I don’t know the physics of it, so that’s why I’m asking: should someone be able to bench press more than someone else because they have shorter arms?
A friend of mine (6’1, 160 lbs.) benches less than me (5’8", 145) and claims it’s because he has longer arms. It’s obvious that he does have to extend his arms further than I do, but should that alone mean that it’s harder for him to lift more? We’re both pretty different in body structure so that could be the difference, but he claims he can’t lift as much just because his arms are longer. He’s no scientist either so that’s why I doubt his excuse. Shouldn’t he have more muscle or muscle area (or something) than I do to go along with the extra length in his arms? What’s the story?
[As a supplemental question: how big (inches) do biceps need to be to be considered “big”/muscular?]
To do a lift you need to do a certain amount of work. Work is forcexdistance so increasing arm length increases the distance the weight moves therefore increasing the work required. However the longer your arm the longer your tricep muscle is the greater a distance it can contract effectivley over.
Your pectoral muscle on the other hand doesn’t increase with arm length as far as I can tell. Therefore as a person gets taller their pectorals capacity to do work doesn’t rise accordingly. But from lifting experience it seems like your pectorals only give the intial push to get it off your chest with the triceps taking over. So I think it is slightly more difficult with longer arms but not by that much.
The power in a bench press comes from your triceps as much as your pectorals, depending on how wide/narrrow your grip is on the bar. His longer arms means he has to push the weight up further, so yes, shorter arms would help in being able to press more weight, but as you hinted at, the longer his arms are, the longer his triceps should be as well, meaning if he developed them enough he should be able to overtake you.
I don’t think there is a factual answer to your supplemental question, but generally speaking if an individual develops that “peak” shape to their bicep, they will look “big.”
And to throw in my own aside, does anyone else get that swollen effect after they lift weights? I love looking in the mirror in the locker room after a session because I look noticeably more developed. I think Im going to start working out right before dates from now on…
Big is a subjective term that I have noticed has little meaning in the world of Iron.
The 20+ inch arms owners obviously think anything smaller than 18 inches is small, nay, tiny. Many think that 20 inches is small. Of course, to a normal man, 20 inches is gargantuan. (when it is all muscle at like 8% bodyfat of course, fat doesn’t count)
I personally would say 16+ inch arms on most people are big. On taller people (6’4+), 18+ inches are problably necessary to complete the illusion of big. Keep in mind that the tricep contributes much to the size of an arm.
As for the OP- well, taller people like to complain that shorter people have it easier, but I dunno. I think having a longer muscle is more beneficial. Having more mass helps too. (if being taller he weighs more)
People focus on the chest/arms/abs waayy too much IMO. The back is a very good muscle to have, and the chest and biceps really have little real carry over in real life. Having a strong core (abs, obliques, lower back), strong upperback, and strong legs are much more benificial to any athelete, bodybuilder or even a common joe.
Many wieghtlifters neglect the core, legs and back. It is sad, but very much true. The sterotype of the bodybuilder is a huge chest, skinny abs, big ol biceps and twiggy legs.
Look at the people who can bench press lots of weight. Note that they tend to be barrel-chested people with short forearms. Being structured like that gives them a great advantage in that they don’t have to bring the bar as low to touch their chest during a bench press. Many of them never have to bend their elbows farther than 90 degrees. The farther down you have to take the bar (the more your elbows have to bend), the more you’ll be pushing the bar with small muscles of the shoulder and such, which are much weaker than the large muscles of the chest and arm.
So, perhaps you can bench more than your buddy because your body structure allows you to lower the bar less while still doing a “legal” bench press.
I remember reading, when I first started working out, that one’s build and general biomechanics have a lot to do with how weight you can handle. Not only things like obvious limb proportions, but also where the tendons attach to the bones. For example, in curls you use your bicep to bend your arm against the resistance of a dumbell (or machine). The bicep muscle attaches to the bones of the lower arm; if the point of attachment is a quarter inch farther out (towards your hand), that gives you a considerable advantage by the principles of leverage.
I can’t answer the mechanics question, but the answer to the “big” question depends on the overall physique of the person.
