Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Both seated...
For people that have used both methods at different times...
Which did you prefer, what gave you better results?...
Has or does anybody do both durring their shoulder workout?...
Are you talking about standing DB presses? I don't do those. I prefer seated. I like doing low weight high rep hang cleans supersetted with seated shoulder press on the smith machine.
Also, seated is preferable for both just because it prevents you from cheating with your legs or core. The objective is to stimulate the muscle, not just move the weight. Unless you're doing competitive weightlifting instead of bodybuilding of course.
The only difference is that military is with a barbell, right? Well I prefer dumbells just because it helps with balanced development and really helps you identify those weak points.
Also, seated is preferable for both just because it prevents you from cheating with your legs or core. The objective is to stimulate the muscle, not just move the weight. Unless you're doing competitive weightlifting instead of bodybuilding of course.
Both seated...
For people that have used both methods at different times...
Which did you prefer, what gave you better results?...
Has or does anybody do both durring their shoulder workout?...
Seated military Press? Have never heard of it. Its called the military press because of the body position. It is standing exercise, not seated.
Seated military Press? Have never heard of it. Its called the military press because of the body position. It is standing exercise, not seated.
Most training catalogues would disagree and now include both seated and standing military presses. English is a "living" language and meanings of words do change over time and this is an example of one of those changes:
Seated Barbell Military Press Exercise Guide and Video
The Edge: Ben and Joe Weider's Guide ... - Ben Weider, Joe Weider, Daniel Gastelu - Google Books
Excerpt from Arnold's Modern Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding:
"Military Press:
Purpose of Exercise: To train the front and side deltoids. This is the granddaddy of shoulder exercises. When done from a seated position the movement will be stricter than when standing
Execution: (1) From a sitting or standing position, grasp a barbell with an overhand grip..."
Italics were added for emphasis but this is an example of how things change. I for one am not going to tell Arnold that a seated barbell press is NOT a seated military press. BTW this encyclopedia has been in print for about 30 years so it's not like it's a recent change to call seated presses seated military presses.
Exactly. Military press implies the standing version, not seated.
Just because people commonly say something or do something wrong does not make it right. Military press is a standing press that is based off of the standing position of men in the military. When done strictly feet should be together unlike it is traditionally used.
Is a military press a shoulder press? Yes. Is the shoulder press a military press? No! The military press is a specific variation of the shoulder press. Get it? Just because people are sloppy with their jargon does not make them correct.
Actually, one of the proven truths of language evolution is that if most people say something wrong often enough and long enough it eventually does make it right. If you try to read books in English that are even less than 100 years old you can find examples of words and expressions that have completely REVERSED in meaning.
In the case of the definition of MILITARY PRESS, this change in meaning is referred to as SEMANTIC BROADENING; in fact, the study of word meaning changes is referred to as Semantics, so we are actually participating in a semantic discussion on a bb'ing site which is quite remarkable. I already provided links to authoritative sources that show the accepted definition of the MP but here is a link to more info on how word meanings change (including some great examples) in case anyone is interested:
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/lin...07 Historical/07_orgady_semanticchange_ms.pdf
Actually, one of the proven truths of language evolution is that if most people say something wrong often enough and long enough it eventually does make it right. If you try to read books in English that are even less than 100 years old you can find examples of words and expressions that have completely REVERSED in meaning.
In the case of the definition of MILITARY PRESS, this change in meaning is referred to as SEMANTIC BROADENING; in fact, the study of word meaning changes is referred to as Semantics, so we are actually participating in a semantic discussion on a bb'ing site which is quite remarkable. I already provided links to authoritative sources that show the accepted definition of the MP but here is a link to more info on how word meanings change (including some great examples) in case anyone is interested:
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/lin...07 Historical/07_orgady_semanticchange_ms.pdf
There is no doubt that some use the term for both the seated and standing versions. I think it is an incorrect usage of the term military press, but I concede their are others who will use the term military press for the seated version.
I also would disagree that this is an example of semantic broadening. Just because a term is used incorrectly enough times does not imply that the definition has in fact broadened. Wrong is still wrong.
In any case, the main point is that the Military press is superior to the seated version whether with dumbbells or with a barbell. If you are seated you remove the factor of balance from the lift. The best overall exercise for the shoulders is the Military press.
Didn't read your post sorry but we can both turn up links. The Internet is full of shit.
T NATION | The Overhead Press: Bodybuilding's Forgotten Muscle Builder
The only reason I responded is because you're telling people they're wrong when they're not.
If you're honest, you knew exactly what we're talking about when we say seated military press. For purposes of discussion, that's all that's needed.
I was telling them they are wrong because they are wrong. Just like you are when you defend their stance.
It's not a big deal to me. I don't care if you don't know training jargon, but when you are corrected don't attempt to defend your poor use. Accept it and move on.
I'll put this in simple terms since you don't like to read (even your "supporting" link contradicts your description if you bothered to read it).
Putting aside all scholarly debate which you have demonstrated zero abilty to perform in good faith I'll put this in Mongo terms you can understand:
Pebble's grasp on proper training terms versus Arnold Schwarzenneger's grasp on the same...
Arnold wins, big surprise there!
There is no point debating with you though you already demonstrated that you like to go off half-cocked: "Didn't read your post..." spoken like a true functionally illiterate jackass.
I'll move on when you call up Arnold and ask him to retract the exercise in question from his training manual.
Please do. It may have helped if it was he who wrote the book. And Just because someone has trained does not mean they know the name of the exercises they do. Your logic is flawed.
Stop presenting strawman arguments.
Stop using terms you obviously don't understand.
Strawman arguments require at least two rhetorical positions and occur when the opponent attacks the weaker of the two positions and ignores the stronger position.
Your word is the only verifiable source that you are providing that supports your argument (effectively calling yourself a strawman) so this CANNOT be a strawman argument (only one position). This is your own fault because you have failed to provide anything to support your position (because reading obviously bores you).
So your position about semantics ... What about all the derailing you tried to achieve about the English language?
Words are only symbols for ideas and concepts. They are not truths in and of themselves.
The internet actually accelerates semantic shifts though this has actually shifted due to publications and due to being accepted by most respected bodybuilders (every single one that I know of) and training plan publishers.
You say "wrong is still wrong" but if you do an internet search you will be hard pressed to find any authoritative source (wikipedia and related sites are not peer reviewed and as such are not accepted for scholarly discussion) that agrees with your position. If you had read the book about semantic shifts before posting you would know that once the population accepts a semantic shift (also referred to as an innovation) it is no longer wrong.
If you ever have to write a thesis and support it, you will find that professors will not accept even peer reviewed articles that are over ten years old because meanings and research methods change so rapidly, so this should not be surprising or upsetting.
Lastly, Arnold disagrees about the standing military press being superior. The seated position, according to him (and my experience concurs), ensures stricter motion and more "focus" on the delts versus the stress on the lower back that the standing version can bring about. I do them both though (sometimes burning out with standing presses because they enable me to cheat for a few reps) and I like Arnold presses as well for stimulation to all three heads.