There's a lot of commonly understood but fundamentally misunderstood strength developments that the big 3 tend to take care of that isolations won't. Upper back exercises can be trained for strength, but you get enough development from deadlifts particularly as you train them heavily, and the muscles in the back for pulling movements respond predominantly to volume and variation.
|
-
10-08-2021, 09:23 AM #31There's no rule that says the dog can't play.
-
10-08-2021, 09:46 AM #32
The deadlift is not a back exercise.
The deadlift is not a back exercise.
The deadlift is not a back exercise.
(Unless we’re talking about Dorian deadlifts, but there are still better options to fully shorten and lengthen the muscles of back, you know, rows, pullups and pulldowns)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTQRaidr...dium=copy_link
I can’t begin to count how guys I’ve seen squat 4 plates but can’t do a lunge, who can pull 6 plates but can’t do a pullup or even an inverted row, can bench till the sun comes up but shake like a leaf doing dumbbell presses.
Never assume any one exercise is enough, do as many as you can, get as strong as you can and do as many reps as you can. Get strong in as many ROMs as you can.Age: 30
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"
-Sir Isaac Newton
-
-
10-08-2021, 10:12 AM #33
.... Man you've got me grinning in amusement that you think it's not also a major back exercise, but I won't try to change your mind.
Completely serious question though: unless I've got you wrong, you prefer the hex bar for deadlifts. Why is that?
Center of gravity on your sagittal plane rather than in front of you takes an enormous amount of load off of the back. If it's not a back exercise in the first place that shouldn't make a difference.Bench: 340
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 505
"... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
-
10-08-2021, 10:24 AM #34
I prefer to deadlift with a straight bar, conventionally. Just to keep the technique down.
I prefer to work the glutes with a hex bar since I’m not locked into any one hip position like I would be with a straight bar. I can be more upright if I so choose to work the quads, or I can push my glutes back as far as I can and start, and end, with them in the maximally stretched position. It is all just picking the right tool for the job.
Whoever told you that using a hex bar takes an enormous load of the back (I’m assuming you mean erectors since lat and upper back activation is similar between the 2) is lying to you. They still have yo contribute mightily to keep you upright. Especially when the reps get higher.
But here is Greg Nuckols to explain it better.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.str...deadlifts/amp/Age: 30
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"
-Sir Isaac Newton
-
10-08-2021, 10:33 AM #35
Thank you for the reference and the thoughtful response.
So... even you're keeping the shoulders down and everything is isometric, that still constitutes a major stress on the back, even more than the squat. Especially when considering the conventional deadlift with even greater erector and trap involvement, that sounds like weak grounds to be emphatically claiming that it's not a back exercise.
But I think we're just at an impasse on this. Rows and pullups/downs are highly important to fully training it, regardless.
Oh, and I am not claiming that the hex bar doesn't involve the back, either, but a vertical bar-path with the dead-weight in front of you entails force production from it to pull it into line. If instead you're pulling vertically upward in the middle of the bar with your hands directly at your sides and a much shallower back angle, that's not nearly as much the case. Spinal loading and bracing are out of question obviously.
If Nuckols says otherwise, I'm probably mistaken about something, but haven't read the article yet.Last edited by EliKoehn; 10-08-2021 at 10:39 AM.
Bench: 340
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 505
"... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
-
10-08-2021, 10:46 AM #36
Also though I'm talking more fundamental strength development encompassing aspects of core, posture and proper back support.
Lunges are more leg-focused I believe anyway and aren't supposed to be done via pulling except for db which makes them more impractical for high intensity thus are still for leg driving. Squats are a much better example, though apparently people still have bilateral deficiency as far as I've heard.
Cheers, really. But deadlifts are either working the back or they aren't lol.Last edited by GeneralSerpant; 10-08-2021 at 10:53 AM.
There's no rule that says the dog can't play.
-
-
10-08-2021, 10:47 AM #37
-
10-08-2021, 10:54 AM #38
-
10-08-2021, 10:56 AM #39
-
10-08-2021, 10:57 AM #40
-
-
10-08-2021, 11:00 AM #41
-
10-08-2021, 11:01 AM #42
-
10-08-2021, 11:03 AM #43
-
10-08-2021, 11:05 AM #44
-
-
10-08-2021, 01:19 PM #45
After reading the article, I don't see at all how Greg is agreeing with you that the deadlift is not a back exercise. To take one excerpt:
"In essence, the trap bar deadlift works your back and hip extensors almost as hard as the conventional deadlift does at worst, and just as hard in all likelihood, with the added benefit of also providing a little extra stimulus for your quads (though not nearly as much as squatting does). What’s not to love?"
