Good Shoulder Exercize?

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fair enough.
But when do the lats come into play?

Quoted message said:

Flexing the lats is, for other kinds of presses like the old-fashioned
bent and side presses, a necessity.

You mean *conciously* flexing the lats, or do you mean that the lats
contract as a reflex because the movent dictate such a reflex?

Quoted message said:

In the straight-up press, it still helps stabilize the shoulder.

My experience with front presses, and i am quite experienced with the
movement, is that the pectoral and trapezius muscle help. I never witnessed
lat involvement.

Quoted message said:

The more stable the shoulder, the better (stronger, safer) the pressing
will be.

Yeah. But i have a very hard time with the fact that the lats can actually
do this.

However, i admit there is such a thing as having synergystic muscles when
they do not appear to be in the first place.

Quoted message said:

Using the lats is also good (and for the same, not obvious reasons) in the
bench press, although I will be the first to admit that I don't bench
press regularly.

Niether do i, i prefer low inclines and dips.
I suspect that lat, or general back, development can help the bench, but NOT
because they contract.
This is usually seen in bodybuilders that are, let us say, 250+pounds
(assuming you are 6 feet)

Have you ever tried working the hams and calves before you squat/leg-press?
I did. Several sets in the 12-15 range (standing calf raises/lying leg
curls) actually helped me to actually use more weight in the leg press.

But i cannot imagine the lats can do yhe same for the shoulders.

----
Pete

Steve Freides said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

"mikem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Can anyone rec. me a good overall shoulder exercize for a
> beginner-intermediate type? NOT any kind of dip, however, because
> that
> tends to give me a sore elbow.
>
> Right now I only do shoulder press in my (very basic) routine and
> I'd
> like to add a second shoulder exercize. Any help would be graetly
> appreciated!

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

I recommend these be done standing and one arm at a time instead.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Sometimes this will hinder a problematic shoulder.

My experience, and that of many others, is that shoulders that no longer
work well thanks to lots of bench pressing get better when doing Arnold
type presses. Of course, each problem is different, but what I've seen
first-hand and what I've heard suggests that, more often than not,
overhead presses help, and not hinder, problematics shoulders that
became problematic doing the most common exercise in the gym, the bench
press.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

That makes sense. IME bench press and even more so bench press machines
cause more problems to the shoulder. When my shoulder was still
painfull, the Arnold press caused more pain than when I started with my
upper arms parralel to the floor. Maybe it was just me.

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fair enough.
But when do the lats come into play?

Quoted message said:

Flexing the lats is, for other kinds of presses like the
old-fashioned bent and side presses, a necessity.

You mean *conciously* flexing the lats, or do you mean that the lats
contract as a reflex because the movent dictate such a reflex?

Quoted message said:

In the straight-up press, it still helps stabilize the shoulder.

My experience with front presses, and i am quite experienced with the
movement, is that the pectoral and trapezius muscle help. I never
witnessed lat involvement.

Quoted message said:

The more stable the shoulder, the better (stronger, safer) the
pressing will be.

Yeah. But i have a very hard time with the fact that the lats can
actually do this.

However, i admit there is such a thing as having synergystic muscles
when they do not appear to be in the first place.

Do a web search on expressions like "lats bench press" and you'll find
plenty to read.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Using the lats is also good (and for the same, not obvious reasons)
in the bench press, although I will be the first to admit that I
don't bench press regularly.

Niether do i, i prefer low inclines and dips.
I suspect that lat, or general back, development can help the bench,
but NOT because they contract.
This is usually seen in bodybuilders that are, let us say, 250+pounds
(assuming you are 6 feet)

Have you ever tried working the hams and calves before you
squat/leg-press?
I did. Several sets in the 12-15 range (standing calf raises/lying leg
curls) actually helped me to actually use more weight in the leg
press.

Pretty common thing to see DL'ers flex/stretch their hamstrings right
before they pull.

Quoted message said:

But i cannot imagine the lats can do yhe same for the shoulders.

This is a different thing.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Quoted message said:

----
Pete

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Do a web search on expressions like "lats bench press" and you'll find
plenty to read.

Yeah, right...

