Do You Have A Bench Press Body? Here's What Scientists Say | Science Meets Gym

Biomechanics • 7 min read

Do You Have A Bench Press Body? Here's What Scientists Say

A man at the bottom of a barbell bench press in a garage gym, seen from the side at bench height, the loaded bar touching his chest and his feet flat on the floor

The classic bench body has short arms, short forearms, a barrel chest and broad shoulders. When researchers took a tape measure to real powerlifters, the chest was the measure that mattered most. It is also the only one on the list you can change.

The Claim

This is the perfect body for a 1,000-pound bench. You see that claim all over gym social media, usually over a photo of a very big man. The case goes like this. Bench pressing is a game of levers and distance. Short arms mean the bar has less far to go, so every rep takes less work. Short forearms make the lockout easier. A thick, barrel chest meets the bar sooner. Broad collarbones let you take a wider grip, which cuts a few more inches off the press and puts more of the load on your chest. Add a big upper back to push from, and you are built to bench.

You have seen the lived version at any gym. A short, thick lifter warms up with the weight you are testing today. The bar barely seems to move before it touches his shirt, and somebody says what everyone is thinking. He's built for it.

A man standing inside a power rack in a garage gym with one hand on a heavily loaded barbell resting in the hooks, looking down at it before a set

Before the tape measure comes out, one fact about that number. Nobody has ever bench pressed 1,000 pounds without a bench shirt, the stiff, tight support top that equipped powerlifters wear. The heaviest raw bench in competition is 355 kg, or 782.6 pounds, by Julius Maddox in 2021.[1] The first bench past 1,000 pounds was 1,004.9 by Gene Rychlak in 2004, in a multi-layer shirt.[2] Jimmy Kolb has since pressed 659 kg, or 1,452.8 pounds, also in a shirt.[3] At the world championships, men in the equipped division benched about 31 percent more than men in the raw division, 221 kg against 169.[4]

A bench press pictogram under a scale from 0 to 1,500 pounds with a dashed line at 1,000: the raw world record of 782.6 lb by Julius Maddox in 2021 sits below the line, while the first bench past 1,000 lb (1,004.9 lb, Gene Rychlak, 2004) and the heaviest ever (1,452.8 lb, Jimmy Kolb, 2025) were both made in a bench shirt, which added about 31 percent for men at the world championships

So the body in the hook had help. The body still matters, though, and that part has been measured.

What The Research Actually Found

The biggest study measured 59 drug-tested powerlifters at a provincial championship in Quebec, right before they competed.[5] They benched 147 kg on average. The researchers took 29 body measures and ratios from each lifter, from forearm length to hip girth, then checked every one against what that lifter pressed on the platform.

One number won by a distance. A tape measure around the chest at nipple height tracked the bench at r = 0.77, on a scale where 0 means no link and 1 means a perfect one. On its own it explained 59 percent of the spread between lifters. Body weight came next at 0.70. The tape goes all the way round, so it takes in the lats and upper back as well as the pecs. Upper arm length came in at 0.04, which is no link at all. Arm span against height, the classic long-arms number, was 0.00.[5]

A front-view body with a red tape line across the chest, and how each measure tracked the bench press max in 59 powerlifters: chest girth .77, upper arm length .04, forearm to upper arm ratio .22 and not significant, arm span to height .00; below, body weight .70, lean body mass .62 and waist girth .65

A second group of 42 national-level powerlifters told the same story.[6] Chest girth tracked the bench at 0.63 and flexed upper-arm girth at 0.71. Upper arm length, forearm length and total arm length all sat near zero. The authors' summary was that limb lengths and bone widths were "typically not significantly related" to strength.

A man in a garage gym wrapping a yellow cloth tape measure around his chest at nipple height over a grey t-shirt, looking down to read it

Start with arms. Short arms really do mean a shorter trip. In 21 trained men, a longer arm span went with a longer bar path (r = 0.46) and more work per rep (0.51). It did not go with a smaller max.[7] Long arms cost more work. Nobody has shown they cost you weight on the bar. We went deeper on that on the long arms page.