Nowhere does he say anything about this not being a back exercise. Admittedly, you posted this in reference to the "bar vs. hex" question that I posed, but as an aside, I really don't think he would agree with you on that one, if you're taking him to be an authority in general.
As for the discussion about the merits of the type of bar, his point seems to be primarily that the hex is not fundamentally different as a movement and doesn't deserve as much negative reputation as it gets, while ultimately concluding that it might be the better option for explosive force production, accessibility to novices and lower injury potential - also with utility to train the conventional deadlift itself. The 2011 study he cited found a single-digit percent difference in moment loads and so is functionally the same movement pattern.
However, he unambiguously said that it's easier at the same loading, principally because it recruits the quads far more than conventional deadlifts do, despite the only slightly less-hinged movement pattern, has a shorter range of motion from the elevated handles, and enables a naturally stronger neutral grip.
A takeaway for me is that the loading differences at the relevant joints are only minor, if still objectively less of a hinge than the deadlift. That it is more explosive because it significantly incorporates another major muscle group (quads) at a more advantageous angle doesn't surprise me.
For the purpose of comparing maxes, that makes a big difference. A hex bar max shouldn't be equated to a conventional, and his article doesn't support the notion, even if the viability for overall athletic benefit is great.
One question he posed in the intro and didn't seem to answer (unless I missed it, not being able to give an especially careful reading at the moment) is the common criticism that it is not to be preferred as a hinge in programming because it tends towards "squatiness" at the expense of "hinge purity." He then goes on to say that it does actually, albeit not extremely - and that the conventional deadlift itself is not a truly pure hinge - then does not address why that isn't a potential issue. If it uses your quads comparably to the squat itself - which the conventional deadlift certainly does not - not only does that add to your nominal hinge number somewhat artificially to the extent that it does, but that could take from your squat and reduce the separation and balance of your programming overall.
EDIT: I realized he said the quad stimulus comparison between the squat and the hex bar deadlift isn't especially close, before the rebuttal surfaces. However, it is still a lot more, and since that is a criticism, he seemed not to address why it's not an issue.Last edited by EliKoehn; 10-08-2021 at 01:29 PM.
Bench: 340
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 505
"... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
-
10-08-2021, 01:28 PM #46
-
10-08-2021, 01:37 PM #47
I'm at work and instagram is flagged by my firewall, sorry. Could you not summarize? It's a pretty straightforward question.
Also, this... you can't count the number of people you've seen pull six plates? That's certainly up there and pretty rare. Furthermore you've seen these same people struggle to do very basic performances of other rudimentary lifts? Surely not... if it's YouTube people, you haven't seen them fail or struggle to do extremely rudimentary stuff, because they wouldn't upload it, and I am skeptical that you've seen more than a few people IRL pull 6 at all, and unless they weigh a metric ton, fail to do a single pullup.
Also, doubt it on that shaking like a leaf thing.. Unless the bar bench sucked. Repped 100s almost immediately going straight from the bar and occasional DB incline presses, myself, and I'm not special.
It sounds like you're going off of a loose impression and supposing it's true without hard and fast observation of actual lifts by the same people.Bench: 340
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 505
"... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
-
10-08-2021, 01:56 PM #48
-
-
10-08-2021, 02:04 PM #49
Sorry bout the Instagram thing, I’m at Walmart trying to find the mrs’ caramel protein meal replacement shakes and didn’t have time to write out a response lol
In my gym there are a few 600+ pullers, and guys who squat into the mid 500s. One of the trainers here has a 405 bench, 650 deadlift and 605 squat.Age: 30
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"
-Sir Isaac Newton
-
10-08-2021, 02:09 PM #50
-
10-08-2021, 02:38 PM #51
I think we're still at a bit of a disconnect. The point in question (to my mind, at least) is the comprehensiveness and relative degree of sufficiency of barbell lifts even unto a rather high level, and that their yield carries over to more specific, specialized training to a significant degree which is not reverse-compatible, not that they satisfy an entire training regimen completely. I wouldn't do anything else at all if I didn't think there was value to it, even if the great majority of my training is barbells. Importantly, this contention is in response to the claim that this is not true, or nearly to the extent that I suppose, AND that progress in these lifts does not actually represent some kind of "general" strength ability. With that I strongly disagree.