Quoted message said:

Pretty common thing to see DL'ers flex/stretch their hamstrings right
before they pull.

Not the same thing.
The inreased volume of the calves/hams will cause hindrance on the negative
phase of a sqauat/leg-press.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But i cannot imagine the lats can do the same for the shoulders.

Quoted message said:

This is a different thing.

I know.
What i do not know is that contracting the lats will help an overhead press.

----
Pete

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides wrote:
> "mikem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Can anyone rec. me a good overall shoulder exercize for a
> > beginner-intermediate type? NOT any kind of dip, however,
> > because
> > that
> > tends to give me a sore elbow.
> >
> > Right now I only do shoulder press in my (very basic) routine
> > and
> > I'd
> > like to add a second shoulder exercize. Any help would be
> > graetly
> > appreciated!
>
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html
>
> I recommend these be done standing and one arm at a time instead.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com

Sometimes this will hinder a problematic shoulder.

My experience, and that of many others, is that shoulders that no
longer
work well thanks to lots of bench pressing get better when doing
Arnold
type presses. Of course, each problem is different, but what I've
seen
first-hand and what I've heard suggests that, more often than not,
overhead presses help, and not hinder, problematics shoulders that
became problematic doing the most common exercise in the gym, the
bench
press.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

That makes sense. IME bench press and even more so bench press
machines
cause more problems to the shoulder. When my shoulder was still
painfull, the Arnold press caused more pain than when I started with
my
upper arms parralel to the floor. Maybe it was just me.

Well, there's pain and there's pain. If you're unaccustomed to a full
range of motion, regaining it can be tricky business, and trying to do
too much too soon can lead to injury rather than recovery of full ROM.
Nothing to do but try things out cautiously and decide if it's good or
bad pain. With my back, I've had no choice but to learn a lot about the
difference and in many ways it's been a blessing.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Pete <[email hidden]> escribioed:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I recommend these be done standing and one arm at a time instead.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What difference is an "Arnold Press" going to make when front presses are
allready part of the traning regimen?

Quoted message said:

This is a better one exercise.

Obvious.
But in what way exactly?

I dropped the AP in favor of the usual dumbbell press (the one without
rotation) after this exchange -

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/7fa778a66f67d127

Not that I ever had shoulder problems, but, given that the usual press
is just as effective, I decided that I'm better safe than sorry.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete <[email hidden]> escribioed:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Freides" <[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

>> I recommend these be done standing and one arm at a time instead.

Quoted message said:

> What difference is an "Arnold Press" going to make when front presses
> are
> allready part of the traning regimen?

Quoted message said:

This is a better one exercise.

Obvious.
But in what way exactly?

I dropped the AP in favor of the usual dumbbell press (the one without
rotation) after this exchange -

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/7fa778a66f67d127

Not that I ever had shoulder problems, but, given that the usual press
is just as effective, I decided that I'm better safe than sorry.

DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net link to
the press you're doing.

Thanks.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

DZ wrote

Quoted message said:

I dropped the AP in favor of the usual dumbbell press (the one without
rotation) after this exchange -

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/7fa778a66f67d127

Not that I ever had shoulder problems, but, given that the usual press
is just as effective, I decided that I'm better safe than sorry.

DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net link to
the press you're doing.

Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html

but not this one -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
higher risk.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

DZ wrote

Quoted message said:

I dropped the AP in favor of the usual dumbbell press (the one
without
rotation) after this exchange -

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/7fa778a66f67d127

Not that I ever had shoulder problems, but, given that the usual
press
is just as effective, I decided that I'm better safe than sorry.

DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net
link to
the press you're doing.

Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html

but not this one -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
higher risk.

If full ROM and strength throughout a full ROM is your goal - it is
mine - then what is the higher risk of the AP? I have been, e.g.,
working narrow grip barbell overhead squats, which require a lot more
internal rotation than the AP, and it's helped my shoulders be much less
tight, not to mention my entire spine work better. Perhaps all this
fear of internal rotation comes from a history of problems with people
who bench press and/or do dips and incur impingement injuries? IMHO,
the AP is a much better shoulder exercise than the bp or dips. Most of
us kettlebell junkies do the AP as our main shoulder exercise and
everyone reports improvements, especially those who've been hurt
benching and dipping in the past.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

DZ said:

Steve Freides said:

DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net
link to
the press you're doing.

Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html

but not this one -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
higher risk.

If full ROM and strength throughout a full ROM is your goal - it is
mine - then what is the higher risk of the AP?

I don't understand this sentence :-) How having certain goals could
alleviate the risks? Perhaps the risks are largely alleged and
theoretical. Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
community that routinely practice something resembling AP without any
problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

DZ

Quoted message said:

I have been, e.g., working narrow grip barbell overhead squats,
which require a lot more internal rotation than the AP, and it's
helped my shoulders be much less tight, not to mention my entire
spine work better. Perhaps all this fear of internal rotation comes
from a history of problems with people who bench press and/or do
dips and incur impingement injuries? IMHO, the AP is a much better
shoulder exercise than the bp or dips. Most of us kettlebell junkies
do the AP as our main shoulder exercise and everyone reports
improvements, especially those who've been hurt benching and dipping
in the past.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

DZ said:

Steve Freides <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net
> link to
> the press you're doing.

Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html

but not this one -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
higher risk.

If full ROM and strength throughout a full ROM is your goal - it is
mine - then what is the higher risk of the AP?

I don't understand this sentence :-) How having certain goals could
alleviate the risks? Perhaps the risks are largely alleged and
theoretical. Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
community that routinely practice something resembling AP without any
problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

Fair enough overall. As to my sentence, my "theory" is that the need to
focus on external rotation and avoid internal rotation has to do with
the kinds of exercises many people practice. For that reason, the AP
may not be the best choice as an addition to a bench- and dip-focused
program - I simply don't know (and don't much care, either). I think
it's good as a core shoulder exercise all by itself, and await evidence
to the contrary, epidemiological, anecdotal, or otherwise. What I have
heard to date suggest, well, what I suggested above. 🙂 As I go over my
own exercise selection, the other exercises I that involve my shoulders,
e.g, the windmill, kettlebell snatches, also feature much the same kind
of rotation, and in those, the more I am able to internally rotate my
shoulders in the overhead lockout position, the better my shoulders
feel.

I don't know if this is relevant or not here, but when I internally
rotate my shoulder and upper arm as they hang at my side, I feel as
though I'm bringing them closer to my torso towards the front, but
overhead, the exact opposite is true - "internal" rotation feels like
turning away from my body and rotating the other way would be required
to bring the upper arm closer to the head towards the front.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Quoted message said:

DZ

Quoted message said:

I have been, e.g., working narrow grip barbell overhead squats,
which require a lot more internal rotation than the AP, and it's
helped my shoulders be much less tight, not to mention my entire
spine work better. Perhaps all this fear of internal rotation comes
from a history of problems with people who bench press and/or do
dips and incur impingement injuries? IMHO, the AP is a much better
shoulder exercise than the bp or dips. Most of us kettlebell junkies
do the AP as our main shoulder exercise and everyone reports
improvements, especially those who've been hurt benching and dipping
in the past.

DZ said:

Steve Freides said:

DZ said:

Steve Freides <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net
> link to
> the press you're doing.

Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html

but not this one -
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html

The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
higher risk.

If full ROM and strength throughout a full ROM is your goal - it is
mine - then what is the higher risk of the AP?

I don't understand this sentence :-) How having certain goals could
alleviate the risks? Perhaps the risks are largely alleged and
theoretical. Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
community that routinely practice something resembling AP without any
problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

OK. I'll respond because you asked, not because it will convince
Steve. Given the basis of his convictions, nothing will.

Let's take a pictoral look at one the classic forms of rotator cuff
impingement: impingement of the suprspinatus muscle within the
subacromial space, i.e., the gap between the acromion and the humerus.
Here is an image of that area:

http://www.healthopedia.com/bursitis/bursitis.html

That image shows inflammation of the subacromial bursa, but
eventually, the impingement will affect supraspinatus tendon, too.
See how that tendon must slide back and forth in that little space
between two bones?

