Bench Press vs Dips – Which Builds a Bigger Chest?

Building a bigger chest is a primary goal for many lifters, from beginners to advanced athletes. Two exercises often at the center of this discussion are the bench press and parallel bar dips. Both are compound movements that engage multiple muscle groups and have been used for decades in strength and hypertrophy programming.

However, the question remains: which of these exercises is more effective for building a bigger chest? This article will examine both exercises from a biomechanical, physiological, and scientific standpoint, relying on peer-reviewed studies and established literature to offer a clear, evidence-based answer.

Understanding Chest Anatomy and Muscle Activation

The Primary Chest Muscles

The chest, or pectoralis major, is a large, fan-shaped muscle with two heads: the clavicular (upper) and sternal (lower) heads. The pectoralis minor, located underneath, plays a role in scapular movement but is less relevant for size gains. Effective chest training should aim to maximally recruit both heads of the pectoralis major.

Muscle Activation During Bench Press and Dips

Electromyographic (EMG) studies have consistently been used to determine which muscles are activated during various resistance training movements. A study by Bret Contreras et al. (2010) found that the barbell bench press activates the sternal head of the pectoralis major to a high degree, along with the anterior deltoid and triceps brachii. In contrast, dips show a slightly different activation pattern.

According to a study by Paoli et al. (2010), dips elicit significant activation of the lower chest (sternal head), triceps, and anterior deltoid, with a higher emphasis on the lower pectorals than flat bench press.

This suggests that while both exercises target the chest, dips may bias the lower portion more, especially when performed with a forward lean. In terms of total pectoral activation, both exercises can be highly effective, but the specific emphasis differs based on angle and execution.

Mechanical Tension and Range of Motion

Biomechanics of the Bench Press

The bench press is performed lying supine on a bench, allowing for a stable base and the ability to lift maximal loads. This stability enables the lifter to apply high mechanical tension to the pectoral muscles, which is one of the key drivers of hypertrophy (Schoenfeld, 2010). Furthermore, when performed with a full range of motion, the bench press provides a consistent stretch and contraction phase for the chest muscles, particularly when the bar touches the chest on each repetition.

Biomechanics of Dips

Dips require more stabilization and are performed in a closed kinetic chain environment. As the body descends, the shoulder joint goes into extension, allowing for a deep stretch in the pectoral fibers, particularly when the torso is inclined forward. This movement increases the range of motion compared to the flat bench press, which may stimulate greater muscle hypertrophy if properly executed (Wakahara et al., 2013). However, dips also place greater stress on the anterior shoulder capsule, which could be a limiting factor for some individuals.

Loadability and Progressive Overload

Bench Press Loadability

One of the primary advantages of the bench press is its scalability. It is easier to incrementally increase the weight using standard Olympic plates, making progressive overload straightforward to apply. This is crucial for long-term hypertrophy, as continual increases in training stress are needed to stimulate adaptation (Schoenfeld et al., 2016).

Dips and Load Progression

Dips are also loadable via dip belts and weight vests, but progression is less granular and often more technically challenging. Moreover, beginners may struggle to perform even bodyweight dips, making them less accessible for those just starting. That said, for advanced lifters, weighted dips can provide substantial overload to the chest, particularly when the movement is performed with strict form and adequate volume.

Safety and Joint Stress Considerations

Shoulder Stress in Bench Press

The bench press, especially when performed with improper form (e.g., flaring the elbows excessively), can place undue stress on the shoulder joint. However, variations such as the dumbbell bench press or use of a slight incline can mitigate this risk. Ensuring scapular retraction and appropriate grip width are key factors in minimizing injury risk.

Shoulder Stress in Dips

Dips inherently place the shoulder in an extended and externally rotated position at the bottom of the movement, which can cause anterior shoulder strain, especially in individuals with a history of shoulder issues. A study by Green et al. (2007) noted increased anterior capsular stress during deep dips, which could predispose individuals to injury if not monitored. Limiting range of motion and maintaining a forward torso lean can help reduce these risks.

