all posts post new thread

Barbell How Olympic Weightlifters Should Squat

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
as a serial binge-watcher of ATG videos (yes I know this is a sad credential), I have not seen any elite weightlifter use a LBBS in their training sessions, but they almost certainly do HBBS heavy and often.

But logically speaking, if LBBS gave these guys an advantage on an overall basis (ie. strength gains yield better performance after accounting for additional recovery needed) I would imagine they would all be doing it! As possibly one of the most scientific of sports where performance is measured only objectively (the weight u can CnJ + Snatch), where every kg counts at the highest lvl, why would any team/lifter leave results on the table?

I am positing that max deadlifts are rarely incorporated in sessions for the same reason.
 
as a serial binge-watcher of ATG videos

We have a support group that meets every Thursday at 6:30. Bring something to snack on.

I am positing that max deadlifts are rarely incorporated in sessions for the same reason.

Lots of anecdotal stories from powerlifters with big deadlifts who crossed over to weightlifting and were disappointed. The pull is very different from a conventional powerlifting deadlift. On the other hand, pulling a deadlift exactly like the first pull of a clean is worthwhile deadlift variation for weightlifters.
 
Minor item on terminology -- Torque is the force on the joint resulting from moment force, is it not? I'm just confused by the description of the muscles producing torque... Muscles just pull on levers (bones), producing the moment force or torque on the joint that connects them.

Anna, there are two different points in your question. The first one is definitions. Torque is force multiplied by moment arm. The moment arm is a distance between a point about which an object rotate and the an axis extending along the force exerted on the object. Wikipedia has a nice illustration. So, a torque is not a force. It is the "equivalent" of a force in rotation in that a torque is what creates angular acceleration. A force creates linear acceleration.

The second point is regarding why muscles are considered as producing torques. It all depends on how closely you look at things. If you look someone doing a deadlift, you say that the lifter is producing a force against gravity. The bar moves vertically, in a linear path (or close to). However, if you look a bit closer, the limbs of the lifter are not getting shorter or longer. In other words, the lifter does not have extensible legs that would act like an hydraulic piston to lift the weight. Instead, to lift the weight you need to change the angles between the different segments of the body (tibia, femur, torso, arms). The knees get straighter and the hips extend. These are rotations between body segments. The bar resists these rotations, and one must exert a torque about the rotation axis to move the segments, which will in turn move the body. That's where the idea that muscles don't "care" about force, just torques comes from. Of course, if you look at the individual muscle level, then you find that the muscles produce a force. When a muscle contracts, there is a force exerted between its two ends that allows the muscle to shorten. This force is exerted on levers (bones), which produces the torques, as the muscles are attached to the bones away from joints.
 
a torque is what creates angular acceleration. A force creates linear acceleration.

THAT is cool!

one must exert a torque about the rotation axis to move the segments, which will in turn move the body

When a muscle contracts, there is a force exerted between its two ends that allows the muscle to shorten. This force is exerted on levers (bones), which produces the torques, as the muscles are attached to the bones away from joints.

Great descriptions.

Thanks @Manuel Fortin
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rif
Anna, there are two different points in your question. The first one is definitions. Torque is force multiplied by moment arm. The moment arm is a distance between a point about which an object rotate and the an axis extending along the force exerted on the object. Wikipedia has a nice illustration. So, a torque is not a force. It is the "equivalent" of a force in rotation in that a torque is what creates angular acceleration. A force creates linear acceleration.

The second point is regarding why muscles are considered as producing torques. It all depends on how closely you look at things. If you look someone doing a deadlift, you say that the lifter is producing a force against gravity. The bar moves vertically, in a linear path (or close to). However, if you look a bit closer, the limbs of the lifter are not getting shorter or longer. In other words, the lifter does not have extensible legs that would act like an hydraulic piston to lift the weight. Instead, to lift the weight you need to change the angles between the different segments of the body (tibia, femur, torso, arms). The knees get straighter and the hips extend. These are rotations between body segments. The bar resists these rotations, and one must exert a torque about the rotation axis to move the segments, which will in turn move the body. That's where the idea that muscles don't "care" about force, just torques comes from. Of course, if you look at the individual muscle level, then you find that the muscles produce a force. When a muscle contracts, there is a force exerted between its two ends that allows the muscle to shorten. This force is exerted on levers (bones), which produces the torques, as the muscles are attached to the bones away from joints.

Came here to say that.
 
Strength: Rip is right that, in general, American weightlifters need to get stronger (or, alternatively, make it financially lucrative for our most genetically gifted power generators to not go into more popular sports). But why over emphasize the squat instead of the pull?

I thought this podcast was interesting. If you guys have the chance, definitely check it out.

 
Adaptation is specific, not general. Ergo, it should be pretty obvious from simple biomechanics that the more upright torso of the HBBS is closer to the catch position of a (non-power) clean.