But wait, there's more! That space is not constant; it increases and
decreases, depending on the position of the upper arm. And the
position of the upper arm has at least two aspects: [1] rotation and
[2] adduction/abduction. So what happens with that limited space as
the upper arms are raised (abducted) and rotated medially (internal
rotation) during the process of the Arnold Press?

Well, I could do the classic Lyle-style educated speculation, but
there's no reason to do that when there have been actual radiological
studies of that movement:

Graichen H, Bonel H, Stammberger T, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein
F. Subacromial space width changes during abduction and rotation--a
3-D MR imaging study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1999;21(1):59-64.
http://tinyurl.com/sxdzv

That study found:

"During abduction (from 60° to 120° of abduction), the minimal
acromio-humeral distance was found to decrease significantly. This
reduction is at least partly caused by the greater tuberosity [that
big round portion at the top end of the humerus], which approximates
to the acromion between 60° and 120° of abduction. However, this does
not necessarily indicate that the supraspinatus tendon is mechanically
irritated in these positions." p.

OK. That means that the space gets smaller as you raise your arms,
but the supraspinatus tendon doesn't necessarily get squeezed because
that also depends on rotation. And the degree of internal rotation is
the difference between a standard dumbbell military press and the
Arnold Press, with the latter having significantly more internal
rotation.

What happens when you add internal rotation? Well, at 90° abduction,
"[d]uring internal rotation the minimal distance passed through the
supraspinatus tendon in all cases and reached the acromion at its
anterior inferior border. *** In external rotation, on the other hand,
the vector was located at the central part of the acromion and passed
through the supraspinatus tendon in only 5 of the 12 volunteers."

So, at 90° abduction with internal rotation, everybody gets their
supraspinatus tendon squeezed in the subacromial space, while less
than half them get squeezed with external rotation. And if you look
at the Arnold Press movement, you get 90° abduction with internal
rotation about 1/2 - 2/3 of the way through the movement. So,
basically, the conclusion was:

"At 90° with internal rotation, however, the minimal acromio-humeral
distance vector penetrates the supraspinatus tendon at its most
vulnerable part and reaches the acromion at its anterior inferior
border." That means max squeezage, dude. Right in the middle of your
Arnold Press.

HTH

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

Steve Freides said:

DZ wrote:
> Steve Freides <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> DZ, I will look at that thread later, but please post an exrx.net
>> link to
>> the press you're doing.
>
> Sure you know what the shoulder press is. Anyway, I'm doing these -
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBShoulderPress.html
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/BBMilitaryPress.html
>
> but not this one -
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/DeltoidAnterior/DBArnoldPress.html
>
> The AP is sufficiently close to them so why bother if there'd be a
> higher risk.

If full ROM and strength throughout a full ROM is your goal - it is
mine - then what is the higher risk of the AP?

I don't understand this sentence :-) How having certain goals could
alleviate the risks? Perhaps the risks are largely alleged and
theoretical. Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
community that routinely practice something resembling AP without any
problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

OK. I'll respond because you asked, not because it will convince
Steve. Given the basis of his convictions, nothing will.

Let's take a pictoral look at one the classic forms of rotator cuff
impingement: impingement of the suprspinatus muscle within the
subacromial space, i.e., the gap between the acromion and the humerus.
Here is an image of that area:

http://www.healthopedia.com/bursitis/bursitis.html

That image shows inflammation of the subacromial bursa, but
eventually, the impingement will affect supraspinatus tendon, too.
See how that tendon must slide back and forth in that little space
between two bones?

But wait, there's more! That space is not constant; it increases and
decreases, depending on the position of the upper arm. And the
position of the upper arm has at least two aspects: [1] rotation and
[2] adduction/abduction. So what happens with that limited space as
the upper arms are raised (abducted) and rotated medially (internal
rotation) during the process of the Arnold Press?