To the separate question of reverse adaptability, I attempted to substantiate beyond my consistent anecdotal impression, and posed the suggestion to the competing argument. So far, EiFit referenced a YouTube video with trained athletes who didn't necessarily not bench, but I'm not seeing any evidence otherwise, but welcome it, as even though I don't think that position is true, I'd like not to be close-minded if I'm wrong. I learned something speaking against my opinion in the Nuckols article BG posted, and it doesn't embarrass me to admit that I'm wrong, if so.
Close variations are important, but I do think they are auxiliary, and BG seems to play them up to parity as a placeholder instead of them, while shooting down the idea that someone with advanced numbers in conventional barbell lifts doesn't represent a meaningful comprehensive value of strength. That's where I am at odds with him, not that variations have value and should be done. It's this ostensible conflict and dismissal of what they ideally assist or work in conjunction with which throws a flag to me. And just to be clear, we are talking about strength here, per my aforesaid caveat about hypertrophy, and again, this isn't everyone's goal and you can get big in other ways.
My preference for the bar is that it is more objective than cables and capable of higher loadings than dumbbells. Cable rows will vary depending on number of pullies, distances between them, etc. Also, I already said that inasmuch as the loading is equal, the movement pattern is what should matter. A barbell lift should be the object of no criticism for this purpose, whereas the above problems exist for alternatives.
I assume you either agree or understand my meaning on the points you didn't quote, so I'll leave those alone. Also, I actually do like DB presses. My gym only goes up to 100s and I can do working sets in the hypertrophy range for that. I would probably use them more if I had access to heavier ones.Bench: 340
Squat: 405
Deadlift: 505
"... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
-
10-08-2021, 03:09 PM #52
Check out mid-weight category deadlift competitors. They put up impressive numbers but they aren't very muscular, I don't think the deadlift is a builder at all. It's possibly a shrinker.
I don't think squats builds the whole body like people say either, the original proponents of that were on DBOL and DECA and had no way of differentiating between mechanical and synthetic chemical growth stimuli.
-
-
10-08-2021, 05:04 PM #53
-
10-08-2021, 07:56 PM #54
-
10-08-2021, 11:32 PM #55
Before the pandemic I did 8 reps of 47.5 kg dumbbells on an incline bench with a slight incline. I was in the 225-235 lbs weight range. A few weeks before the lockdowns I started benching after not doing it for years and quickly worked my way up to 107.5 kg for 3 sets of 3. I would have kept increasing the weight but then gyms closed. I was also able to floor press 100 kg for multiple reps.
Isn’t that a roughly similar carryover as the above?The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.
- Richard Feynman
-
10-08-2021, 11:47 PM #56
-
-
10-09-2021, 06:32 AM #57
I agree 100%. I haven't squatted since July and (although I'm not a 'bodybuilder') I haven't lost any leg strength or size. Spiderman crawls done properly (knees outside of elbows, hips down and chest up and looking where you're going, NOT at the floor/ground) are an incredible leg exercise as well as a total body builder. Do 100 yards and then stand up.
-
10-09-2021, 07:29 AM #58
-
10-11-2021, 06:46 AM #59
Nope. They’re not.
In fact, no one exercise is “necessary”. I fell into this trap myself, thinking the squat, bench and dead are the holy grail of lifting and you must kneel and drink from the cup of the holy trinity of lifting to acquire gains.
The reality is, they’re simply tools. Their popularity is derived mainly from powerlifting, and also due to their efficiency at working a large number of muscle groups at once in a coordinated fashion.
What I do believe is necessary for optimal development, however, is the following:
- Some form of squat (or leg press)
- Some form of hip hinge
- Some form of horizontal press
- Some form of vertical press
- Some form of horizontal pull
- Some form of vertical pull*Deadlifts pants after taking a chit crew*
*Typos can go fucl themselves crew*
*Nice miscer crew*
*Loves reps, hates negs crew*
*Faps before workout crew*
*12+ hours of sleep crew*
*Faps during workout crew*
*Hates onions crew*
*Faps after workout crew*
*No fap crew*
-
10-11-2021, 08:59 AM #60
Bookmarks