I’ve had similar issues with my bent leg deadlifting. As much as I’m being flippant, I did actually fix my hamstring flexibility with good mornings and straight leg deads (last time I did GMs 100kg for 4 reps; 4 nights ago SL deads 150kg 2 sets x 6 reps). Now I can touch my toes with straight legs, however, I do use what would be called a Romanian type technique in any movement like that. I generally push my butt back a bit, make sure I keep my normal lumbar lordosis (if anything, I tend to accentuate it), then reach down.
However, for bent leg deads, I found quite quickly that my main issue was in my glut max and calf flexibility causing my rounding.
As much as I worked on flexibility, I found technique modification worked more effectively. This is kindof a weird story, but bear with me.
Using a slightly wider stance helped, but I still felt like I was rounding going heavier.
What I found best was to approach the bar for the first rep, and almost take it like I was going to straight leg dead it, but then what I generally do is drop my ass down and back while keeping in tight to the bar with a nice strong upright trunk, then power my feet into the floor to initiate the drive. This turned my bent leg dead reps into something similar to you, which is a series of singles separated by a second or two as I went through my little pre-rep routine. What I found was that actively driving my butt down got me in the right position (forced me to), while keeping a nice upright/strong trunk helped keep the rounding down.
Once I started doing this little weird routine I found I wasn’t rounding, I gradually got everything sorted out by forcing the muscles to adapt to the right technique, and now-a-days I can just bent leg dead without my little routine, although I still like to do my sets like a series of singles rather than continuous (only for bent leg, for straight leg I like to just rep it out).
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Ah that makes sense; I read an article by a big name dude saying that the shoulder blades should be back the whole time while deadlifting[/quote] That would drastically limit the amount of weight you could (safely) pull and also lengthen the bar path (= even less weight)… Who was the author? [quote]. So I will just try to pull the bar back while or right after I lockout.[/quote]
You got any handy stretches or such for someone being unable to touch his toes with his hands while standing bent-over unless that someone where to round his back?
Good mornings! LOL
[/quote]
LOL
Yeah, loading up 945 and then bending forward is going to make me touch my toes… With my nose.
But see, my legs won’t stay straight then and my back won’t either.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
I’ve had similar issues with my bent leg deadlifting. As much as I’m being flippant, I did actually fix my hamstring flexibility with good mornings and straight leg deads (last time I did GMs 100kg for 4 reps; 4 nights ago SL deads 150kg 2 sets x 6 reps). Now I can touch my toes with straight legs, however, I do use what would be called a Romanian type technique in any movement like that. I generally push my butt back a bit, make sure I keep my normal lumbar lordosis (if anything, I tend to accentuate it), then reach down.
However, for bent leg deads, I found quite quickly that my main issue was in my glut max and calf flexibility causing my rounding.
As much as I worked on flexibility, I found technique modification worked more effectively. This is kindof a weird story, but bear with me.
Using a slightly wider stance helped, but I still felt like I was rounding going heavier.
What I found best was to approach the bar for the first rep, and almost take it like I was going to straight leg dead it, but then what I generally do is drop my ass down and back while keeping in tight to the bar with a nice strong upright trunk, then power my feet into the floor to initiate the drive. This turned my bent leg dead reps into something similar to you, which is a series of singles separated by a second or two as I went through my little pre-rep routine. What I found was that actively driving my butt down got me in the right position (forced me to), while keeping a nice upright/strong trunk helped keep the rounding down.
Once I started doing this little weird routine I found I wasn’t rounding, I gradually got everything sorted out by forcing the muscles to adapt to the right technique, and now-a-days I can just bent leg dead without my little routine, although I still like to do my sets like a series of singles rather than continuous (only for bent leg, for straight leg I like to just rep it out).
[/quote]
So you mean that there’s no mythical stretch used by chinese gymnasts that I can use to improve my flexibility by 3000 percent overnight? Why did I even ask you, what a waste of time…
So you mean that there’s no mythical stretch used by chinese gymnasts that I can use to improve my flexibility by 3000 percent overnight? Why did I even ask you, what a waste of time…
[/quote]
I wish…you know you could try a 1000lb seated good morning, but have your legs out straight on the bench in front of you…send photos when you try… LOL
There are a few muscles that can make conventional deads a bitch to do. The TFL in my experience can cause a whole host of problems. A tight TFL can make it very difficult to stretch the piriformis properly, which obviously causes quite a few issues itself. The thing about conventional deadlifts is that they require quite a bit of glute flexibility. They really do not require much hamstring flexibility all things considered. I have a client who cannot do a very strict deep back squat or a romanian dead that is even decent. But she can get into perfect conventional deadlift position. I on the other hand though I have very different dimensions, have much more flexible hamstrings, have much tighter glutes and can barely get into proper deadlift position.