Well, I could do the classic Lyle-style educated speculation, but
there's no reason to do that when there have been actual radiological
studies of that movement:

Graichen H, Bonel H, Stammberger T, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein
F. Subacromial space width changes during abduction and rotation--a
3-D MR imaging study. Surg Radiol Anat. 1999;21(1):59-64.
http://tinyurl.com/sxdzv

That study found:

"During abduction (from 60° to 120° of abduction), the minimal
acromio-humeral distance was found to decrease significantly. This
reduction is at least partly caused by the greater tuberosity [that
big round portion at the top end of the humerus], which approximates
to the acromion between 60° and 120° of abduction. However, this does
not necessarily indicate that the supraspinatus tendon is mechanically
irritated in these positions." p.

OK. That means that the space gets smaller as you raise your arms,
but the supraspinatus tendon doesn't necessarily get squeezed because
that also depends on rotation. And the degree of internal rotation is
the difference between a standard dumbbell military press and the
Arnold Press, with the latter having significantly more internal
rotation.

What happens when you add internal rotation? Well, at 90° abduction,
"[d]uring internal rotation the minimal distance passed through the
supraspinatus tendon in all cases and reached the acromion at its
anterior inferior border. *** In external rotation, on the other hand,
the vector was located at the central part of the acromion and passed
through the supraspinatus tendon in only 5 of the 12 volunteers."

So, at 90° abduction with internal rotation, everybody gets their
supraspinatus tendon squeezed in the subacromial space, while less
than half them get squeezed with external rotation. And if you look
at the Arnold Press movement, you get 90° abduction with internal
rotation about 1/2 - 2/3 of the way through the movement. So,
basically, the conclusion was:

"At 90° with internal rotation, however, the minimal acromio-humeral
distance vector penetrates the supraspinatus tendon at its most
vulnerable part and reaches the acromion at its anterior inferior
border." That means max squeezage, dude. Right in the middle of your
Arnold Press.

It's not difficult to look up discussions on the Internet that list all
the reasons one should never deadlift - too much shearing force on the
spine, etc. To me, what you're suggesting is, so far, no different.
What does your whole citation translate into in the real world of people
who do Arnold presses and similar? If internal rotation is so bad, the
swim teams at the Olympics would be empty - big internal rotation
component to front crawl, more so butterfly. Sure, some swimmers do get
impingement injuries, but all kinds of people get all kinds of injuries.
So far, this is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - please show a relationship
between all the anatomy charts and actual injuries. Or maybe I should
stop deadlifting? If you asked me which is riskier, I'd characterize
the deadlift as riskier than the Arnold press.

What you have given us so far is not proof, it's just an abstract
discussion of the way bones move according to someone who has very
likely not looked at those motions while under the load of a heavy
weight in the hands of an experienced lifter. It's rather like saying
that, because of the way the spine bends when picking up a piece of
paper from the floor, one shouldn't deadlift.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

JMW said:

DZ said:

Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
community that routinely practice something resembling AP without any
problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

OK. I'll respond because you asked, not because it will convince
Steve. Given the basis of his convictions, nothing will.

[snip: extended explanation deleted]

It's not difficult to look up discussions on the Internet that list all
the reasons one should never deadlift - too much shearing force on the
spine, etc. To me, what you're suggesting is, so far, no different.
What does your whole citation translate into in the real world of people
who do Arnold presses and similar? If internal rotation is so bad, the
swim teams at the Olympics would be empty - big internal rotation
component to front crawl, more so butterfly. Sure, some swimmers do get
impingement injuries, but all kinds of people get all kinds of injuries.
So far, this is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - please show a relationship
between all the anatomy charts and actual injuries. Or maybe I should
stop deadlifting? If you asked me which is riskier, I'd characterize
the deadlift as riskier than the Arnold press.

What you have given us so far is not proof, it's just an abstract
discussion of the way bones move according to someone who has very
likely not looked at those motions while under the load of a heavy
weight in the hands of an experienced lifter. It's rather like saying
that, because of the way the spine bends when picking up a piece of
paper from the floor, one shouldn't deadlift.

Wow, Steve! I knew you were one of Pavel's faithful, and that you were
deeply indoctrinated into the Tao of DragonDoor, but I really didn't
expect the kind of specious argument you just made.

Steve, little children raise their hands in class every day, abducting
and internally rotating their little arms. They seem not to experience
any damage as a result of the same. Amazing, huh? But, then again,
they aren't raising their little hands against much force, are they?

