Arm length matter for bench press?

[ridgleye]

Hi, first post here, I am in a discussion with a friend regarding the length of someone's arms and how that equates when lifting weights.

If someone has shorter arms - is there an advantage to bench pressing vs. one with longer arms? If so, can someone direct me to some scientific facts on this issue please?

Of course - all things being equal - I know that genetics, determination, etc... are factors as well.

[2 HUGE]

well thinking logically here, all things being the same, the longer armed person would have to move the weight more distance right. so, they would have to use more effort to move that weight that much more. but in reality how often do you find two people with the same weight, same strength, but significant difference in arm length. hardly ever. I think that the shorter armed person would be able to use more weight/ bench more because each rep they have to use less effort to move the weight up and down, even though both peoples chest would be working in a full range of motion

[ridgleye]

that is my response but my friend is arguing that they are both using their respective muscles - that a person with shorter arms still uses all of the same muscle strength as a person with longer arms.

I disagreed - stating that the energy used to push an object 10" would be different than the energy used to push an object 20".

Now I'm wondering if there is any way to prove this - one way or another.

[2 HUGE]

that is my response but my friend is arguing that they are both using their respective muscles - that a person with shorter arms still uses all of the same muscle strength as a person with longer arms.

I disagreed - stating that the energy used to push an object 10" would be different than the energy used to push an object 20".

Now I'm wondering if there is any way to prove this - one way or another.

did you tell him that both people have the exact same strength

[BOLT.]

Yes arm length does matter but it's hard to tell by looking at someone's arms if they're built for bench or not.

[Defiant1]

Hi, first post here, I am in a discussion with a friend regarding the length of someone's arms and how that equates when lifting weights.

If someone has shorter arms - is there an advantage to bench pressing vs. one with longer arms? If so, can someone direct me to some scientific facts on this issue please?

Of course - all things being equal - I know that genetics, determination, etc... are factors as well.

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. Shorter is better.

Simple physics.

[BOLT.]

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. Shorter is better.

Simple physics.

Yes.

[Defiant1]

that is my response but my friend is arguing that they are both using their respective muscles - that a person with shorter arms still uses all of the same muscle strength as a person with longer arms.

I disagreed - stating that the energy used to push an object 10" would be different than the energy used to push an object 20".

Now I'm wondering if there is any way to prove this - one way or another.

The shorter armed person is doing less work. W=F x D.

Actually, all muscular movements are torques:

A shorter lever arm decreases the amount of "force" required to move it.

It's like a wrench working in reverse.

[ridgleye]

I agree with you guys - but him and I are butting heads on this as neither of us seem to understand what the other is getting at.

I say - shorter is "easier" (being relative) since the distance traveled requires less energy.

[Defiant1]

I agree with you guys - but him and I are butting heads on this as neither of us seem to understand what the other is getting at.

I say - shorter is "easier" (being relative) since the distance traveled requires less energy.

Here you go:

Have him so a side raise with his arm fully extended for max reps.

Now have him do it with his arm bent at a 90 degree angle.

Should be pretty obvious.

[BOLT.]

I agree with you guys - but him and I are butting heads on this as neither of us seem to understand what the other is getting at.

I say - shorter is "easier" (being relative) since the distance traveled requires less energy.

Just explain it's shorter distance traveled for the hands.

[mjw8204]

Yes.

It makes sense now. Thanks, BOLT!

[¡STFU!ˇNˆLIFT!]

Definately why I feel my chest workouts are more productive not locking out and tucking my shoulder blades HARD - GLUED to the bench ..
6' 1" here ..
Path is much shorter doing the above .. feels much more so than actually is but yea ..

[BOLT.]

It makes sense now. Thanks, BOLT!

You're welcome, mjw8204!

[reefpicker]

The problem is that if you are talking about pressing movements on a bench, the muscle fibers recruited are the chest fibers (some tricep and shoulder involvement of course)... A muscle generates its power depending on its length and cross-sectional area (a stronger person is thicker, that much is always obvious however a longer muscle can generate more power)...

