Thread: Military press vs. dumbell press...

Personally I haven't been able to use a bar for either benching or Military/shoulder press work for about 5 years. Some kind of injury that hasn't shown up on an MRI which is quite frustrating. The so what of that is I rely solely on dumbbells with no problems or aggravation of the injury. That would suggest to me that however the weight of a bar is distributed across your shoulders/clavicle, while allowing you to lift more than with dumbbells, is more likely to cause injury in the long run.

My two cents based on personal experience, also I can not recommend Arnold presses periodically.

Happy training!

Both, good to swap them around. Can't beat military for all round shoulder development.

Can use your legs to jolt it up for negatives on the last few reps

Military press works mighty fine for me. Never really felt much with dumbell presses in the shoulder, mostly in the triceps.

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.

Both will work great. I stick to standing bb military press for my main press.

Originally Posted by ExLe

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?...

Originally Posted by SloppyJ

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.

No... Both seated

I would say bb military press is the best for overall mass while the dumbbell "Arnold" press is good to toss in every once in awhile for overall shoulder burnout. Nothing hits my rear delts better because I hold them so far out in front of me at the start of the movement (my biceps and forearms don't allow me to get my hands anywhere close to my shoulders).

Arnold presses are humbling though...expect to work with about half the weight that you normally do military press with.

Big fan of the military press.

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.

Originally Posted by squigader

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.

This is true; however, every now and then it's good to finish up with some standing reps so you can "cheat" on the last 3-4 reps and focus on the negative movements.

Originally Posted by squigader

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.

Wrong. Military press is a superior exercise. Best way to build your shoulders. Period.

Originally Posted by ExLe

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.

Originally Posted by pebble

Seated military Press? Have never heard of it. Its called the military press because of the body position. It is standing exercise, not seated.

Exactly. Military press implies the standing version, not seated.

Both are good. But dont always just do them switch up to different workouts to work various parts of your muscles

Originally Posted by pebble

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.

Originally Posted by banker23

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MDR

Exactly. Military press implies the standing version, not seated.

Originally Posted by pebble

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/ling...cchange_ms.pdf

Originally Posted by banker23

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/ling...cchange_ms.pdf

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

Originally Posted by banker23

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/ling...cchange_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.

Originally Posted by MDR

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pebble

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

They're just words guys...one day we'll all be dead and they will be calling them bech presses. The point is: don't get so attached to definitions especially in weight training because they do morph over time. As long as you hit it heavy it doesn't matter what you call it (as long as everyone understands).

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.

Originally Posted by banker23

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.

Originally Posted by pebble

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.

Originally Posted by banker23

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.

And for those of us who lack the reading comprehension to find the comments about military press here it is:

"While a truly strict "military" press requires the heels to touch, you'll get a more stable and powerful base if your feet are about shoulder-width apart. Also, be sure to keep the legs straight, but not locked, throughout the set. The exception is when you're doing a push press, which I'll describe in a moment.
If your heels come off the ground when you press, your stance is probably too narrow. If your toes come up, that's a pretty good sign that your torso is leaning too far back."



That all refers to a standing position.

Originally Posted by pebble

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).

The logic is not flawed, it's just simplified so that a moron can understand it. The problem is that you are only selectively moronic (ignoring or pretending to ignore arguments which you are ill-equipped to defend against) which is even worse.

I already provided my arguments that you can go back and read if you choose (including the sources); otherwise, the simplified version will have to suffice for you. Now, this has been a blast but I may not be back for awhile gotta start gettin' ready for the holiday and all.

Originally Posted by banker23

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?

Originally Posted by pebble

So your position about semantics ... What about all the derailing you tried to achieve about the English language?

Not trying to achieve a derailing of anything here; sorry if it seems that way. The "derailing," as you refer to it, is a natural process whereby languages change and evolve. It's the way languages like Latin splintered into Spanish and Italian, and English evolved from the clash of Germanic and Frankish languages and latinization.

The textbook that I linked to is a good source and might be of interest if you're curious. Have a good Thanksgiving bro.

Originally Posted by banker23

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.

I think this has less to do with semantics and more to do with etymology. The phrase Militarty Press comes from a specific kind of exercise that defined strength in the military. The movement is very strict, with no bending of the knees, unlike say the push press. It is performed by lifting the weight overhead while standing. In this case, I think people are simply misusing the term. By saying wrong is wrong, I only meant that the phrase Military press has a specific meaning, and that meaning has not changed, because it defines a specific movement performed in a very specific way. I do enjoy the debate about how words and phrases evolve, and being an English teacher for many years, I am familiar with your reasoning here. Your point that language evolves over time is correct, and the point may in fact be arguable. In this particular instance, I don't believe the meaning of the phrase has evolved or changed simply because it defines such a specific movement and how it is performed, in very narrow terms. There are many kinds of overhead press movements, each with a different name describing the movement. Interesting discussion.