all posts post new thread

Barbell Deadlifts as General Physical Preparation - How?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Anna, I would be interesting to know what you think of the relationship between double kettlebell work and starting barbell training.

I'll start by saying I love them both! My own path was: single kettlebells --> double kettlebells --> barbells. I'm a part-time trainer, and I've taken a dozen or so students down a path similar to mine, but I've also taken a dozen or more to barbells first, and several of these from barbells --> kettlebells. There are two other personal trainers that work on my military base, and fortunately they take all the clients that want a "pin setter / reps and sets counter" or "circuit trainer, "dig deep, come on you can do it!" type personal trainer... so I don't have to do that! When a client wants to "get stronger" and/or specifically get instruction and coaching on barbells or kettlebells, they ask for me.

I am just wondering when people can get the most bang for their buck in a GPP general population.

Either one is viable to start with, and can be coached and regressed as needed for any trainee. "Which is better to start with" depends on a lot of factors, but primarily -- 1) whether they have a particular desire to do one or the other, and 2) how quickly they want to get strength results. If their aim is to get strong and they want it to happen fast, we go straight to barbell. If they want strength as part of a general improvement (along with movement quality, mobility, conditioning, and skill), and they want to be empowered to train on their own after 3 or 10 sessions, or to be able to train outside the gym, we go with kettlebells.

It takes a while to get to double kettlebells. It varies by trainee, but in general at least 10 sessions and/or 2 months. Even more is probably better. I usually spend 1-3 sessions with the kettlebell deadlift and hinge pattern plus 1H presses by using a "cheat clean" (2-handed slow clean), then 3-5 sessions with 2H swings and get-ups, then if that's going well and they're getting more practice on their own and actually progressing their strength and skill with the 2H swing, we can start 1H swings and then double swings. Then the proper single and double clean, which opens up the options for double kettlebell front squat and double press.

In contrast, I can get someone pressing the barbell overhead in the FIRST SESSION, and moving more than double the weight than what they can do with the 1H kettlebell press... also deadlifting more than they can KBDL, and squatting way more than they could goblet squat (and we can't double kettlebell front squat for a while, as I described). In the second session we increase the weight on the bar and do the bench press instead of the press. In the third session, we increase the weight again and alternate back to press. Etc. ALWAYS coaching good movement. OCCASIONALLY regressing the movement to a smaller range of motion (i.e. elevating the barbell for deadlifts, or working down to full depth for squats) -- but I have not found this to be necessary for many people at all. Most just need to be coached to proper movement.

I was shocked how challenging double KB front squat was.

Yes it is! It sort of forces that upper back tightness that you can find with a "face the wall" squat. LOTS of uncoached barbell squatters are missing this. I coach it relentlessly from the very beginning on barbell squats... credit to what I've learned from Starting Strength on that.

Since barbell work requires more mobility and attention to form than KBs

I wouldn't say that. The both use and improve mobility, and they both require a ton of attention to form. That said, you can do "lighter" work with kettlebells that "allows" you to put less attention on form -- but if you're properly loaded with either one, form becomes paramount.

do you think the barbell press had advantages over just using double KB press to improve your double KB press or could you have just done double KB press

The microloading of the barbell was key for me. Once you get to "pretty strong" on overhead press, it takes a lot of work to add lbs or kgs, and it happens slowly. With the big KB jumps, you have to so some fancy volume programming to progress. With barbell, you can microload and get just exactly the right stimulus.

I got feedback at the barbell course that my thoratic mobility needed work before barbell press and low bar squat.

I couldn't say for sure unless I coached you directly, but I've coached a lot of people with "average" (i.e. poor) thoracic mobility when they start out, and can get them to barbell press and low bar squat. It improves as they do it, and they get stronger as they go.
 