My point is that to be exact, you have to consider that an untrained person with short hands, will have a smaller cross sectional area around the chest... This is why you always see a difference between tall and short people at the bench IMO.... At least thats how I have always seen it...

I think the real question is, what is your experience? Do you see that most untrained ppl that are short lift more weigth than untrained ppl that are tall?

Considering that distance traveled is also different for short vs. tall, there is really a lot of variables to compute in the equation!

[DiamondDelts]

Common sense should be more than enough to answer this time honored question.

[staven]

To remember physics class, the earlier post is right. W=FxD.
Whereas W=work
F=force
D=distance

So if person A is lifting 100 pounds 10 inches then W=F(100) x D (10) or 1000

If person B. is lifting 100 pounds 8 inches then it would be 100x8 or 800.

Person A is doing 200 units more work than person B. I believe the units can be measured in joules or Kilojoules.

[ridgleye]

To remember physics class, the earlier post is right. W=FxD.
Whereas W=work
F=force
D=distance

So if person A is lifting 100 pounds 10 inches then W=F(100) x D (10) or 1000

If person B. is lifting 100 pounds 8 inches then it would be 100x8 or 800.

Person A is doing 200 units more work than person B. I believe the units can be measured in joules or Kilojoules.

This is perfect! Thank you for the shared information.

[reefpicker]

Lets remember this is the question we are answering here:

If someone has shorter arms - is there an advantage to bench pressing vs. one with longer arms? If so, can someone direct me to some scientific facts on this issue please?

Not who has to do more work but who has it "easier" or has an advantage.


Physics are one part of the equation, but the other part is the biology.

This question can be paraphrased as follows: who can lift more weight, a short untrained person or a tall untrained person.?

While the force needed to move the same object is greater for someone with a longer limb, this person has the advantage of: a) a bigger chest muscle, b) a longer chest muscle.

A child's strength does not change when he becomes an adult because of some biological process. It changes because he/she adds more muscle. While they have extremely short limbs, this does not mean that they can lift a lot of weight. Both length and cross sectional area of their muscles are smaller than an adult.

Also, people with dwarfism seem to me to be only a bit stronger than a child (again mostly because they have more cross-sectional area or thicker muscles)....

I believe both effects (biological and physical) cancel each other out. However, IME taller people (untrained) are stronger at the bench, and even at other exercises as well than shorter people.

[Arlecchino]

Lets remember this is the question we are answering here:



Not who has to do more work but who has it "easier" or has an advantage.


Physics are one part of the equation, but the other part is the biology.

This question can be paraphrased as follows: who can lift more weight, a short untrained person or a tall untrained person.?

While the force needed to move the same object is greater for someone with a longer limb, this person has the advantage of: a) a bigger chest muscle, b) a longer chest muscle.

A child's strength does not change when he becomes an adult because of some biological process. It changes because he/she adds more muscle. While they have extremely short limbs, this does not mean that they can lift a lot of weight. Both length and cross sectional area of their muscles are smaller than an adult.

Gaining muscle is not a biological process?

Also, people with dwarfism seem to me to be only a bit stronger than a child (again mostly because they have more cross-sectional area or thicker muscles)....

Andrzej Stanaszek squatted six times BW in the 114lbs. class. He is a dwarf, and many others have done well in the lighter weight classes. Oddly enough, they usually have trouble with the deadlift. But then they tend to have short arms, which aids in the bench (shorter stroke = less work) and hurts in the deadlift.

I believe both effects (biological and physical) cancel each other out. However, IME taller people (untrained) are stronger at the bench, and even at other exercises as well than shorter people.

Taller people of equal mass?

[Defiant1]

Lets remember this is the question we are answering here:



Not who has to do more work but who has it "easier" or has an advantage.


Physics are one part of the equation, but the other part is the biology.

