoulders. The torque comes from the lats and those lats create a small arch.

The torque makes the joint more stable, like spreading the floor in your squat: it will create a nice arch in the foot, puts tension on the crucial ligaments and keeps the knees from falling in. Same in the shoulder, keeps the shoulder from coming up to the ears and keep elbows around the 70° angle for the press.

 

[Boris Bachmann]

They postulate that flat back bench allows more power, while the arch allows more weight to be lifted.

My personal experience is that the arch allows me to be more stable, which allows me to exert more force, which allows me to be more powerful and lift more.

If you can lift more, isn't that more powerful? (I mean, yeah, I know NOT NECESSARILY.... AKCHUALLEEE..., but yeah).

If the question is one of "transfer", then that's another thing entirely, but unless it's a crazy difference in range of motion (and generated force), then I'm guessing the physics is basically saying what I'm getting at - that heavier is better. Maybe I'm way off base but I doubt it.

 

[Steve Freides]

To arch or not to arch should be answered by thinking about the other question: what is safer for the shoulder, and what reduces the stress on the shoulder joint?

As with many things around here, the techniques we teach generally enhance both safety and performance, e.g., better full body tension spreads the load and makes any one thing less likely to fail. In this way, we are reducing the "stress" on any one joint.

-S-

 

[John K]

Are y’all considering retracting shoulder blades or lifting your chest to be arching your back?

 

[bluejeff]

Can you please help we - where exactly can I read about the bench press and the normal shoulder motion? I am curious, where does this information come from?

You can read about scapulohumeral rhythm in general to get a basic idea:

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Scapulohumeral_Rhythm#:~:text=Scapulohumeral%20rhythm%20(also%20referred%20to,optimal%20function%20of%20the%20shoulder.

You could do some searches on scapulohumeral rhythm in regards to differnt lifts as well to see what others have to say.

In general, when we move the arm (in day to day living) the scapula moves around on the ribcage in tandem with the humerus. An issue with the "shoulders down and back" cue is that if you keep your shoulder blades stuck in one place, that means the ball of the humerus in the socket risks being "pulled" away from the socket depending on how you are reaching with your arm. Biomechanically speaking, you would aim to have the socket pointing the same direction as the humerus so the two stay more congruent.

This is not to say the bench press is "bad." It's just that you would want to be sure to also train movements that allow the shoulder blades to move.

You may have heard of scapular pushups or "pushup plus" as an exercise to help with shoulder health. This is one example.

Hope that helps. I am happy to find more material if needed.

 

[bluejeff]

Are y’all considering retracting shoulder blades or lifting your chest to be arching your back?

I'm curious to peoples' answers as well. The two tend to sort of reflexively go hand in hand. Just try it. Either standing or sitting straight up, retract your shoulder blades. Chances are high your chest automatically move forward compared to where it started, unless you consciously tried to keep the chest in place.

 

[John K]

I'm curious to peoples' answers as well. The two tend to sort of reflexively go hand in hand. Just try it. Either standing or sitting straight up, retract your shoulder blades. Chances are high your chest automatically move forward compared to where it started, unless you consciously tried to keep the chest in place.

Normally in powerlifting the bench arch has more to do with the hips placement, creating an arch from hips (and feet) to upper back. It has not ever meant the retraction of shoulder blades and slight thoracic tilt. Y’all can call it whatever you want.

 

[bluejeff]

Normally in powerlifting the bench arch has more to do with the hips placement, creating an arch from hips (and feet) to upper back. It has not ever meant the retraction of shoulder blades and slight thoracic tilt. Y’all can call it whatever you want.

I guess I don't see the end result being that different...? I mean, just try arching your back, however you want, and see what your shoulder blades do. Tom-ay-to vs tom-ahh-to ?

 

[John K]

I guess I don't see the end result being that different...? I mean, just try arching your back, however you want, and see what your shoulder blades do. Tom-ay-to vs tom-ahh-to ?

There’s a HUGE difference in benching with feet on the floor and a big “powerlifting” arch versus just tucking the shoulders.