Conventional Deads close down the hip joint much more than Romanians and conventional deads also have a bent leg which makes it easier on any muscle that crosses the knee. While the tibia does move forward during a conventional dead and basically does not during a Romanian, the difference in knee flexion should still, for most people make the conventional dead less taxing flexibility wise, on muscles crossing the knee joint (hamstring, gastroc)…
Some of this you are crossing low rep with maxing out, they aren’t necessarily the same thing just like moderate reps and light weight.
I’ll have to take your word about the pros training. I just know I’ve seen the youtube of them doing it. But I guess you are saying some of the pros didn’t “build their bases” in powerlifting I’m wrong. I know three are some like buoy (sp) that claim to use a lot of low rep work.
Only 2 of the vids look like a legit dl and we can see none of their backs. [/quote] Fair enough, but one would expect these guys to look a bit more solid, right? [quote]
I do however agree that there is nothing magical about a 500 lbs deadlift. Personal progression is key, but that has nothing to do with rep range.
But pretty much all of what you are saying on leverages factoring into the lift apply equally, if not more to all the other lifts. Guys that can bench 300 generally look like that can bench 300[/quote]Well, onemorerep could only bench 200 or so? I don’t recall the exact number. Sure looked like he was doing more though [quote], guys that pull 500 generally look like they pull 500. No, not a concrete thing, but a pretty good rule of thumb. [/quote] Mh… I’d bet that 2 guys benching 315 for 12 reps are going to look at like intermediate bodybuilders. Not small, but not large either with a few exceptions of very short guys. Now, 2 guys benching 405 for a max single? Without knowing any other stats, I couldn’t tell you much about them. One could look pretty “buff” while the other could be a thin, tall guy or a still thin short guy with a barrel torso and short arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63_iJfxcxAo ← Man, by the time I could bench 405 (well, CGP it, anyway, and my CGP with PL setup and with my thumbs at around or an inch out of the border between the smooth and the non-smooth part of the bar has always been bigger than my regular flat bench, funny as that seems) I looked so much bigger than these guys… Weird. Started out at something like 100 lbs for 8 or whatever though, so that may be one of the reasons here.
The body of someone starting with a DL of 175x5 is going to change a lot more on his journey to 405x5 than the body of a guy who starts at 255x5…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrTDUK3dxXs ← quite a bit more meat on him (you can see that from his shoulders etc before he drops onto the bench) than the others and struggling more with the same max weight…
So yeah, I think that if you got to a 4051RM via training in the 6-8 or even 8-10 range for 1-2 top sets (wherever that would put you… At 315x10-12 or so?) plus perhaps DB presses as additional work also low volume but moderate to high reps, you’ll have packed on quite a bit more meat than someone just working with very low reps to get his bench to 405 for a single and never really doing any moderate to high work for any real length of time.
It’s just the difference in how the adaption works…
But then again, your 8x3 example… Now, when using short rest periods there and really using a 5-6RM, you’re not actually doing ME work/true low reps, are you?
That’s a lot of non-failure sets to get more reps than you’d normally be able to get with that weight with good form.
Not too dissimilar from me using my 5RM on a deadlift variant but doing 10 reps or so with it by turning the set into a breathing set after the first 5 or perhaps 4 reps, I just get closer to failure or go to failure more often then.
I get less reps overall but in a shorter amount of time, you get more reps over a longer period of time, probably fairly close in the density department, so yeah…
Since you’re not really doing low rep to failure work or at least “real” ME stuff like 3x3 with long rest periods and a heavier load or whatever, I guess I really have no reason to argue with you about this as we’re sort of doing the same thing in the end and I simply misunderstood you at first.
[quote]
Technique/leverage improvement factors into higher rep ranges also not exclusively low reps. You get better technique, 6 reps of 405 is going to get easier. [/quote] And yet a 12RM is still gives me a better idea of whether someone whom I know nothing else about is going to be a thick mofo or not.
A 1RM or 2RM doesn’t tell me much about the person’s physique unless it’s extremely high or extremely low. [quote]
You last point I need to investigate more. It sounds fishy. Higher reps are generally more taxing on the nervous system[/quote] That depends on a lot of factors.
A straight 10-12 rep set cannot possibly be all that taxing on the nervous system than maxing out on the deadlift. The load is much too light on the former and your body is fairly good at handling that weight. High reps are, as I said, more of a muscle-mass based thing (though of course you still get other factors).
Now, if you were to do those 12 reps and then, with very short rest periods, go to failure another 5 times before ending the “set”, well, that would be pretty taxing on the CNS, particularly if it were done on deadlifts or squats or so
If it were a TUT thing, why then are you sceptical about the idea of low reps with a heavier load being more taxing on the nervous system than high reps (at the same rep speed or with the low reps being done in a more explosive fashion… No need to move the bar fast in reality if it’s not possible, but you’re trying because trying to lift a heavy weight slowly means getting crushed)?
