Strengthlifting

kennycro@@aol.com

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Maybe he feels...
Maybe...

Maybe amount to guessing. Something we could spend all day on and never get right.

Who knows how and why Rippetoe come up with some of his ideas on something. Some are good, well based. Some, like the Conventional Deadlift, make no sense and (as Mike The Bear pointed out) contradict Mark's Low Bar Squat protocol.

Doesn't make sense to me but I can see his thoughts if his creating minimised program
Doesn't Make Sense

Essentially, as Mike The Bear is saying, Mark is speaking out of both side of his mouth at the same time via the contradiction of the Conventional Deadlift and Low Bar Squat.

Minimized Program

How would performing a Conventional Deadlift during one training cycle over performing a Sumo Deadlift (No Conventional Deadlift) in the following cycle create a minimized program?

Does it take someone longer to perform a Sumo Deadlift than a Conventional Deadlift?

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:

Glen

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@kennycro@@aol.com I think his point and stance is for a beginner.

In the first instance someone new to lifting doesn't need lots of variation to make progress, in fact time spent swapping between exercises will just lead to a slowing of progress which at the stage his program is focused on could be better spent reaping the linear progression joy of just adding more weight regularly.

By the time someone needs more variation they would be past the beginner stage and therefore not require 'starting strength'
 

Bill Been

More than 500 posts
Irrespective what was said in the linked article (which was actually not very well received among SSCs) Rippetoe is fully consistent to his exercise selection principles as regards the sumo deadlift. The exercise selection criteria inside Starting Strength are to choose exercises that:
1. Use the greatest muscle mass;
2. Over the longest *effective* range of motion;
3. Which allows the use of the heaviest loads leading to the greatest strength gains.

By artificially shortening the legs, the sumo deadlift moves the hip closer to the bar, thereby shortening the back segment and the moment force the back must transmit to the hip, thereby both reducing effective range of motion AND the amount of back muscle involved in the lift. So, even if the lifter is able to lift more weight sumo than conventional, sumo still fails 2 out of 3 of the exercise criteria.
 

Shahaf Levin

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@kennycro@@aol.com I think his point and stance is for a beginner.
The fact that SS is aimed for beginners does not changes the fact that the SS philosophy is self-contradicting. Furthermore, if this the reason, why not just say that? And why does a competitive lifting federation like Strengthlifting rules are following guidelines for beginner and not champions?

As said before in the thread Rippetoe and Co. can do whatever they please, its fine. I also aware that SS gets people stronger. I also see allot of false logic and self-contradictions. I don't expect any system/theory to be whole, and definitely not True. There are no such things. I do, however, demand consistency and when I encounter inconsistent systems I tune out.
 

Joe Fraser

Triple-Digit Post Count
Also, Starting Strength advocates there exercises and form that allow the most weight with the longest effective range of motion.

This is why a quarter squat wouldn't qualify even though their is more weight. Also, deficit deadlifts would be a longer range of motion but less weight and likely not the most effective.

I'd also argue that Starting Strength is not just for novices. There is a novice LP program, which transitions to an advanced novice LP program, and then intermediate and advanced programs utilizing the same theories just with a longer frequency on the progression (Texas Method, HLM, 4 day split etc.).
 

MikeTheBear

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
First, I consider it a badge of honor that @kennycro@@aol.com plagiarized my post. Second, I know that I criticize Rippetoe a lot but when I do I try to make logical points and be professional about it. But Kenny nailed it - I think the SS camp is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Look, if the rationale for using the conventional DL is that the sumo is closer to a squat movement pattern while the conventional is more of a hip hinge, and we want to encourage our trainees to develop a strong hip hinge movement pattern, and we further want to encourage our trainees to train hard by having our own competitions where they can show off their accomplishments, these are perfectly valid reasons to prohibit the sumo in their competition. But if that's the case then say so. When they start talking about levers and moment arms and what they're saying contradicts what they've said about the squat, then I'm going to call BS.