Since your 1 rm barbell max is about the same as pressing two 32KB then the barbell press makes sense for you. As the barbell moves require more mobility and form than the KB to do them right, delaying barbell work until double 36 to 40KG kettlebells is not only very difficult but probably not a good idea because you need barbell specific practice, but since you can do double 32s press, it means as a pure strength move KBs would limit you as you have a solid base and double bells near/past bodyweight is very difficult for pressing. People can generally handle a bigger bilateral load than a unilateral load. Sorry, I should have been more specific with regard to double bells by taking into account bodyweight in my previous post. Something like two-thirds bodyweight with single or double KBs might be a good but arbitrary rule of thumb for men. For press, this is challenging and makes KB more useful but for DL, barbell work becomes valuable very quickly because what is the point of using a 48kg deadlift bell except for learning the basic deadlift pattern when the barbell allows for so much more. Even a 50KG woman would find this limiting quite quickly with a bit of training.

I did the PTTP program from the user course for two months as it fits my winter schedule and I was very happy with it. However, I stopped going to my Muay Thai class for the two months. You might find a full Reload in addition to a fairly full Judo schedule if I remember correctly a lot as Pavel M. mentioned. I greatly improved my form (according to another guy at the gym who knows his stuff) by the frequent practice that was enough to allow me to recover at my age. I think I remember reading that there is a twice a week Reload option though.

By the way, as I think you are also finding, I do recreational Muay Thai and deadlifting made EVERYTHING better. I just went back to the gym yesterday and the stability of my kick checks was better due to the posterior chain work. I could kick higher as my hip flexors/legs were stronger (A Taekwondo guy I talked to said that most people think kicking is only about flexibility, but he said it takes a certain amount of strength to just lift your leg high. Try to lift your leg straight up and forward from a standing position and see how close to horizontal you can come. You might be surprised at the burn at the top of your thigh). Push kick felt stronger, even jumping rope felt easier (a lot of sprinting coaches include deadlift these days as it is related to ground strike endurance and stronger bones). I am even more convinced that of the core Strongfirst principle that strength is the foundation now!
I'm also after muscle memory after I've attained a much higher 1RM for the deadlift. Even if I lay off it the max strength lingers on for the rest of my productive life.

I had some trouble following your first paragraph but is what you are saying that KBs are easier to lift with little to no technique than a barbell at light weights but are harder at heavier weights, and thus it is better to switch over to the barbell when you're getting heavier with pressing?
 
I'm also after muscle memory after I've attained a much higher 1RM for the deadlift. Even if I lay off it the max strength lingers on for the rest of my productive life.

I had some trouble following your first paragraph but is what you are saying that KBs are easier to lift with little to no technique than a barbell at light weights but are harder at heavier weights, and thus it is better to switch over to the barbell when you're getting heavier with pressing?

Technique is always important, but the KB permits a more natural and wider range of motion than the barbell press that is easier on the shoulders. The wrist can rotate which is natural. Same with the barbell front squat compared to the KB front squat. It is very difficult for most people to hold the front squat barbell form properly.

There may be some exceptions (see Anna C. in this thread), but the single KB, double KB (until it is getting past bodyweight or half bodyweight for press or so), barbell progression seems to make the most sense. Press requires some work. DL happens very quickly.
 
I'll start by saying I love them both! My own path was: single kettlebells --> double kettlebells --> barbells. I'm a part-time trainer, and I've taken a dozen or so students down a path similar to mine, but I've also taken a dozen or more to barbells first, and several of these from barbells --> kettlebells. There are two other personal trainers that work on my military base, and fortunately they take all the clients that want a "pin setter / reps and sets counter" or "circuit trainer, "dig deep, come on you can do it!" type personal trainer... so I don't have to do that! When a client wants to "get stronger" and/or specifically get instruction and coaching on barbells or kettlebells, they ask for me.



Either one is viable to start with, and can be coached and regressed as needed for any trainee. "Which is better to start with" depends on a lot of factors, but primarily -- 1) whether they have a particular desire to do one or the other, and 2) how quickly they want to get strength results. If their aim is to get strong and they want it to happen fast, we go straight to barbell. If they want strength as part of a general improvement (along with movement quality, mobility, conditioning, and skill), and they want to be empowered to train on their own after 3 or 10 sessions, or to be able to train outside the gym, we go with kettlebells.

