How to Define “Elbow Flare / Elbow Tuck” in the Bench Press?

Maggie

5 min read

·

Mar 19, 2026

--

Listen

Share

In bench-press discussions, “flare your elbows” vs. “tuck your elbows” often turns into a one-line argument. But the real issue is this: there are at least two (really three) different geometries happening at the same time, and people use one phrase to describe different things — so the conversation spirals into talking past each other.

Let’s split it using three coordinates:

• Coordinate A: the angle of the upper arm relative to the torso (shoulder abduction angle)
• Coordinate B: whether the wrist–elbow–bar are stacked (is the forearm vertical to the floor?)
• Coordinate C: the scapular “base” (retraction/depression/stability)

1) Before talking “flare/tuck,” clarify: which angle are we talking about?

A | Shoulder abduction angle: the most common meaning of “flare/tuck”

• More flared: the upper arm approaches ~90° away from the torso (classic “high abduction”)
• More tucked: the upper arm stays closer to the body (classic “low abduction / more adduction”)

This is a major technical variable. Noteboom et al. directly set shoulder abduction to 45° / 70° / 90° in experiments and examined shoulder-complex loading together with grip width and scapular posture.

B | Forearm vertical: a “force-transmission coordinate,” not the same as flare/tuck

Whether the forearm is vertical is more like an engineering constraint:

• At the bottom (bar touching the chest), if the wrist is in front of or behind the elbow, the forearm tilts.
• A tilted forearm creates an extra moment arm at the elbow, requiring additional joint torque to “correct” the line of force — less efficient force transfer.

NSCA-style bench cues often emphasize keeping the wrist rigid and stacked over the elbow, and suggest a bar path that is slightly forward on the descent and slightly back on the press.

Key sentence: “Forearm vertical” solves stacking and moment-arm economy. It does not, by itself, answer “how much should I flare my elbows.”
You can achieve a vertical forearm at different abduction angles depending on grip width, shoulder width, and chest thickness.

2) Why elbows often look “more tucked on the way down, more flared on the way up”

Many people assume this is “inconsistent technique,” but it’s often the natural geometric result of the bar path:

• NSCA’s general description is: lower slightly forward, press slightly back, and avoid the bar drifting toward the legs after it leaves the chest.
• That implies the lockout is roughly over the shoulder, while the touch point is usually a bit lower and more forward. From bottom to lockout, a horizontal backward shift is almost inevitable (a mild “J-shaped” path).

As the bar moves from a more forward/lower touch point back toward a more rearward/higher lockout, the elbow’s spatial position and the upper-arm path often change. For many lifters, that looks like:

• Bottom: slightly more “tucked” to keep a stable scapular base and a safer humeral path
• Mid-to-top: naturally “opening” a bit as the bar returns to a mechanically favorable top position

This is not an invitation to suddenly throw the elbows out at the bottom. It’s a reminder that elbow angle can be a ROM-dependent parameter — as long as the shoulder stays stable and the path remains controlled.

3) How flare/tuck affects shoulder loading: not “flare = wrong,” but “different cost structures”

3.1 Grip width × abduction angle × scapular posture jointly determine shoulder reaction forces

Noteboom et al. put three variables on the table together:

• Grip width: 1 / 1.5 / 2 × biacromial width (BAW)
• Abduction angle: 45° / 70° / 90°
• Scapular posture: neutral / retracted / “released” (allowing more natural scapulohumeral rhythm)

Using an OpenSim musculoskeletal model, they estimated glenohumeral and acromioclavicular joint reaction forces. Key takeaways:

• Narrower grips (< 1.5 BAW) reduced AC joint compression (potentially more shoulder-friendly).
• Scapular retraction + 1.5 BAW reduced the posterior shear component at the glenohumeral joint and reduced rotator cuff activity (potentially lowering instability and cuff load).
• Lifters differed greatly in the medial–lateral force components applied to the bar, and those differences significantly affected shoulder reaction forces.

The value of this evidence is simple: elbow angle is not a single-variable problem. You must view it together with the scapular base, grip width, and individual force-direction habits.

3.2 If you chase “more pec dominance / bigger 1RM,” the trade-off is often higher joint reaction forces

Noteboom also summarizes a common literature pattern: wider grip + abduction closer to 90° often helps higher 1RM and increases pectoralis major activation, but shoulder pain is also more frequently reported.

This isn’t “never go wide” or “never flare.” It’s a performance–load trade-off: winning on one goal often comes with higher shoulder-complex loading.

4) “Forearm vertical” as a universal constraint: a simple engineering check

You can treat forearm vertical as a basic diagnostic:

• At the bottom touch point, try to stack wrist–elbow–bar as much as possible.
• Then the primary vertical force is more likely to pass through the joint structures without extra elbow/wrist “correction torque.”

Its purpose isn’t to look “standard.” It’s to be more energy-efficient, more repeatable, and to help you locate what’s actually limiting you (scapular base? elbow angle? touch point? grip width?).

5) Touch point: not “chest pushes the bar,” but “humerus motion under a fixed scapular base”

Treat the touch point as a “landing parameter.” It changes:

• the humerus’ tendency toward abduction/adduction at the bottom
• shoulder moment-arm length
• which muscle groups take over earlier (pecs / triceps / anterior deltoid / lats)

Open findings also suggest that bench pressing includes a horizontal displacement component (often described as moving from a “shoulder line” area toward the “nipple line” area), and that this horizontal displacement can correlate strongly with anterior deltoid and lat EMG. This hints that upper back / lats may matter more for horizontal control and structural stability than many lifters assume.

6) Individual differences: what’s best for someone else may not be best for you

You can treat “forearm vertical” as a more universal hard constraint, while “elbow angle / touch point / grip width” are individualized parameters influenced by:

1. BAW and grip width: change the grip, and your abduction angle changes even if you keep forearms vertical.
2. Upper-arm vs. forearm length + chest thickness/arch: affects touch point and stacking difficulty at the bottom.
3. Shoulder mobility and history of discomfort: determines your tolerance for higher abduction.
4. Medial–lateral force habits: Noteboom found large individual differences here, with significant effects on shoulder reaction forces.

7) “Minimum viable” self-calibration (don’t chase perfection — chase controllability)

1. Set the bottom stack first: at touch, keep the wrist over the elbow and forearms as vertical as possible; review with front + side phone video.
2. Then find your abduction “window” under that stack: many lifters land between “not overly flared, not jammed to the torso.” Use 45°–70° as a starting window, then adjust by shoulder comfort and stability.
3. Build the scapular base first: stabilize the scapula before arguing about humerus path. In modeling work, scapular retraction is associated with lower posterior shear components and less rotator cuff activity.
4. Allow the press to gradually open if it happens naturally: only if you’re not losing scapular stability or dumping the shoulder. Let the bar return to a mechanically favorable top path.

If you develop persistent sharp shoulder pain, radiating numbness/tingling, or escalating symptoms, the priority is no longer “micro-technique tweaks” but assessment and safety first.