It would be similar to Strongfirst putting on a kettlebell lifting competition that only allowed the hardstyle technique. I would not ask why SF wouldn't allow the GS technique. But that's because Pavel has explained the rationale for HS and why it is different from GS, but his explanation was never based on putting down GS technique as inferior. HS and GS are different techniques for different goals.
 

kennycro@@aol.com

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
@kennycro@@aol.com I think his point and stance is for a beginner.

In the first instance someone new to lifting doesn't need lots of variation to make progress, in fact time spent swapping between exercises will just lead to a slowing of progress which at the stage his program is focused on could be better spent reaping the linear progression joy of just adding more weight regularly.

By the time someone needs more variation they would be past the beginner stage and therefore not require 'starting strength'
Novice Lifter

Yes, a Novice Lifer can maintain the same training program for a longer period of time before needing to make a change; their adaptation is slower that an intermediate or advance lifter.

Kenny Croxdale
 

MikeTheBear

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
By artificially shortening the legs, the sumo deadlift moves the hip closer to the bar, thereby shortening the back segment and the moment force the back must transmit to the hip, thereby both reducing effective range of motion AND the amount of back muscle involved in the lift.
I thought this was interesting:

Sumo Versus Conventional Deadlift: Your Definitive Guide - BarBend

Looks like conventional and sumo are very similar with sumo getting an edge for using more muscles in the quads. So if we go through the criteria:

1. Use the greatest muscle mass: According to the article, it's basically a tie, although the muscles emphasized are different, so this could depend on training goals.
2. Over the longest *effective* range of motion: I'll give this one to conventional.
3. Which allows the use of the heaviest loads leading to the greatest strength gains: This would be the tie-breaker. If a trainee pulls more conventional, use conventional; if more sumo, use sumo.

Another really interesting tidbit from the article is that some Chinese weightlifters use the sumo DL as a general strength exercise. I didn't think sumo DLs had any place in the training of weightlifters, but it kind of makes sense. Sumo works the quads better than conventional and the lift off is driven by leg extension with no change in the back angle, which is similar to the first pull. I may try some sumo pulls.

Based on that article and the study it discusses, I can see sumo having a place even in a general strength training program. Looks like I may have a dog in this fight after all.
 

Simply strong

Double-Digit Post Count
If the layback in the Press is bad for your back, why is the arch in the Bench not bad for the back?

I trained the Press quite a bit over two years and I have not had any issues with my back.
The overhead press is not bad for your back. I’m taking specificity about pressing with an excessive backward lean.

Hyperextending the spine (leaning excessively back) is damaging to the ligaments that surround the vertebrae, especially in the lower back. It’s similar to rounding the back during a deadlift. To optimise your spins health during any lift a neutral spine must be maintained. If you squeeze your gluteus as hard as you can during a press it will protect your lower back to some degree making a small amount of backward lean safe. However an olympic press is an extreme lean back and i cannot see it being healthy long term.

The reason a hyperextended back is less of an issue during a bench press is due to the horizontal force through the body rather than vertical force. The load is not going down through your spine but horizontally. This essentially means that the spine is not really under load in the same way. In fact the lumbar spine is not actually under load at all during a bench press so arching it excessively is not really a problem health wise. I still think extreme arches in the bench press need to be done away with but this is more because it makes range of motion laughably small.

If anyone has more knowledge on this topic and disagrees then I invite you to please shoot me down.
 

Geoff Chafe

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The overhead press is not bad for your back. I’m taking specificity about pressing with an excessive backward lean.

Hyperextending the spine (leaning excessively back) is damaging to the ligaments that surround the vertebrae, especially in the lower back. It’s similar to rounding the back during a deadlift. To optimise your spins health during any lift a neutral spine must be maintained. If you squeeze your gluteus as hard as you can during a press it will protect your lower back to some degree making a small amount of backward lean safe. However an olympic press is an extreme lean back and i cannot see it being healthy long term.