Forearms are a different story. No study has tested forearm length against the lockout. The ones that measured it found nothing, or the reverse. In 13 elite powerlifters, a forearm that was long compared with the upper arm went with a stronger bench for their body weight, at r = 0.60.[8] That is the opposite of the usual claim. The physics explains why forearm length barely matters. When your forearm stands straight up under the bar, the bar's pull on the elbow depends on how far your hands sit in front of or behind the elbow, not on the length of the bone. With a wide grip, researchers measured that distance at the bottom of the press at 0.00 metres.[9]

A man at the top of a barbell bench press inside a garage power rack, arms locked out and the bar held over his shoulders, seen from the foot of the bench

What about the usual reason given for the chest? The idea is that a deep chest brings your body closer to the bar and shortens the press. That has never been measured directly. When researchers measured the gap from a straight-armed bar down to the breastbone in 18 teenage powerlifters, it did not predict their max (r = -0.28, not significant). Chest girth did, at 0.53.[10] In the 13 elite lifters, chest depth on its own was a null too, at 0.15, while lean mass tracked the bench at 0.64 to 0.74.[8]

So a big chest measurement is mostly a measure of muscle. That also covers the idea of a massive upper back. No study has tested back size against how stable you are on the bench. But the tape around the chest wraps around the back too, so in every study above, the barrel chest and the big upper back are the same number.

What It Looks Like In Practice

Measure yourself the way the Quebec study did. Stand tall with your arms relaxed and wrap a cloth tape around your chest at nipple height. Breathe out normally and read it. Then divide that by your height. In the 59 lifters, chest girth over height tracked bench strength per kilo of body weight at r = 0.49, the best of any body measure in the table.[5] Write the number down. Unlike your arm bones, it moves.

Grow it with muscle, not fat. In the elite group, fat mass had nothing to do with bench strength, while lean mass did.[8] Size also has limits. Across the men's world records, the bench rises with body mass to the power of 0.57.[11] In plain numbers, a lifter who weighs 50 percent more is predicted to bench about 26 percent more, not 50.

Train the whole tape, front and back. Presses build the chest. Rows and pull-ups build the lats and upper back that the same tape wraps around.

A man doing a bent-over barbell row in a garage gym, torso leaning forward with a flat back, pulling the bar to his lower ribs, seen from the side

Now the shoulders. Grip width really does shorten the press. In 14 trained men, the bar travelled 39.9 cm at a shoulder-width grip, 37.3 cm at 1.4 times shoulder width and 33.8 cm at 1.7 times. That is about 2.4 inches saved, and the widest grip lifted 109.8 kg against 103.7 kg for the narrowest.[9] Chest muscle activity did not change with grip width, in that study or in a second one with 28 men.[12] The load moved from the elbows to the shoulders instead.

A narrow-framed and a broad-framed upper body, each with the 81 cm competition grip drawn to scale over its shoulder width: 2.1 times a 38.4 cm shoulder width and 1.8 times a 44.7 cm one. Below, three grip widths in 14 trained men: at 1.0, 1.4 and 1.7 times shoulder width the bar travelled 39.9, 37.3 and 33.8 cm and the one-rep max was 103.7, 108.9 and 109.8 kg, with no change in chest muscle activity

Here is the catch for broad collarbones. Powerlifting rules cap the grip at 81 cm between the index fingers for everyone, and competition bars carry marks 81 cm apart.[13] A man with narrow shoulders, 38.4 cm across, is gripping 2.1 times his shoulder width at that limit. A man with broad ones, 44.7 cm across, is at 1.8 times. Those two widths are the small end and the big end of a survey of more than 4,000 US Army men.[14] Coaches suggest keeping the grip at about 1.5 times shoulder width or less to spare the shoulder joint.[15] Broad shoulders don't buy a wider grip. They make the widest legal grip a little easier on the joint.

Looking down the length of a flat bench at a man lying on it, both hands gripping a barbell wide over his chest

So take the widest grip your shoulders are happy with, up to the rings. If a wide grip hurts, bring it in a little. Medium and wide were less than a kilo apart in the same study.[9] The arch is the other legal way to shorten the press.