It takes a while to get to double kettlebells. It varies by trainee, but in general at least 10 sessions and/or 2 months. Even more is probably better. I usually spend 1-3 sessions with the kettlebell deadlift and hinge pattern plus 1H presses by using a "cheat clean" (2-handed slow clean), then 3-5 sessions with 2H swings and get-ups, then if that's going well and they're getting more practice on their own and actually progressing their strength and skill with the 2H swing, we can start 1H swings and then double swings. Then the proper single and double clean, which opens up the options for double kettlebell front squat and double press.

In contrast, I can get someone pressing the barbell overhead in the FIRST SESSION, and moving more than double the weight than what they can do with the 1H kettlebell press... also deadlifting more than they can KBDL, and squatting way more than they could goblet squat (and we can't double kettlebell front squat for a while, as I described). In the second session we increase the weight on the bar and do the bench press instead of the press. In the third session, we increase the weight again and alternate back to press. Etc. ALWAYS coaching good movement. OCCASIONALLY regressing the movement to a smaller range of motion (i.e. elevating the barbell for deadlifts, or working down to full depth for squats) -- but I have not found this to be necessary for many people at all. Most just need to be coached to proper movement.



Yes it is! It sort of forces that upper back tightness that you can find with a "face the wall" squat. LOTS of uncoached barbell squatters are missing this. I coach it relentlessly from the very beginning on barbell squats... credit to what I've learned from Starting Strength on that.

I wouldn't say that. The both use and improve mobility, and they both require a ton of attention to form. That said, you can do "lighter" work with kettlebells that "allows" you to put less attention on form -- but if you're properly loaded with either one, form becomes paramount.

The microloading of the barbell was key for me. Once you get to "pretty strong" on overhead press, it takes a lot of work to add lbs or kgs, and it happens slowly. With the big KB jumps, you have to so some fancy volume programming to progress. With barbell, you can microload and get just exactly the right stimulus.

I couldn't say for sure unless I coached you directly, but I've coached a lot of people with "average" (i.e. poor) thoracic mobility when they start out, and can get them to barbell press and low bar squat. It improves as they do it, and they get stronger as they go.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I accept that the client's goals should determine the path and agree that microloading the press makes sense. I did a 5/3/1 program and stalled out on the press much quicker than the other lifts, which is common as mentioned in PTTP and other materials. Perhaps waving big and small jumps might be a good approach. Big jump to shock progress and then regress to consolidate with volume (volumarily not at failure as in PTTP). Two steps forward, one step back. As you say, beyond intermediate, progress is very different and not so linear. I can't help but wonder based on reading some posts and articles whether some folks here (not yet me unfortunately) would make more progress on their KB 1rm press attempt if they did more barbell and double KB work to prepare, especially those aiming at the beast/iron maiden.
 
Technique is always important, but the KB permits a more natural and wider range of motion than the barbell press that is easier on the shoulders. The wrist can rotate which is natural. Same with the barbell front squat compared to the KB front squat. It is very difficult for most people to hold the front squat barbell form properly.

There may be some exceptions (see Anna C. in this thread), but the single KB, double KB (until it is getting past bodyweight or half bodyweight for press or so), barbell progression seems to make the most sense. Press requires some work. DL happens very quickly.
The other elephant in the room is the fact that you can press with one hand more than half what you can press with two hands, thus if I'm getting this right the barbell press is better for your overall strength but one arm kettlebell presses are better for that individual arm's strength. I suppose both need to happen.
 
for general physical preparation and not just specifically to attain high loads, what would the strategy be?
Is it where you use a relatively light bar and do fairly high reps about every second day or something like this?
Still heavy but reduce the rest time. 20x on-the-minute deadlift singles at 70-80% gets the heart rate up if that's what you're after.

More importantly, I still think GPP is not useful or realistic as a concept. Why do things if they aren't in an effort to accomplish the goal. Objectives have a process and prerequisites or enablers but that doesn't make them general, it just makes them first in the process. That process shouldn't be the same or general and neither should the objective.
 
Still heavy but reduce the rest time. 20x on-the-minute deadlift singles at 70-80% gets the heart rate up if that's what you're after.