Swimmers doing a front crawl or butterfly stroke put their arms through
the same general movement, but much faster. Still, their arms are out
of the water during that part of the movement, and they are not
extending those arms against any force but the air. Even then, as you
admit, some get rotator cuff impingements.

Now, let's look at baseball pitchers. The extension of their arms is
much, much faster than with swimmers, and the added weight of the
baseball in the hand, at that high speed, adds much more force to the
muscular contraction. And I'm sure you know that rotator cuff
impingements are so prevalent in baseball pitchers that many good ones
are already exploring surgery by the time they graduate high school.

So tell me, Steve, do you think that a swimmer shooting his arm forward
for the next butterfly stroke is doing that movement against anywhere
near as much force as the person who conducts the same movement with a
heavy dumbbell in his hand? Isn't that about as a poor a comparison as
your final comparison between picking up a piece of paper and
performing a heavy deadlift?

Frankly, Steve, I don't give a damn what all the DragonDoor boyz like
to do. You don't *need* to perform the active internal rotation of the
Arnold Press to get the full benefit of performing overhead dumbbell
presses, just like you don't *need* to pull the bar down behind your
neck for lat pulldowns, nor do you *need* to jerk the bar up to your
chin in the upright row, in order to get the full benefit of those
exercises. If you don't *need* to do it, then why take the extra risk?

Because all your friends are doing it? Didn't your mom ever ask you
the question, "If all your friends decided to jump of a cliff ..."?

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

JMW said:

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>Your point seems to be that there is a large kettlebell
>community that routinely practice something resembling AP without
>any
>problems. So there are millions of people who smoke and all the
>evidence there is epidemiological only. Maybe JMW and others could
>write some more on the rotation problem in AP to help us out...

OK. I'll respond because you asked, not because it will convince
Steve. Given the basis of his convictions, nothing will.

[snip: extended explanation deleted]

It's not difficult to look up discussions on the Internet that list
all
the reasons one should never deadlift - too much shearing force on
the
spine, etc. To me, what you're suggesting is, so far, no different.
What does your whole citation translate into in the real world of
people
who do Arnold presses and similar? If internal rotation is so bad,
the
swim teams at the Olympics would be empty - big internal rotation
component to front crawl, more so butterfly. Sure, some swimmers do
get
impingement injuries, but all kinds of people get all kinds of
injuries.
So far, this is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - please show a
relationship
between all the anatomy charts and actual injuries. Or maybe I
should
stop deadlifting? If you asked me which is riskier, I'd characterize
the deadlift as riskier than the Arnold press.

What you have given us so far is not proof, it's just an abstract
discussion of the way bones move according to someone who has very
likely not looked at those motions while under the load of a heavy
weight in the hands of an experienced lifter. It's rather like
saying
that, because of the way the spine bends when picking up a piece of
paper from the floor, one shouldn't deadlift.

Wow, Steve! I knew you were one of Pavel's faithful, and that you
were
deeply indoctrinated into the Tao of DragonDoor, but I really didn't
expect the kind of specious argument you just made.

Steve, little children raise their hands in class every day, abducting
and internally rotating their little arms. They seem not to
experience
any damage as a result of the same. Amazing, huh? But, then again,
they aren't raising their little hands against much force, are they?

Swimmers doing a front crawl or butterfly stroke put their arms
through
the same general movement, but much faster. Still, their arms are out
of the water during that part of the movement, and they are not
extending those arms against any force but the air. Even then, as you
admit, some get rotator cuff impingements.

Now, let's look at baseball pitchers. The extension of their arms is
much, much faster than with swimmers, and the added weight of the
baseball in the hand, at that high speed, adds much more force to the
muscular contraction. And I'm sure you know that rotator cuff
impingements are so prevalent in baseball pitchers that many good ones
are already exploring surgery by the time they graduate high school.

Yes, and a heavy lift is the opposite of a baseball ptich - slow and, we
hope, controlled.

Quoted message said:

So tell me, Steve, do you think that a swimmer shooting his arm
forward
for the next butterfly stroke is doing that movement against anywhere
near as much force as the person who conducts the same movement with a
heavy dumbbell in his hand? Isn't that about as a poor a comparison
as
your final comparison between picking up a piece of paper and
performing a heavy deadlift?