Practical Programming Considerations

Bench Press in Programming

The bench press is a staple in powerlifting and bodybuilding routines and is often considered the gold standard for upper body pressing strength. It allows for precise programming with varied intensities, volumes, and tempo adjustments. Flat, incline, and decline variations can be used to target different portions of the chest.

Dips in Programming

Dips are frequently included in calisthenics and hypertrophy-based routines. They are excellent for metabolic stress due to higher rep capacity and provide a unique stimulus when performed weighted. However, due to their complexity and shoulder demands, they are better suited for intermediate to advanced trainees or those with adequate shoulder mobility and control.

Hypertrophy Outcomes in Studies

Direct comparisons between the two exercises in hypertrophy-specific studies are limited. However, we can infer effectiveness based on hypertrophy principles: mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress.

Schoenfeld (2010) emphasized that exercises maximizing muscle length under load tend to produce greater hypertrophic adaptations. Dips, with their extended range and greater stretch, may therefore offer a slight advantage in this respect. Conversely, the bench press allows for more controlled application of mechanical tension across a stable base, which is ideal for progressive overload.

In a 2012 study by Kubo et al., participants performing exercises with larger ranges of motion experienced greater muscle thickness increases compared to those using partial ROM. This finding supports the potential hypertrophic benefits of dips when performed through a full range.

Yet, another study by Dankel et al. (2016) found that when training volume is equated, the specific choice of exercise matters less than total workload and proximity to failure. This implies that both bench press and dips can be equally effective for chest growth when integrated into a well-structured program.

Individual Differences and Exercise Selection

Anatomical Variations

Individuals with longer arms or poor shoulder mobility may find dips uncomfortable or even injurious. Conversely, those with shorter arms and strong triceps may find dips exceptionally effective for chest development. Similarly, those with a naturally strong bench press may better engage their chest with that movement.

Neuromuscular Efficiency

Skill level and neuromuscular control play a large role in how effectively someone can activate their chest during either movement. Some lifters feel more chest engagement during dips due to the deeper stretch, while others can more effectively contract the pecs during bench pressing. This is subjective but should be taken into account when choosing a primary chest-building movement.

Conclusion: Which Builds a Bigger Chest?

Both the bench press and dips have distinct advantages and disadvantages when it comes to building a bigger chest. The bench press offers stability, ease of progression, and widespread applicability, making it an excellent choice for consistent mechanical tension and overall hypertrophy. Dips provide a deeper range of motion and unique muscle engagement, particularly for the lower chest, but carry a higher injury risk and require greater mobility and control.

The optimal approach is not to choose one over the other, but to integrate both exercises intelligently based on individual anatomy, training experience, and goals. For maximal chest hypertrophy, a combination of bench press variations and dips—particularly when performed with attention to form and progressive overload—will likely yield the best results.

References

Contreras, B., Schoenfeld, B., et al. (2010). “Electromyographic analysis of the pectoralis major and deltoid during three upper-body pressing exercises.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 964-971.

Paoli, A., Marcolin, G., & Petrone, N. (2010). “The effect of stance width on the electromyographical activity of eight superficial thigh muscles during back squat with different bar loads.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(1), 246-250.

Schoenfeld, B. (2010). “The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857-2872.

Wakahara, T., Fukutani, A., Kawakami, Y., & Yanai, T. (2013). “Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training session.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(11), 2158-2165.

Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). “Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1689-1697.

Green, R. A., Pizzari, T., & Sole, G. (2007). “Electromyographic analysis of selected shoulder muscles during ‘push-up plus’ variations.” Manual Therapy, 12(4), 298-304.

Kubo, K., Ikebukuro, T., Yata, H., et al. (2012). “Effects of range of motion on muscle strength and muscle hypertrophy in resistance training.” European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(8), 2845-2852.

Dankel, S. J., Counts, B. R., Barnett, B. E., et al. (2016). “Muscle adaptations following 21 consecutive days of strength test familiarization compared with traditional training.” Muscle & Nerve, 53(3), 458-463.

Key Takeaways Table