More importantly, I still think GPP is not useful or realistic as a concept. Why do things if they aren't in an effort to accomplish the goal. Objectives have a process and prerequisites or enablers but that doesn't make them general, it just makes them first in the process. That process shouldn't be the same or general and neither should the objective.
I'm starting to have my own philosophical thoughts questioning GPP as a concept also.

I have the good fortune to be a lifelong judo wrestler who has had to constantly test his fitness level out against other strong, intelligent fighters, several times a week.

If the goals of GPP are things like elevating your heart rate, cultivating balance and overall strength... these things are all met with heavy lifting with goals (as you put it) also, and better met in fact than typical "GPP" programs since they treat much heavier loads.

Now that I'm focussing on a heavy lifting program (Reload) and taking a bit of a break from S&S, I'm seeing things in a more traditional kind of weight training way. I am not planning on dropping S&S ever, by the way, but I am seeing other ways of doing things now that I've started to use the bar for real. I would not in any way suggest now that balance and poise are more trained through kettlebells than through the barbell. Think of the press, there is a huge amount of balance and poise needed to do it with the barbell. Same for deadlifts at heavy weights. When it comes to wrestling, stronger is better providing you keep your wind, but lifting heavy in no wise means your wind diminishes. In any case I'm in need of superior strength beyond S&S to handle the bigger, better fighters at my club. Mobility training only goes so far.
 
@Kozushi, have a look at the most recent article published here by our own @mprevost - it may shed some light on some of these issues for you.

There's that saying about how we should explain things as simply as possible, but simpler than that. I think you may be trying to oversimply GPP a bit - see if Mike's article helps you some.

-S-
 
@Kozushi, have a look at the most recent article published here by our own @mprevost - it may shed some light on some of these issues for you.

There's that saying about how we should explain things as simply as possible, but simpler than that. I think you may be trying to oversimply GPP a bit - see if Mike's article helps you some.

-S-
That is a very good article. The chart of strong enough targets is very important. I also agree on how good S&S is. With just S&S I was able to get to 5 reps at 1.5 bodyweight with the deadlift in a matter of days, and most of the other "strong enough" targets, although not all.

Training specific strength moves like the press etc are very valuable for judo and I think for real life because we can choose to use these movements in judo and in life instead of other, sloppy movements. I was using a lot of my pressing strength today at judo to good effect, very good effect.

It didn't work because the press happens to resemble some judo moves but because I chose to use press movements in judo.
 
Still heavy but reduce the rest time. 20x on-the-minute deadlift singles at 70-80% gets the heart rate up if that's what you're after.

More importantly, I still think GPP is not useful or realistic as a concept. Why do things if they aren't in an effort to accomplish the goal. Objectives have a process and prerequisites or enablers but that doesn't make them general, it just makes them first in the process. That process shouldn't be the same or general and neither should the objective.

This is a really good point. I find the training more effective when I have a goal even though I have no professional or competitive reason to be stronger. For example, double bodyweight deadlift, or S&S standards, or ten pullups, or a real L-sit. I just decided to pass the new US military deadlift standard for the fitness test, even though I am not in the military or even American, it gives me something to aim at. It is a practical and challenging but reasonable standard for a middle-aged dude. Even when the number is arbitrary, at least you have a map to your destination.

Another way of looking at it is from a really interesting book called "Natural Born Heroes." It is a really odd book that is a combination of fitness and military history the Crete resistance WW2. The basic question derived from the 19th century French Natural way thinking (the original stuff of today's movenat guys) is how useful would you be in an emergency? Would you be a burden to first responders due to your own lifestyle choices or an asset? How far could you carry an injured family member and how fast? Could you sprint for safety in an emergency? This an interesting way of looking at GPP. You don't have to go all prepper. Stuff happens in daily life. My colleague lost everything in an apartment fire in the middle of the night. Flood season is going to hit hard in the US this year.
 
How far could you carry an injured family member and how fast? Could you sprint for safety in an emergency?
Even this departs the concept of GPP for me. The needs of usefulness can be identified.
  • Pickup
  • Carry
  • Sprint
Each element of those needs has different attributes that require training to improve. Training the individual attributes of an objective doesn't make it general and the objective specific.