References

  1. OpenPowerlifting. Julius Maddox, competition results (WRPF Hybrid Showdown III, 20 February 2021: 355 kg raw bench press). openpowerlifting.org
  2. OpenPowerlifting. Gene Rychlak, competition results (IPA Senior Nationals, 19 November 2004: 455.8 kg multi-ply bench press). openpowerlifting.org
  3. OpenPowerlifting. Jimmy Kolb, competition results (USPC Sonny Comly Memorial, 7 June 2025: 659 kg unlimited bench press; 205 kg raw, 2018). openpowerlifting.org
  4. Wilk M, Krzysztofik M, Bialas M. The influence of compressive gear on maximal load lifted in competitive powerlifting. Biology of Sport. 2020;37(4):437-441. PMC7725047
  5. Ferland PM, Laurier A, Comtois AS. Relationships between anthropometry and maximal strength in male classic powerlifters. International Journal of Exercise Science. 2020;13(4):1512-1531. PMC7745913
  6. Keogh JWL, Hume PA, Mellow P, Pearson SN. The use of anthropometric variables to predict bench press and squat strength in well-trained strength athletes. ISBS Conference Proceedings, Beijing. 2005:126-129. ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/841
  7. Lockie RG, Callaghan SJ, Orjalo AJ, Moreno MR. Relationships between arm span and the mechanics of the one-repetition maximum traditional and close-grip bench press. Facta Universitatis, Series Physical Education and Sport. 2018;16(2):271-280. doi:10.22190/FUPES180525024L
  8. Reya M, Škarabot J, Cvetičanin B, Šarabon N. Factors underlying bench press performance in elite competitive powerlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2021;35(8):2179-2186. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003097
  9. Larsen S, Gomo O, van den Tillaar R. A biomechanical analysis of wide, medium, and narrow grip width effects on kinematics, horizontal kinetics, and muscle activity on the sticking region in recreationally trained males during 1-RM bench pressing. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2021;2:637066. doi:10.3389/fspor.2020.637066
  10. Kravitz L, Akalan C, Nowicki K, Kinzey SJ. Prediction of 1 repetition maximum in high-school power lifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2003;17(1):167-172. PMID 12580673
  11. Dooman CS, Vanderburgh PM. Allometric modeling of the bench press and squat: who is the strongest regardless of body mass? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2000;14(1):32-36. doi:10.1519/00124278-200002000-00006
  12. Saeterbakken AH, Stien N, Pedersen H, Solstad TEJ, Cumming KT, Andersen V. The effect of grip width on muscle strength and electromyographic activity in bench press among novice- and resistance-trained men. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(12):6444. PMC8296276
  13. International Powerlifting Federation. Technical Rules Book, effective 1 March 2026, rule 4.2. powerlifting.sport
  14. Gordon CC, Blackwell CL, Bradtmiller B, et al. 2012 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. Technical Report NATICK/TR-15/007. 2014:58-59. ANSUR II report
  15. Green CM, Comfort P. The affect of grip width on bench press performance and risk of injury. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2007;29(5):10-14. journals.lww.com
  16. Keogh JW, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow PJ. Can absolute and proportional anthropometric characteristics distinguish stronger and weaker powerlifters? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009;23(8):2256-2265. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b8d67a
  17. Caruso JF, Taylor ST, Lutz BM, et al. Anthropometry as a predictor of bench press performance done at different loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012;26(9):2460-2467. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823c44bb
  18. Pasini A, Caruso L, Bortolotto E, et al. Prediction of bench press performance in powerlifting: the role of upper limb anthropometry. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise. 2023;18(2):484-500. doi:10.14198/jhse.2023.182.18
  19. Silver T, Fortenbaugh D, Williams R. Effects of the bench shirt on sagittal bar path. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009;23(4):1125-1128. PMID 19528864
Chris Bennett

Chris Bennett

Senior writer

Chris Bennett is a house byline for Science Meets Gym. Gear published under it is bought at retail and trained with before anything gets a verdict, and every claim about training outcomes is checked against the published research first.

Read full bio

Science Meets Gym earns a commission when you buy through some of the links on this page. It never changes which products we recommend or how they score.