Yes, it is a poor comparison, and that was my point.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, Steve, I don't give a damn what all the DragonDoor boyz like
to do. You don't *need* to perform the active internal rotation of
the
Arnold Press to get the full benefit of performing overhead dumbbell
presses, just like you don't *need* to pull the bar down behind your
neck for lat pulldowns, nor do you *need* to jerk the bar up to your
chin in the upright row, in order to get the full benefit of those
exercises. If you don't *need* to do it, then why take the extra
risk?

This doesn't have to do with DragonDoor or not. A pulldown behind the
neck is a fine exercise for those with the requisite flexibility, and
offers some benefits, admitedly small, when compared to the more
traditional version of the exercise. The upright row argument is
completely different.

Last but not least, no one _needs_ to exercise - stay in bed all day.
You're making a black and white issue out of what is a risk versus
reward continuum _and_ you have yet to demonstrate anything that shows
the exercise you're complaining is the cause, proximate, anecdotal,
epidemiological, or otherwise, of the injuries of which you're in fear.

I would be glad to continue the conversation if you'd explain how your
argument and the arguments against deadlifting are any different. Short
of that, we will have to agree to disagree. I will be glad to explain
how I feel the AP, as I suggest doing it, is superior to the regular
dumbbell press.

Quoted message said:

Because all your friends are doing it? Didn't your mom ever ask you
the question, "If all your friends decided to jump of a cliff ..."?

I've got some pretty smart friends whose advice has stood me in very
good stead, thank you. If you have an actual argument to make, please
go ahead. Show us _any_ evidence that the Arnold press is in any way
riskier than a normal dumbbell press, any at all, and not studies which
have nothing to do with weightlifting or stories of children. Show me
even one person who switched from bench and dips to the AP and did not
find their shoulders felt better, or show me anyone who made that switch
whose shoulders now feel worse - one person will do to get the ball
rolling.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

I've got some pretty smart friends whose advice has stood me in very
good stead, thank you. If you have an actual argument to make, please
go ahead. Show us _any_ evidence that the Arnold press is in any way
riskier than a normal dumbbell press, any at all, and not studies which
have nothing to do with weightlifting or stories of children. Show me
even one person who switched from bench and dips to the AP and did not
find their shoulders felt better, or show me anyone who made that switch
whose shoulders now feel worse - one person will do to get the ball
rolling.

I see. It doesn't matter that I explain the mechanism, supported by
scientific evidence. You want some anecdotes. You seem to think that
a rotator cuff injury is like a gunshot wound: one second you're OK,
and the next second you're in bad shape. Sorry, but it doesn't work
like that. The damage is gradual and progressive. As to the
etiology, in some cases it's clear. In baseball pitchers, it's the
same movement, over and over. But in weight training? To many lifts
contribute in too many different ways. But by examining the
movements, strong arguments can be made that some are worse than
others.

Never mind. I should know better than trying to convince the
faithful.

Steve Freides said:

Last but not least, no one _needs_ to exercise - stay in bed all
day.

But that's not like that at all. Given the two exercises (the shoulder
press and the AP) are quite similar in the muscular involvement, there
is no strong reason to prefer the AP in the first place. So, once
again, why bother with the AP?

Quoted message said:

You're making a black and white issue out of what is a risk versus
reward continuum

These are two similar exercises, so where's my extra reward in that
continuum to compensate the risk?

Your argument for the AP is based on a somewhat shamanic observation
that "full ROM exercises promote joint flexibility and health" :-) Am
I mistaken?

And then there are bio-mechanical arguments, against the AP. Your
response is not trying to find the flaws in them. Instead, it seems to
be - "this might be so, but since there is no data to support the
theory, we should disregard the theory completely". But we do make
decisions based just on reasoning all the time, that's why we've got
the brain evolved this big.

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

Last but not least, no one _needs_ to exercise - stay in bed all
day.

But that's not like that at all. Given the two exercises (the shoulder
press and the AP) are quite similar in the muscular involvement, there
is no strong reason to prefer the AP in the first place. So, once
again, why bother with the AP?