This question can be paraphrased as follows: who can lift more weight, a short untrained person or a tall untrained person.?

While the force needed to move the same object is greater for someone with a longer limb, this person has the advantage of: a) a bigger chest muscle, b) a longer chest muscle.

A child's strength does not change when he becomes an adult because of some biological process. It changes because he/she adds more muscle. While they have extremely short limbs, this does not mean that they can lift a lot of weight. Both length and cross sectional area of their muscles are smaller than an adult.

Also, people with dwarfism seem to me to be only a bit stronger than a child (again mostly because they have more cross-sectional area or thicker muscles)....

I believe both effects (biological and physical) cancel each other out. However, IME taller people (untrained) are stronger at the bench, and even at other exercises as well than shorter people.

He specifically said "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL."

[reefpicker]

Gaining muscle is not a biological process?

Sorry, I was going to type the word weird in front but I got lazy. No need to pick on that LOL

Andrzej Stanaszek squatted six times BW in the 114lbs. class. He is a dwarf, and many others have done well in the lighter weight classes. Oddly enough, they usually have trouble with the deadlift. But then they tend to have short arms, which aids in the bench (shorter stroke = less work) and hurts in the deadlift.

I said untrained. It is widely known among the BB community that the travel distance affects the performance in trained strength training athletes.

Taller people of equal mass?

If they have equal mass, they would be skinnier than the short guy. Lets say same %BF or even better same LBM.

[Defiant1]

I said untrained. It is widely known among the BB community that the travel distance affects the performance in trained strength training athletes.

I don't agree. Shorter people of the same weight are usually stronger than taller people, untrained or not. Especially shorter LIMBED people.

Think of the stereotypes of someone who is strong naturally...

fireplug
bull
stocky
husky

not:

lanky
skinny
etc

Why most strength/power athletes have a strong ENDOMORPHIC componant to their physique. Endomorphis have relatively short limbs. As stated above, it is NOT an advantage on the deadlift, but for the same reason. Longer arms means the hips/low back have a shorter distance to pull.

If they have equal mass, they would be skinnier than the short guy. Lets say same %BF or even better same LBM.

Same %BF means nothing. Same LBM would still net a "skinnier" tall person.

[reefpicker]

He specifically said "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL."

No. He said:
Of course - all things being equal - I know that genetics, determination, etc... are factors as well.


This would actually imply that he wants to eliminate extrenous factors such as psychological and genetical effects, but should also imply "training" effects have to be taken out of the equation.

I make the assumption that they both are untrained bc this is really the relevant question. If someone has more training, then all factors are not equal. Training does not only alter your muscle mass but also your muscles actually "learn" how to optimize power output and antagonist/agonist coordination in order to maximize stregth. Thats another topic

I am very adamant about this topic b/c I am one of the "shorter" guys at the gym and I can tell you for a fact I have observed a lot of ppl benching and two things are very important in real life:

1) Genes... Some people have a wider chest and they can generate a lot more force (taller ppl usually, they have a "bigger" frame)
2) Some ppl cheat and lock their arms (taking a "rest") at the end of each rep.
3) Some dont go all the way down
4) Where they grab the bar..

As a short guy, I just cant reach the bar in certain decline benches for example and doing the bench press in some incline benches makes it real awkward for me, the position at least.. IDK Sometimes I think I have short limbs besides just being short

[Defiant1]

No. He said:
Of course - all things being equal - I know that genetics, determination, etc... are factors as well.


This would actually imply that he wants to eliminate extrenous factors such as psychological and genetical effects, but should also imply "training" effects have to be taken out of the equation.

I make the assumption that they both are untrained bc this is really the relevant question. If someone has more training, then all factors are not equal. Training does not only alter your muscle mass but also your muscles actually "learn" how to optimize power output and antagonist/agonist coordination in order to maximize stregth. Thats another topic

I am very adamant about this topic b/c I am one of the "shorter" guys at the gym and I can tell you for a fact I have observed a lot of ppl benching and two things are very important in real life:

1) Genes... Some people have a wider chest and they can generate a lot more force (taller ppl usually, they have a "bigger" frame)
2) Some ppl cheat and lock their arms (taking a "rest") at the end of each rep.
3) Some dont go all the way down
4) Where they grab the bar..