The reason a hyperextended back is less of an issue during a bench press is due to the horizontal force through the body rather than vertical force. The load is not going down through your spine but horizontally. This essentially means that the spine is not really under load in the same way. In fact the lumbar spine is not actually under load at all during a bench press so arching it excessively is not really a problem health wise. I still think extreme arches in the bench press need to be done away with but this is more because it makes range of motion laughably small.

If anyone has more knowledge on this topic and disagrees then I invite you to please shoot me down.
I am talking about the Press. I don’t have an extreme layback. I wish.

Most of the arch and layback should come from the T Spine, not the low back, like a bench press.

If you are Benching with good leg drive you are actually loading the spine quite a bit. I would say almost as much as standing if you are doing it right.
 

Bill Been

More than 500 posts
There are no tie breakers. All 3 criteria must be met. The "greatest load lifted" is only operative if the other 2 criteria are already met. You can't ricochet a Bench Press off your sternum to lift more weight. You can't squat high to lift more weight. The excessive layback in the Press has caused much controversy, despite the fact that only 1 SSC that I know of is actually capable of producing dodgy levels of spinal extension. The sumo deadlift start position for any given lifter is more vertical, with hips closer to the bar. This is the whole point of the sumo deadlift. This posture reduces the moment force the back must rigidly transmit to the hip chassis, which reduces the training effect on the erector muscles. Starting Strength is a general strength development system - not a powerlifting total system. So even if any given lifter can lift more weight, the reduced training effect on the erectors and reduced ROM nullifies that fact.

The BarBend article cites a study that is fatally flawed. I'd tell you how, but I know you'll all be keen to sleuth it out for yourselves.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
Most of the arch and layback should come from the T Spine, not the low back, like a bench press.
I use a fair amount of layback when doing alternating overhead sandbag pressing, as much to increase the ROM a bit as anything else. My lower back feels fine during and after, and I have arthritis at L5S1 that will flare up just from sleeping wrong. The fact it is mostly T spine extension didn't really occur to me but is an accurate observation.

I wonder how this squares with McGill's work where he found the biggest danger was flexing under a compressive load and then moving to extension under same - all with the lumbar spine.
 

kennycro@@aol.com

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
If you are Benching with good leg drive you are actually loading the spine quite a bit. I would say almost as much as standing if you are doing it right.
Based On What?

"I would say..." = Guessing. Guessing means that you really don't know.

What has more meaning if it is backed up with something to support that premise.

Spine Loading

1) It is questionable if the loading on the spine would have as much force with an arched bench compared to an over head press.

2) If spine loading is a concern, the concern should be more with other exercise as well as some daily activities.

Health Considerations of Powerlifting Technique

The Bench Press

"...McGill study noted that the prone “Superman” exercises performed on the floor create as much as 6000N of force, or roughly 1300 pounds of spinal compression. The positioning of this exercise is relatively similar to a moderate bench arch, and as it doesn’t involve leg drive or pushing the traps/upper back into a fixed bench, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that hardcore archers create even more compression. Now, this isn’t as much of an issue just looked at as a number—a competition squat or deadlift can create over 20,000N of compression, and computer models have shown a six-foot person can create 10,000 N with a 300-pound deadlift...

In a study done by Nachenson and Elfstron4 the approximate loads on the lumbar vertebrae were measured. The results of their study are shown below:


Source: THE DEADLIFT: A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS [Nutrition & Health OnLine Magazine]

Kenny Croxdale

 

Steve A

Double-Digit Post Count
@Simply strong If the layback in the Press is bad for your back, why is the arch in the Bench not bad for the back?
Actually I've known quite a few people over the years who have aggravated their backs by arching during the bench, and have read a few articles by strength coaches which give instructions to reduce the arching to preserve the back, especially if not getting ready for a competition.
 

Geoff Chafe

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Based On What?

"I would say..." = Guessing. Guessing means that you really don't know.