Strength is joint-angle specific, you are correct, and you are also correct hat the more upright torso of the HBBS is closer to the catch position of a (non-power) clean. This point has been argued many times. The response from Rippetoe's crew has been that strength is a general adaption. This statement is also true - for the vast majority of sports. In most sports, athletes are not going to gain strength by practicing the sport itself. Perhaps a skinny high school kid who made the football team might gain a bit of strength doing blocking drills during his first few practices, this won't last. Also, it is usually impractical, dangerous, or counterproductive to try to mimic sport movements in the weight room. Using heavier-than-normal implements is also problematic because it could cause injury, and studies have shown that if the implement is too heavy our bodies will use different motor patterns to deal with the heavier implement. Bottom line: a tennis player using a 25 lbs. racket will use a motor pattern different from a normal-weight racket and the strength will not transfer (assuming the tennis player does rip off his shoulder or elbow). So the model for training in the vast majority of sports is to develop general strength in the gym, then go to the practice field to practice skills and hope that the athlete can apply his or her strength to the sport. Weightlifting is different because practicing the sport does in fact build strength. Weightlifting impacts recovery so a coach needs to be careful that he or she doesn't wear down the athlete with a bunch of general strength exercises.
hat
There is another problem with the "general adaptation" argument - it assumes that the HBBS will not build a base of general strength. Rippetoe may think that the LBBS is better at building strength, but I don't think he would make the claim that the HBBS is a purely sport-specific exercise that builds no general strength. In addition, the HBBS is more specific to the positions found in weightlifting. So in the HBBS we have a very good general strength exercise that also happens to be more specific to weightlifting than the LBBS. This is a win-win for the HBBS.
 
@Philippe Geoffrion, I've probably watched that video a dozen times before now.

Everyone, a new thing I saw - check out about the 37-second mark - he does a "prying" motion with both shoulders as he's holding the weight overhead.

-S-
First saw this one about 15 years ago. We started lifting for track and doing power variation of the Olympic lifts. I remember watching this and seeing him literally float the 100 kilos (more than my max at the time) up to his shoulders like he was lifting a cup of coffee. He was truly incredible to watch. He just exuded the essence of a true champion.
 
It's funny that when I watch someone truly great do something, it looks so natural and easy I want to try it myself.
 
@
I appreciate that it's so smooth he doesn't need collar locks.
@Bro Mo
His technique is smooth, no doubt, but one doesn't need collar locks on proper bars with bumper plates. Also small plates don't fall off, not even during snatches.

@Rif: what the elite does doesn't have to be right by definition. Remember the Fosbury flop. It turned out that jumping backwards allows to jump higher. None of the elite did that at the time. Therefore the LBBS cannot be rejected on that argument alone. So one should look at what the elite do. Nevertheless sometimes a crazy new idea turns out to be good. The LBBS doesn't seem to be one of them and Mike laid out the arguments well.
 
@

@Bro Mo
His technique is smooth, no doubt, but one doesn't need collar locks on proper bars with bumper plates. Also small plates don't fall off, not even during snatches.

@Rif: what the elite does doesn't have to be right by definition. Remember the Fosbury flop. It turned out that jumping backwards allows to jump higher. None of the elite did that at the time. Therefore the LBBS cannot be rejected on that argument alone. So one should look at what the elite do. Nevertheless sometimes a crazy new idea turns out to be good. The LBBS doesn't seem to be one of them and Mike laid out the arguments well.


True, but a CENTRAL SF principle is reverse engineering what the best do naturally. It doesn't mean following it blindly but it also doesn't mean ignoring it. There is usually something to be learned. I would say re your example that one would have looked at Fosbury and examined it as the "best" of the time
 
I spend time and effort digging for information, and that should earn me the right to say a few more words. And someone decides which is "reasoned discussion" and what's not. Doesn't work this way.
 
Last edited:
I have removed three recent posts from this thread because they are rather insulting to a specific strength coach and that coach's approach. We don't say you're wrong, only that we know what we do works - if you want to insult another coach's approach to strength training in broad strokes, please don't do it here.

Please note that I have not removed some posts critical of this same coach because those posts are not attacks in general but are reasoned discussions of specific aspects of this coach's teaching.

If anyone wants to discuss this, please PM me and don't do it here - let's keep the thread on its topic. Or you may start a new thread in the Members Only section of the forum.

Thank you.

-S-
 
I think Mike alluded to this early in the thread: many Olympic weightlifters have short femurs and long torsos (and short arms) - a build that is advantageous for putting a weight overhead, encourages an upright upper body when squatting, and tends to punish an overly bent over position.

The OLs require an ATG squat and that is not something that can be done w. a low bar squat unless you are a mutant.

I'm not saying OLers can't low bar squat, or even that they should at some phases of their training, but I can't for the life of me see why any OLer would spend that much time doing so.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom