Bench less than 200lbs

yes there are you retard.

>stabilizers
no such thing, just muscles

What do you think is referred to by stabilizers?

Ruddypoo

so at lower weights (like less than 200 lbs) why not just use dumbbells?

>dumbbells
>off balance

wouldn't the barbell be more likely to be out of balance?

if you have identical dumbbells in each hand it should be perfectly symmetrical

Put your arms out and then bring them tucked in like you were doing a negative of a bench. Now without looking at either arm, do you actually know they're symmetrical? A barbell you just keep the bar straight across your torso. Dumbbells it's harder because you can't adequately gauge without a extra focus if they're actually symmetrical. If you start overloading your muscles, it becomes that much harder to balance them symmetrically, meanwhile you can overload a barbell much further before this happens.

So which is actually better? I've heard a lot of people say the ROM on a DB press is better and allows for greater chest development. Also easier on your shoulders.

Better? Stop thinking like that in terms of weightlifting. Do what works best for you. There are top level lifters that swear by both. It's not the lift, it's the effort you put in. If you can get more out of dumbbells, use them.

can you point them out?

it's much harder to set yourself up using dumbbells

you should never use dumbbells

Assuming similar weight, what is harder to bench, barbell or dumbbells?

Whatever i can bench on the bar is always less on dumbs.

Thanks b

From what I remember reading, dumbbell bench press is better for hypertrophy.

Not him but I think the idea of "stabilizer muscles" is that the exercise works muscles other than the ones specifically being targeted like having a stronk core will help your deadlift. It has more to do with being able to use your muscles functionally as a cohesive unit. Machines typically remove this by giving you added stability during your exercise allowing you to target only the intended muscle. By doing free weights it allows you to train more of your body at once. Both have their benefits and drawbacks.

>Best example, most people can leg press more than they squat due to poor stability in their core and posterior chain.

I switched to dumbbells for a time because of so many damn people using bar. I got used to them and I really like them. I hit the 150's and they feel nice.

nope, i db bench

move your arms to simulate a shaking dumbbell, then look it up. in a bench press, medial-lateral movement would be biceps and triceps. superior-inferior movement would be your rotator cuff: supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and one other that I can't remember off the top of my head. tldr: you're a fucking idiot and the concept of "stabilizer muscles" is definitely real, you fucking moron.

cause your staibiliser muscles will be weak as shit and you wont be able to lift it, hence PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD

people who come here are genuinely retarded, I've met homeless people more intelligent than people on Veeky Forums

you have small muscles everywhere in your body also putting pressure on your joints allows them to get stronger too

Like I said...You have the stabilizer muscles and you have no mover muscles, you got a problem building...wait a minute. You have the mover muscles, and you have no balance, you got a problem building your balance. You have the mover...you have the stabilizer muscles and you don't have the mover muscles, the mover muscles, it is easier to build. So if you have the stabilizer muscles and you don't have the mover muscles, it is easier to build the mover muscles. You have the mover muscles and you don't have the balance, you got a problem building the stabilizer muscles... No, you don't understand. You have the mover muscles, but you don't have the stabilizer muscles, you got a problem building handstands. You got the up- balance on the bottom, it is easier to build on the bosu ball, so you don't have much as a problem. Yeah.

eveything you need to know about lifting and muscle is on Exrx.net, that should really be in the sticky

Are you guys retarded? When did I say that a stabilizer was not a muscle? In any sort of body movement, your muscles are providing various functions. One of those functions is the ability for your muscles to keep the weight you're moving in place, i.e. the dumbbell above your face in a DB Bench. One of the reasons that people shun machine movements over freeweight movements is because the stabilizers are used a lot less, if at all, in a movement. Fuck, I can't believe I'm biting this bait.

exrx.net/Kinesiology/Glossary.html

Oh, sorry, I understand the post now. I think that not having to worry about failing with the use of your stabilizers, it's easier to throw on weight to put in more work.

^, Exrx is easily my favorite resource on the internet for learning about gains. They treat fitness like the science that it is.

Yes. Trapezius, rhomboids, SCM, serratus anterior (and posterior depending on how you set up), the delts to an extent, most the muscles of the abdomen so your chest doesnt flop around on the bench, biceps, and the muscles of the rotator cuff, sub scapularis, infraspinatus, teres major and supraspinatis (might be wrong on the names of one of those ,cba to google it)

Thlse would be the primary mhscles involved in stabilization. Technically force is transmitted globally, so you could argue literally ALL muscles are stabilizers to an extent, but thats no fun

Why do people not understand that if you want a big chest, the secret is flys.
Make sure to stick that chest out and act as if you are flexing.
Gives the best pump too all throughout the upperbody if done right.

How do you do proper flies? I assume the machine is no good, but do you do flies on the floor or on a bench?