As a short guy, I just cant reach the bar in certain decline benches for example and doing the bench press in some incline benches makes it real awkward for me, the position at least.. IDK Sometimes I think I have short limbs besides just being short

World record benchers have two characteristics almost always:

Short arms.

Barrel chests.

Both decrease the amount of distance the bar has to travel.

Scott Mendelson: 5'9', 290-310

Gene Rychlak: He is 6' 1", but weighs 345. (!)

look at his arms/chest:



You are also making a correlation between arm length and chest muscle size. Arm length is an ectomorphic characteristic. Muscle belly size is a Mesomorphic characteristic.

There are plenty of tall guys with pigeon chests.

[reefpicker]

Think of the stereotypes of someone who is strong naturally...

fireplug
bull
stocky
husky

NOT SHORT

These attributes all refer to "thickness" not anything else.

Dude, let me put it this way and I will lay this to rest:

What do you think BURNS more calories:

-A short muscle
-A long muscle


you can take any example in your own body.


Now, some of those calories go to heat, some go to mechanical force... But if I have to BURN more calories and use more ATP, that should mean MY muscle is genarating more power. Perhaps the mechanical output is not the same (thats why I say perhaps biological and mechanical factors cancel each other out and then I added IME this is not true).

A muscle has crossbridges all throught its length. When the sarcomere shortens, and the muscle contracts, each of this is generating force.

A stronger person has a thicker built b/c we can only increase the cross sectional area of our muscles, not lengthen it.

IDK How else to explain this concept....

Lets see... You can also look at it this way... A longer muscle weights more, no? Dah! LOL So, would not that person has a higher BMR? Thats energy being burned... Which can or not generate mechanical power when the muscle moves a load....

The longer muscles in your body, such as the quadriceps and the chest, are the most powerful muscles.... What you lift with your legs, you cant lift with a short muscle like your bicep, tricep or deltoid.

Are we getting there now? do you at least undertand where I am coming from?

I am a scientist with a strong physiology/medical backgroud, so you understand m perspective?

[Defiant1]

NOT SHORT

These attributes all refer to "thickness" not anything else.

Dude, let me put it this way and I will lay this to rest:

What do you think BURNS more calories:

-A short muscle
-A long muscle


you can take any example in your own body.


Now, some of those calories go to heat, some go to mechanical force... But if I have to BURN more calories and use more ATP, that should mean MY muscle is genarating more power. Perhaps the mechanical output is not the same (thats why I say perhaps biological and mechanical factors cancel each other out and then I added IME this is not true).

A muscle has crossbridges all throught its length. When the sarcomere shortens, and the muscle contracts, each of this is generating force.

A stronger person has a thicker built b/c we can only increase the cross sectional area of our muscles, not lengthen it.

IDK How else to explain this concept....

Lets see... You can also look at it this way... A longer muscle weights more, no? Dah! LOL So, would not that person has a higher BMR? Thats energy being burned... Which can or not generate mechanical power when the muscle moves a load....

The longer muscles in your body, such as the quadriceps and the chest, are the most powerful muscles.... What you lift with your legs, you cant lift with a short muscle like your bicep, tricep or deltoid.

Are we getting there now? do you at least undertand where I am coming from?

I am a scientist with a strong physiology/medical backgroud, so you understand m perspective?

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the biomechanics of muscle contraction (thanks , I know a LITTLE about this myself ) but you are making an argument based on false premise...

You are also making some illogical connections. BMR does not equal strength or power potential. That is a non-sequitor.

And you are still making an arbitrary connection between limb length and muscle belly length.