As has been pointed out, people tend to focus their workouts on the upper body because those muscle groups make a big impression (how often do you notice someone’s legs?). Unfortunately, they end up lacking symmetry (which is what good bodybuilders strive for). Bob Paris is a great example of a symmetrical body builder.
I’m 5’10" tall, weigh 200#, about 10% body fat, and have 17 inch arms. They’re in proportion to my frame so they don’t look freakishly big.
If I had to guess, I’d say that for most people, arm length does make a difference, but not one that just can’t be overcome. Especially when you get into very heavy weights, technique and CNS preparation are the real limiting factors.
btw, treis, if you’re only using your pecs a little bit in the bench, you’re not doing it right.
There are multiple factors involved in how much you can bench press (or in any other lift).
[ul]
[li]How long your arms are - as has been noted, the shorter the arms, the shorter the distance you have to move the weight. This is why Naim Shuleimanoglu, the phenomenal Turkish weightlifter, is only 4’9" and has stubby little arms, and can still clean and jerk triple his bodyweight. [/li][li]The composition of the muscle fibers in your triceps, pectorals, and front deltoids. There are several types of muscle fibers, but a useful over-simplification is to divide them into fast-twitch and slow-twitch. Slow twitch fibers are for duration events - elite marathoners tend to have very high proportions of slow-twitch fibers in their leg muscles. Fast twitch are for high-speed, power events - including weightlifting. The proportions of fast- to slow-twitch fibers is thought to be genetically determined, and is not susceptible to change thru training. [/li][li]Ability to recruit muscular contraction. When a muscle fiber contracts, it either contracts 100% or not at all, but not all the fibers in a muscle contract every time you use the muscle to move a limb. Subject to a genetically determined upper limit, you can learn to recruit more fibers per effort, and this phenomenon explains a great deal of the relatively rapid increases in perceived strength levels experienced when you first start training. [/li][li]Emotional state. There is a structure in your tendons called (IIRC) the Golgi organ, that senses how much load your muscles are under. It will then shut down the muscle when the loads approach a limit. This limit is also subject to change thru training, and is also affected by emotion - a terrified or enraged subject will be able to sustain a greater load before the muscle shuts off.[/li][li]Muscle and tendon structure. Your upper arms are essentially a lever of the third class, where the effort is located between the load and the fulcrum. This is because your arms are designed primarily for rapid movement (throwing), and sacrifice the mechanical advantage of other classes of levers for speed of movement. If your tendons attach the pectoral muscle at a point on your upper arm that is closer to your elbow (which is not a typical arrangement), you will be able to lift more weight with the same muscle composition. [/ul][/li]
There are, of course, many other factors, but these are some of the reasons why people of apparently equal muscular development will differ in the amounts they can actually lift. Arnold Schwarzenegger was much larger and taller that Franco Columbu, but Franco could outbench Arnold almost any day of the week.
Yeah. My understanding is that muscles under consistent strain begin to store a lot of water, and can increase the apparent size of the muscle.
I’m under the impression that this is supposed to be fairly constant if someone works out consistently, though - and isn’t specific swelling immeadiately after workouts. Perhaps even more water floods in at that point.
Oh. Sorry. I just had this image of a guy bench pressing with his “short arm”.
My dad was a Naval officer. One morning he needed to call for a side-arm inspection. On the intercom he said, “All hands stand to for short-arm inspection!” Some WAVES who were visiting started giggling. He thought he must have said something wrong, so he said it again!. (At least, this is what he told me. He might have just been telling a “sea story”; but he presented it as true.)
OK, so I don’t know if we’re going to get a definitive answer. It sounds like there is some merit to my friend’s claim that it’s easier for me, but if he put in some effort he would be able to lift more.
If it makes any difference we’re doing this on a nautilus machine (not free weights on a bar). We both do two sets of 10 (I’m on 180 lbs., he’s on 130) then we add 10 lbs. to the last set and we usually get five or six reps. So is everyone in “agreeance” that he should at least be putting up his body weight regardless of the length of his arms?