Quoted message said:

You're making a black and white issue out of what is a risk versus
reward continuum

These are two similar exercises, so where's my extra reward in that
continuum to compensate the risk?

There are several. The biggest reason, especially for problem
shoulders, is that the rotation allows quite a bit of freedom in
execution: more at the bottom, or at the top, etc. The standard
dumbbell shoulder press works less, well, let's continue below.

Quoted message said:

Your argument for the AP is based on a somewhat shamanic observation
that "full ROM exercises promote joint flexibility and health" :-) Am
I mistaken?

No, you are correct, and I am correct and not "shamanic." I think there
ought to be a word "shamaniac as well, but that's another conversation.
🙂 On the subject of shoulders, if you want to them to work well, use
them fully; if you're trying to make them pretty, I haven't a clue and
couldn't care less.

Quoted message said:

And then there are bio-mechanical arguments, against the AP. Your
response is not trying to find the flaws in them. Instead, it seems to
be - "this might be so, but since there is no data to support the
theory, we should disregard the theory completely". But we do make
decisions based just on reasoning all the time, that's why we've got
the brain evolved this big.

I am still waiting for anything more than a theory. Just because
someone on Usenet theorizes it must be so, that does not make it so.
There was a program on one of the science channels last night that my
son was watching, and it included an artist, who had worked extensively
in the movies, drawing pictures of what he thought "alien" life forms
might look like. He gave his explanations for his drawings, which he
felt were quite non-human looking and therefore better, but my reaction
was, "So what?" It's all in his imagination, and there is simply no
evidence for or against his musings. I see no difference here. Post
hoc ergo propter hoc. That there are bio-mechanical arguments I don't
deny; that there are persuasive bio-mechanical arguments has yet to be
demonstrated.

There is plenty of data that disagrees with the theory. If you wander
over to the DragonDoor forum, you'll find countless lifters performing
this movement with a kettlebell regularly, and I have yet to hear a
single report of an impingement injury. That _is_ evidence, albeit it
anecdotal, that the theory is wrong. I ask you why you choose to
disregard such evidence - probably something to do with shamanism. 🙂

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides said:

There is plenty of data that disagrees with the theory. If you wander
over to the DragonDoor forum, you'll find countless lifters performing
this movement with a kettlebell regularly, and I have yet to hear a
single report of an impingement injury. That _is_ evidence, albeit it
anecdotal, that the theory is wrong. I ask you why you choose to
disregard such evidence - probably something to do with shamanism. 🙂

I don't think that your failure to hear such reports constitute
evidence. In 5 min I found many examples of people talking about
shoulder problems on that site. Here is one -
http://forum.dragondoor.com/training/message/342095%5C

Some would say that problems manifested after say bench press, but
from just browsing the forum neither me nor you would know whether
they are in reality caused by slow damage accumulated because of the
AP-like kettlebell presses.

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

Steve Freides said:

I've got some pretty smart friends whose advice has stood me in very
good stead, thank you. If you have an actual argument to make, please
go ahead. Show us _any_ evidence that the Arnold press is in any way
riskier than a normal dumbbell press, any at all, and not studies which
have nothing to do with weightlifting or stories of children. Show me
even one person who switched from bench and dips to the AP and did not
find their shoulders felt better, or show me anyone who made that switch
whose shoulders now feel worse - one person will do to get the ball
rolling.

I see. It doesn't matter that I explain the mechanism, supported by
scientific evidence. You want some anecdotes. You seem to think that
a rotator cuff injury is like a gunshot wound: one second you're OK,
and the next second you're in bad shape. Sorry, but it doesn't work
like that. The damage is gradual and progressive. As to the
etiology, in some cases it's clear. In baseball pitchers, it's the
same movement, over and over. But in weight training? To many lifts
contribute in too many different ways. But by examining the
movements, strong arguments can be made that some are worse than
others.

Never mind. I should know better than trying to convince the
faithful.

What are the implications in terms of pull-ups - overhand versus
underhand versus neutral grip?

I've always 'felt' better with a neutral grip while hanging from the bar.

--
Keith