He said all things being equal because you have to assume that in order to make any kind of general statement. You won't allow him that generalization, yet are making generalizations that limb length is correlated to muscle belly length.

In fact, about the LARGEST pec muscle bellies I have EVER seen, are on this guy:

and he has almost comically short arms..




Schwarzeneggar had HUGE pec bellies, and long arms...guess what? He complained that it was difficult to bench because of his long arms.

OF COURSE there are going to be other factors that can make a longer limbed person "stronger", just as there are other factors that can make a shorter limbed person throw harder than a longer limbed person.


Edit: I forgot to add, Strength is a product of sarcomeres IN PARALLEL, not in series. Muscle CSA, not muscle length.

[Tyciol]

The length of your levers is indeed a factor of how the force of your muscles is applied to move weights over distances. Are you trying to win competitions?

[reefpicker]

You are also making some illogical connections. BMR does not equal strength or power potential. That is a non-sequitor.

No... I just did that to illustrate the point that a longer muscle burns more ATP. A smaller muscle not as strong as a longer muscle. That was my point.

And you are still making an arbitrary connection between limb length and muscle belly length.

I have no idea what muscle belly length is but the connection is b/w chest size and strength in the bench press. I am saying most taller ppl have bigger chest (UNTRAINED).

I was thinking about it this way too... A lot of ppl always assume I am not as strong as they are bc they are taller. Its almost natural for ppl to think in this terms. While I am stronger than them (bc I am trained and I have more girth), they still try to show that they are stronger than me and I always bit them :P

In fact, about the LARGEST pec muscle bellies I have EVER seen, are on this guy:

and he has almost comically short arms..

Again, girth is what I am seeing there... and you are not talking about the same thing I am! We are not on the same page here!

Edit: I forgot to add, Strength is a product of sarcomeres IN PARALLEL, not in series. Muscle CSA, not muscle length.

I think thats power but I could be wrong.... Again, small muscles lift less... I could be wrong but it still stands that physically most ppl that are tall vs really short ppl like myself, untrained, they do have bigger and wider chest :P I know that bc I look at guys around me and thats what I see... And I can see it in the BP!

EDIT: I stand corrected about length vs CSA So it goes back to girth... I think that when all things are considered, it seems to me that the chest of taller vs shorter ppl do tend to be bigger.. In fact shirts are designed with this in mind, as Large shirts are not only longer (i.e for taller or fatter ppl) but also wider... Thus if two ppl have the same BF, the taller person would have a wider chest, his chest fibers are going to be stronger...

[Defiant1]

EDIT: I stand corrected about length vs CSA So it goes back to girth... I think that when all things are considered, it seems to me that the chest of taller vs shorter ppl do tend to be bigger.. In fact shirts are designed with this in mind, as Large shirts are not only longer (i.e for taller or fatter ppl) but also wider... Thus if two ppl have the same BF, the taller person would have a wider chest, his chest fibers are going to be stronger...

You corrected yourself, then went against your own correction. You are still correlating length with strength. CSA for the pecs is from top to bottom, not origin to insertion.

You are making an assumption that taller people are automatically carrying more functional muscle, and it's just not so. Height and limb length is usually associated with ectomorphy. Ectomorphs carry the LEAST amount of relative muscle of the 3 ****totypes.

Bodyfat is not a valid comparison, because it is a non-factor in this case. It doesn't equalize anything in terms of comparison except how "defined" a person is. It doesn't limit other factors. One could be carrying 300 lbs of LBM with 8% BF, another could be carrying 150lbs at 8%. Not a valid comparison.

I don't know of any sport that differentiates classes by "bodyfat". If you are going to go away from the "all things being equal", then you can't isolate limb length as a positive causal effect, as you are now also dealing with GROSS amount of muscle. Which brings us back to "weight class" or LBM. Either of which is also going to favor a shorter limbed person.

If what you were saying were true, then powerlifting would not be dominated by "stocky" guys, it would be dominated by "lanky" guys, especially at the lower weight classes.