What has more meaning if it is backed up with something to support that premise.
I would say I could not agree more.

I am completely unprepared for the social contract of posting. Thanks for the reminder.
 

kennycro@@aol.com

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Actually I've known quite a few people over the years who have aggravated their backs by arching during the bench, ...
Aggravated Backs

1) I am sure there have been some individual who have aggravated their backs while benching for various reason.

2) "Know quite a few..." This is vague information that's hard to evaluate.

With that said, I have know very few individuals who have aggravate their backs in Powerlifer over my decades of being in the sport as a lifter, referee, and meet director.

...have read a few articles by strength coaches which give instructions to reduce the arching to preserve the back, especially if not getting ready for a competition.
Post The Article

I am always interesting in reviewing information like this.

Please post that information.

Spine Loading

If spine loading is a concern, the concern should be more with other exercises such the Squat, Deadlift, Olympic Movements, Depth Jumps, Running, Jumping, etc.

Running

The amount of impact force from running is between 3 - 5 time* your body weight. That means if you weight 150 lbs, each foot strike produces approximately 450 lbs to 750 lbs of impact force that the back has to endure.

Over the course of a running let's say a mile, over 500 foot strikes will occur, if each stride you make is 3 ft; dramatically magnifying the chronic impact on the lower back .

*3 - 5 time body weight based on one of my sources. However, this source indicates it may be even higher...

Can Running REALLY Hurt Your Knees?
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19532915/biggest-running-myth-debunked/

"Every step you take walking exerts a load on the knee 2 to 3 times your body weight, he says. The force exerted from running increases that load to anywhere between 5 to 12 times your weight, depending largely on running speed or form.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:

MikeTheBear

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The BarBend article cites a study that is fatally flawed. I'd tell you how, but I know you'll all be keen to sleuth it out for yourselves.
I'll address this first. Although the stated purpose of the study was "to compare muscle activity between sumo and conventional stvle deadlifts. and between belt and no-belt conditions," the researchers were part of Duke University's Division of Orthopedic Surgery, so their underlying goal was to determine if deadlifts could be used in a rehab setting. They specifically discussed using the deadlift in rehabbing knee injuries. As such, the EMG numbers were based on the participants lifting their 12 RM. I know from reading other studies that EMG readings can and do change when the weight increases. But the researchers recognized that fact and stated in their conclusion that "because the joint moments that previously have been quantified during the deadlift were from a 1 RM deadlift, additional studies should be conducted comparing EMG between sumo and conventional deadlifts employing a 1 RM intensity." I don't know that this is a "fatal flaw," at least not for what the researchers were trying to determine, but I agree that this does not necessarily tell us what the EMG readings would be if the study used heavier loads.

I'll throw this one out there: EMG analysis has been criticized as not always accurate. Unfortunately, that's all we got right now.

I'll also mention that the study used football players who were experienced lifters and had used both styles of deadlifts rather than less experienced lifters or rank novices. I don't think this is a flaw at all but some could criticize the study based on the experience of the participants: muscles in strong, experienced lifters fire differently than muscles in less experienced lifters.

So even if any given lifter can lift more weight, the reduced training effect on the erectors and reduced ROM nullifies that fact.
I suppose this depends on whether or not the study has some validity or whether it is, in fact, fatally flawed. The study found "no significant differences were found in L3 and TI2 paraspinal activity during the ascent, which implies that the sumo deadlift may be as effective as the conventional deadlift in recruiting the paraspinal muscles."
 

Bill Been

More than 500 posts
Nice job, Mike. You laid out the problem with both surface EMG readings and 12RM loading, and you’re also correct about the aims of the paper. The above are wholly appropriate for said aims, but they do make the paper irrelevant to our purposes.

In another context, papers on the study of the deleterious effects of metabolic acidosis due to chronic disease states are too often cited as justification for studious avoidance of glycolytic training and the extremely transitory post-exercise Ph disruptions. That’s inappropriate too.
 
Top Bottom