//

If I were to have an objective of max reps push-ups; push-ups aren't the only specific training and doesn't make something other than push-ups like the bench press general. In order to maximize reps of pushups, different attributes need to be trained - specifically. We would need more muscle fibers, that all contract together, that resist fatigue. We then start dumbbell pressing in the 8-12 rep range to build more muscle fibers, we bench press heavy to train having that muscle work together, and we do push-ups to failure to improve resistance to fatigue. All 3 of those exercises are very specific toward increasing attributes of max reps push-ups.

Do deadlifts become GPP for maximizing push-ups? Probably not, if you gain weight making push-ups more difficult then they even become a liability to the objective. If deadlifts are GPP toward other objectives that are not push-ups, then the sport specific needs just haven't been truly thought through. Instead, the real objective would be to balance increasing max push-ups while concurrently improving sprinting speed, carry weight or distance, and pickup weight or stamina.

General to me simply means, unthoughtful. Something like S&S appears to be and is touted as GPP, but it is in fact very thoughtful and meets a very long list of objectives and is in my mind quite specific.
 
I used to be a big fan of GPP (at least my personal definition of it), but that belief while not completely gone, has started to wane over the years. If someone wants to get somewhere specific, or good at something then the most efficient route to get there is usually pretty specific. Likewise, if we aren't sure where we are going (or perhaps don't care) then anything will do.
 
Do deadlifts become GPP for maximizing push-ups? Probably not,
As I've mentioned before on our forum, I went from 2 pullups to 12 pullups without training pullups after training doing PTTP for six months. I think "GPP" and "maximizing" can't be used in the same sentence, and therein I agree with you. But that doesn't mean a GPP program can't yield improvements in specific things, even things with seemingly different attributes.

-S-
 
Improvements in some things but possibly reductions in others. GPP in my mind then can only describe something that only has a net positive effect in all things, which I don't know if that exists. A tide that raises all boats, also covers more of the shore.
 
GPP is a simple concept. YES a sedentary person gets better at things doing something worthwhile eg. S&S and PTTP.

YES PTTP builds GPP because you are getting stronger overall.

This thread is a huge paralysis by analysis. Train safe, y'all
 
Even this departs the concept of GPP for me. The needs of usefulness can be identified.
  • Pickup
  • Carry
  • Sprint
Each element of those needs has different attributes that require training to improve. Training the individual attributes of an objective doesn't make it general and the objective specific.

//

If I were to have an objective of max reps push-ups; push-ups aren't the only specific training and doesn't make something other than push-ups like the bench press general. In order to maximize reps of pushups, different attributes need to be trained - specifically. We would need more muscle fibers, that all contract together, that resist fatigue. We then start dumbbell pressing in the 8-12 rep range to build more muscle fibers, we bench press heavy to train having that muscle work together, and we do push-ups to failure to improve resistance to fatigue. All 3 of those exercises are very specific toward increasing attributes of max reps push-ups.

Do deadlifts become GPP for maximizing push-ups? Probably not, if you gain weight making push-ups more difficult then they even become a liability to the objective. If deadlifts are GPP toward other objectives that are not push-ups, then the sport specific needs just haven't been truly thought through. Instead, the real objective would be to balance increasing max push-ups while concurrently improving sprinting speed, carry weight or distance, and pickup weight or stamina.

General to me simply means, unthoughtful. Something like S&S appears to be and is touted as GPP, but it is in fact very thoughtful and meets a very long list of objectives and is in my mind quite specific.

I think the idea of "good enough" strength in the recent StrongFirst article gets at this and doesn't disagree with what you say here. The Specificity-Transfer Trade-off | StrongFirst

Achieving a doublebodyweight deadlift has a lot of transfer but the cost of adaptation and benefits of getting a 2.5 or 3 times bodyweight DL rapidly decrease as you need to start specializing. The five rep 24K press seems like a good standard, but do we really need to press half bodyweight or the beast? Not really for GPP and not without a lot of specialized training that would mean less time for other skills. If your job is to be an SFG 2 instructor then it is part of your competitive performance requirements and then it is no longer GPP. What is the purpose? To be good at that lift or to have transferable physical skills. Yes, transfer is a difficult concept I concede but we can definately feel it with S&S for example, and I got a lot out of my PTTP session this winter, even remarked on the transfer in my log.
 
Achieving a doublebodyweight deadlift has a lot of transfer but the cost of adaptation and benefits of getting a 2.5 or 3 times bodyweight DL rapidly decrease as you need to start specializing. The five rep 24K press seems like a good standard, but do we really need to press half bodyweight or the beast? Not really for GPP and not without a lot of specialized training that would mean less time for other skills. If your job is to be an SFG 2 instructor then it is part of your competitive performance requirements and then it is no longer GPP. What is the purpose? To be good at that lift or to have transferable physical skills. Yes, transfer is a difficult concept I concede but we can definately feel it with S&S for example, and I got a lot out of my PTTP session this winter, even remarked on the transfer in my log.

I'd rank a 2.5 x bodyweight deadlift and a 1/2 bodyweight press as about the same, and I'd call them achievable by most people.

I think we know that going past those numbers may not be advisable in some circumstances, e.g., if your lifting is part of your GPP and you have another sport. But for a lifter, there's no reason to stop there.

One more thing - where to draw the "I don't want or need to go past this" line is necessarily going to be different for different people. I think a double bodyweight deadlift is on the light side, and perhaps we could draw it a 2-1/4 times bodyweight if we had to pick a spot, but there will be people who benefit in their sport from having achieved a 2.5 times bodyweight deadlift. And I think the same can be said for the 1/2 bodyweight press - I'd pick 28 kg as sufficient, not 24, but I'd also say that 32 kg for most adult men is a perfectly achievable and reasonable thing.

-S-
 
General to me simply means, unthoughtful. Something like S&S appears to be and is touted as GPP, but it is in fact very thoughtful and meets a very long list of objectives and is in my mind quite specific.

S&S is an ultimate example of GPP, and a structured deadlift program is no less thought through than S&S. I understand this site has loyalty to S&S to the point of mild obsession, but can you come up with examples where you swing something in real life? Swings are useful because they develop qualities that transfer to other activities, to various degrees, just like deadlift does. Can you give examples when getting stronger can do harm? The trick is to make sure supplementary load doesn't interfere with the main sport, and for that I can't quote anything better than Easy Strength, which - to my surprise - hasn't mentioned in this thread.

Is deadlift useful for improving push-ups? Possibly. The effort of every push-up is a percentage of maximal strength. If you increase the latter then every pushup is easier. But then there is another question: why are pushups an indicator of physical development?
 
@deviant , I hope none of this comes across as confrontational, it's not meant to; it is a way for me to work through my own thoughts and test whether I truly believe that GPP doesn't exist.
S&S is an ultimate example of GPP, and a structured deadlift program is no less thought through than S&S.
As soon as a person starts doing either one after considering why they should and how it will help with [insert objective here], it is specific to me. I don't think anyone should do something without considering why. Being a jack of all trades is just as specific as being a master of one. Having many concurrent needs is specific. A firefighter has specific needs just like a marathon runner.
but can you come up with examples where you swing something in real life? Swings are useful because they develop qualities that transfer to other activities, to various degrees, just like deadlift does.
A person doesn't need to swing something in real life for the swing to be specific. The qualities you mention are specific and swinging to improve those qualities make the swing specific.
Can you give examples when getting stronger can do harm?
People develop all kinds of problems pursuing strength. I've worked with strong people unable to climb stairs without stopping for a breath. I've also worked with strong people that couldn't tie their shoes because they couldn't reach them. I agree probably 99% that no harm is done for a specific sub-definition of strength:
concurrently increasing relative strength in a full range of motion in all planes of movement.
The effort of every push-up is a percentage of maximal strength. If you increase the latter then every pushup is easier.
I'll edit this slightly, that "every push-up is a percentage of [relative] strength". Gaining weight in order to increase absolute strength could easily decrease relative strength if the weight gained exceeds the rate of absolute strength gained.
why are pushups an indicator of physical development?
Many have a need to do pushups to stay employed and whether or not they are a good indicator of development doesn't really matter in that case.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom