ExRx.net
http://exrx.net/forum/

Common myths, misconceptions, etc - Read before Posting
http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5396
Page 2 of 6

Author:  KPj [ Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:10 am ]
Post subject: 

-Benching Full ROM is bad for your shoulders. MYTH.

First of all, you could say this is from the horses mouth, since I screwed up my shoulder and the problem was largely down to benching wrong, and benching too much.The recommendation from your trusted Personal Trainer is to go down until your elbows are parallel to the floor. Any further and you’re at serious risk of ‘a shoulder injury’.
I’m not going to try and make sense of the recommendation. You can really frustrate yourself if you try and make sense of something that doesn’t make sense. Therefore, i’m going to explain the main reasons that benching causes so many problems, and get’s such a bad rap. You'll see that it can be any or all of a number of things, but for some reason, the range of motion gets the blame.

1. You need a balanced training program, if you train one movement too much, you neglect others. This developes into muscle imbalances which can cause problems, eventually. As a very general recommendation, you should be doing Row variations just as much, if not more, than you do bench variations. Strength and total number of reps performed for each will ideally be pretty similar.

2.Benching wrong. Most people bench wrong. They just plant themselves under the bar and lift without thinking about it. Get your shoulder blades down and back, and tight. This pops the chest up, and arcs the back. This decreases the required ROM to get down to the chest, without pushing for an extreme arc like a power lifter. If your shoulder blades aren’t tight then your shoulder joint get’s beat up. Don’t flare elbows out, tuck them, and bring the bar to lower chest. Also, benching with feet up is among some of the most stupid things I ever see, and I can’t believe some PT’s still teach this.

3.Poor internal rotator flexibility. In simple terms, the internal rotators are the muscles that 'round' your shoulders forward. They're made up lots of small muscles within the shoulder joint that you can't see, and other larger muscles, like the pecs and front delts, that you can see. If you have a hunchback posture then you more than likely have both tight internal rotators, AND poor upper back (shoulder blade) stability. This is one situation where you shouldn’t be benching full ROM. In fact, all you should really be doing is push ups, pec stretches, and flirting with the idea of some neutral grip DB bench presses, and probably on the floor. When you fix this problem, then you're good to bench full ROM.

One line I like to say is - The lifter is bad for the exercise, not the other way about.

I'm on a role with this thread. Everytime something like this comes up, i'm just going to vent it here.

KPj

Author:  ironmaiden708 [ Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

Deadlifting is bad for the back in 100% healthy individuals.

High reps burn more fat than row laps

Target heart rate

Lower-upper abs, inner-outer pec, lower-upper biceps

Machines are safer than free weights

Machines build muscle faster then free weights

Creatine is bad for you

All creatine does is bloat you up and after you stop you lose all your gains

Steroids were the cause of Arnolds heart surgery

DOMS means you did a good workout

Not being sore means your workout wasn't intense enough

Kids lifting weights sunts growth

Building muscle decreases flexibility

Low fat diets work and are healthy

Dr. Atkins died due to his own diet program

Steroid use is cheating

You don't need to work out to get results with steroids

http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4 ... light=myth

Doing 100s of crunches will get you a full blown 6 pack

Salt is bad for you

Don't eat eggs because of the cholesterol

Vitamin water & V8 are healthy

Food Pyramid

Author:  TimD [ Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Good post Pete, but one thing about the food pyramid. The new one they made with the stripes, is so non-comital to actual portions, it's immaterial.
Tim

Author:  ironmaiden708 [ Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Good post Pete, but one thing about the food pyramid. The new one they made with the stripes, is so non-comital to actual portions, it's immaterial.
Who's Pete? haha

'Zach', really my problem with the pyramid is the sources of calories that they recommend. For my height and weight 3 cups of milk, most of my calories would come from processed carbs, I should have 9 cups of starchy vegetables and only 3 cups of dark greens, healthy oils like olive oil would be classified as discretionary calories.

Author:  Ironman [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:26 am ]
Post subject: 

The food pyramid recommends what it does for 1 reason. $$$$$$$

The pyramid recommends lots of grain. The government subsidizes grain. Heavily processed grain based foods can be sold at enormous profit where as whole foods have a slim profit margin. Then you have people eating all that and getting very fat. So other companies can make money trying to get them thin. Of course they can't get thin on what they eat so you can keep selling this useless crap to them again and again.

The problem with obesity is not caused by overeating, or eating known junk food. It is caused by eating what they are told to eat. It is caused by greed.

So the food pyramid is $$Bull$$h1t$$.

Author:  TimD [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Ironman wrote:
The food pyramid recommends what it does for 1 reason. $$$$$$$ The pyramid recommends lots of grain.
End Quote

No doubt. That's been my problem with the old ones. I didn't see it pushing it that heavy this time out, but still heavier than it should be. Now I'm going to get on a soapbox on this. The major food mfr's in Battle Creek and elsewhere keep the markets flooded with processed grains, most of which aren't even whole grain anyway. There are totally misleading and idiotic ads on , especially in the morning hours with kids watching their cartoons on Saturdays, for these sugar-filled breakfast cerels. Why not just go out and buy them doughnuts?, because that's the sugar equivalency that they're getting. That one commercial about frosted wshredded wheat biscuits really boils me. Without the sugar, they might be alright every now and then, but pusing it like that, might as well put your kid in a box right now.
Tim

Author:  stuward [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 

Ironman wrote:
Heavily processed grain based foods can be sold at enormous profit where as whole foods have a slim profit margin.


Shelf life is a huge issue. The heavily processed foods last forever on a shelf where real food spoils in short order. That's why they can make so much money on the processed foods. Of course they have to remove everything of value from the food in order to make it shelf stable. Omega 3 is the most abundant fat in nature. It's what our body is designed to eat yet it's completely missing in processed foods. It's been systematically removed in order to increase shelf life.

Author:  Matt Z [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

A lot of people seem to think they're doing a parallel squat if their knees are bent 90-degrees. If your hips are higher than your knees, you're not parallel.

Author:  TheHeb [ Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, steroid use isn't cheating, unless you're involved with some kind of league or federation that prohibits its use.

Speaking of steroids,

MYTH: 'Roid rage is a fact.

Truth: Medical evidence suggesting the existence of 'roid rage is spotty at best. It certainly can't be characterized as a "known side-effect."

Of course this whole post simply justifies my putting a link to a Ben Affleck after-school special about steroid use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvlIwuQBO8

Yeah so uh, back to my original point, that's probably not gonna happen to you if you take steroids.

Author:  ironmaiden708 [ Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:47 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
MYTH: 'Roid rage is a fact.


It's called the placebo effect.

Author:  Matt Z [ Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:42 am ]
Post subject: 

Perhaps violent people are more likely to try steroids.

Also, when a big, powerfully-built guy loses his temper, people get scared. Meanwhile, a 90-pound weakling behaving the same way would probably get a very different reaction.

Author:  Ironman [ Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I work out at a Gold's gym with some huge beasts. This gym is legendary for people using steroids. They are all perfectly nice. If anything bodybuilding might attract guys who are, skinny, short, or have body dysmorphia.

Steroids make you a little more aggressive and confident. So if someone is an a$$hole, they will not be hiding it as much. If you are getting on someones nerves, they are more likely to express that to you, but they are not going to kick your ass unless you were doing something that would have provoked that reaction anyway. So that is where the myth comes from.

Author:  ironmaiden708 [ Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Perhaps violent people are more likely to try steroids.

Also, when a big, powerfully-built guy loses his temper, people get scared. Meanwhile, a 90-pound weakling behaving the same way would probably get a very different reaction.
Or it could simply be a placebo effect. 30-40% of people who receive placebos for diseases end up curing faster than those who didn't take it so why doesn't that same thing happen with steroid users.

Author:  Ironman [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:37 am ]
Post subject: 

That reminds me how powerful the placebo effect is. You can harness that by just putting your mind to something and thinking about it.

years ago I heard you can get rid of warts by visualizing them going away. I tried it and sure enough it worked. I was quite surprised.

Author:  mattk25 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:39 am ]
Post subject: 

I used duct tape for warts!

Page 2 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/