Anyway… There are a huge amount of powerlifters NOT doing any DE work at all, but just basically low and moderate rep work to failure or close to it. Many of those hold records in pling all over the world, so those things must be doing something for their nervous systems, huh?
Or if high reps were good for nervous system optimization, why then was the DE method invented in the first place? Could have just stuck to RE then, right?
Shit, quite the clusterfuck of a post now.
Anyway:
-Fatigue does not necessarily cause optimization. Else every high volume high rep pump guy would bench 600 raw with ease thanks to his crazy nervous system alone.
-Too many damn factors involved.
-Doing 10x3 even with a 6RM load rather than a 3RM is going to be more taxing on the supporting structure, joints, tendons, cartilage, whatever, than doing 3x10 with a lighter weight on the same exercise with the same form. The joints and tendons don’t recuperate in between sets like the muscles refuel and flush lactic acid between sets. Thus a higher amount of reps with the same weight or a much heavier weight even for less reps overall will likely cause more joint/tendon degradation.
-If it’s 8x3 with a 6RM but with long rest periods between sets, it will not be all that taxing on the nervous system.
In fact, 3 sets of 10 to screaming positive failure each could indeed be more draining.
-But 8x3 with a 6RM and short rest periods, done explosively and whatnot, well, that’s a different story.
Yet even that could be topped by a 11-15 rep rest-pause set with added static hold, partials, forced reps…
-And a 10 rep rest-pause set done with a 2RM is going to be freaking taxing on the nervous system, moreso than any of the above.
And still a 8x3 with only 50 percent or whatever of 1RM DE set could cause better nervous system adaption than the 10rep, 2RM rest-pause set… May even be almost as taxing or perceived as such.
Oh well. Now I’m really going nowhere with this and damn it’s late over here.
those were great to watch, correct in that some of those guys, two in particular, looked as though they didn’t train/lift pasty and small. the last guy hit a double and you’d never know from looking that he lifts.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
I would worry that you are avoiding that lower ROM deadlift due to a lack of flexibility in the posterior chain. If your flexibility is bad enough at the beginning of a deadlift to make it that hard for you, you probably also lack the flexibility to perform a proper deep squat as well. Am I on point with the flexibility issue? As far as your back goes, the other posters seem to have nailed what should work for you, I just wouldnt want you avoiding deadlifts because of a lack of flexibility.
Not deadlifting because you dont like what they do for you as much as a rack pull is one thing. Not deadlifting because you cant is a different story and will catch up with you one way or another. From my experience not having the flexibility to deadlift indicates you do not have the flexibility to perform ANY leg exercise through a full ROM, meaning the hip is engaged from the beginning.[/quote]
Of course! I am a desk jockey and have been for many years. ;>) Hip flexors and mobility have been shit. They are coming around though. Lots of different stretching and foam rolling over the past month or so. Ankle mobility is slowly coming around as well. I am at least able to get into a deep squat now without completely falling over. lol
You can find exceptions to every rule. Heck, I’ve got 315 x 10 (not paused) and I don’t think my chest looks well developed at all.
Like I was saying before one of the big differences you see in the aesthetic differences between BBing and PLing has to do with structure. Guys like Bolton are not built to be bodybuilders. They have a crapy genetics for it. Guys like 1morerep look the way they do not because he carries more muscle than a guy that benches more, but because of muscle shape and bone structure. So using guys like 1morerep to illustrate a better way to make muscle gains doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Top level power lifters are there because they are built to powerlift, which most of the time means large joints, large hips, odd limb lengths est. Not good for looks. I think that plays into the difference in musculature appearance at least as much as training style.
Even within training routines there are differences that lead to less muscular looks for powerlifters because they tend to train different muscle groups. EX: powerlifting squat vs. a typical bbing squat style. Powerlifters end up with tons of muscle through the posterior chain and hips. Bodybuilders end up with a ton of muscle on their quads. Both can build the same amount of muscle but the powerlifter is going to appear less muscular. The lifting technique can also lead to the aesthetic differences you are speaking of rather than actual muscle gaining. Looks may the best way to compare the different rep schemes.
But do you really think medleson would have more chest/tri development if he gave up low rep work? He probably caries as much chest and tri muscle as anyone else in the world.
I also havenâ??t donâ??t Westside style RE DE ME days in years. I almost never go to failure. I hit everything at least twice a week and get burnt out if I do. But low rep ranges donâ??t equal going to failure any more than higher rep ones.
Oh well, I’m guess I’m going to go hold back my development with a heavy 3x3 deadlift session later today.
I’m enjoying this.
edit:
Looks like he’s better at moderate rep work than ronnie. Why isn’t his back more developed?
Looks like he’s better at moderate rep work than ronnie. Why isn’t his back more developed?
[/quote]
because Ronnie Coleman could rake leaves and have a better back than 90% of the people on the planet no one in the world had a better back than Ronnie during his prime (aka anytime he competed)
how often do you see ronnie deadlift anyway?
i mean besides when he deadlifted 800 x2 5 weeks out
and just to really help that sink in that means he’d been dieting for months already and if he was off season he probably could hit that for 6.
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
those were great to watch, correct in that some of those guys, two in particular, looked as though they didn’t train/lift pasty and small. the last guy hit a double and you’d never know from looking that he lifts.[/quote]
No shit man, all these guys are way stronger than I was at their size. Past 220 though my relative strength for some reason went through the roof (with no big change in training or anything) compared to what I was able to do (relative to my bodyweight) at sub 200.
You can find exceptions to every rule. Heck, I’ve got 315 x 10 (not paused) and I don’t think my chest looks well developed at all.
Like I was saying before one of the big differences you see in the aesthetic differences between BBing and PLing has to do with structure. Guys like Bolton are not built to be bodybuilders. They have a crapy genetics for it. Guys like 1morerep look the way they do not because he carries more muscle than a guy that benches more, but because of muscle shape and bone structure. So using guys like 1morerep to illustrate a better way to make muscle gains doesn’t make a lot of sense.[/quote] I was mentioning him for fun actually. I know he has superior muscle shape [quote]
Top level power lifters are there because they are built to powerlift, which most of the time means large joints, large hips, odd limb lengths est. Not good for looks. I think that plays into the difference in musculature appearance at least as much as training style. [/quote] Sure. However, everyone can get “huge” in a way. I mean, Tate’s transformation (the second one I think, not the first with Berardi) had him suddenly looking like a bodybuilder not just due to diet… His arms got bigger and fuller etc… I think he was working with Justin Harris and Shelby? Or his more recent ebook about constant tension or whatever -training… He really just switched to moderate rep sets from what he was doing and poof, he gains some muscle. Many powerlifters who diet down beat bodybuilders at shows… Muscle shape plays a role, yes, but imo the rest is eating big, putting up bigger and bigger numbers and getting in enough volume (which doesn’t need to be all that high either, but I think we can agree that 1-2 max singles after warm-ups every session won’t get people all that big).
Thinking back, our original argument about low-reps was actually pretty stupid on my part, I simply didn’t realize that the way you train (say, 8x3 with a 5-6RM, does that fit the bill?) is really just a different way of getting strong in the moderate “rep range”/intensity ranges. Of course you’re doing low reps there and growing, but you’re using a moderate load rather than what I’d call actual ME work, hence my confusion at first. Low reps I simply automatically associated with something like a 1-3 reps with a 1-3 RM and low to moderate amount of sets.
So we’re doing the same thing (getting stronger in the “moderate” range), but we go about it differently.
In fact, when front-squatting, I usually do something closer to your method than what I normally do (due to being unable to go high-rep on front-squats without tiring out my upper back or choking myself out
[quote]
Even within training routines there are differences that lead to less muscular looks for powerlifters because they tend to train different muscle groups. EX: powerlifting squat vs. a typical bbing squat style[/quote] I squat PL style pretty much… Works just as well as long as you don’t constantly squat high. Also, quads are, from experience, a muscle that likes more volume… That means either grinding high rep sets with breathing pauses ala DC 2-way quad widowmaker or breathing squats, or alternatively a high amount of non-failure sets. (for example) I know what you mean of course, but that particular muscle group usually does truly benefit from greater rep or set volume.[quote]. Powerlifters end up with tons of muscle through the posterior chain and hips. Bodybuilders end up with a ton of muscle on their quads. Both can build the same amount of muscle but the powerlifter is going to appear less muscular. The lifting technique can also lead to the aesthetic differences you are speaking of rather than actual muscle gaining. Looks may the best way to compare the different rep schemes.
But do you really think medleson would have more chest/tri development if he gave up low rep work? He probably caries as much chest and tri muscle as anyone else in the world.
[/quote] Not saying he should give it up at all. What does his training look like, though? I’ve only seen a 6x3 bench routine which supposedly came from him, and an interview with a little data on some assistance work, but that was it…
Hey, his backthickness isn’t visible in the vid, his spinal erectors are bound at least be pretty close to Ronnie’s… Again, what does his assistance work look like and how do his deadlift leverages factor in?
Width is simple… It’s no priority of his and really, how much is Ronnie doing for his latwidth alone? Like 2-3 exercises every back session and he’s pretty much more than maxed out any machine available for that, plus pullups with I dunno how much weight? All done in the 10-15 range on his top-sets to boot… That plus Ronnie’s low lat attachments and the width difference should be no surprise.
Rather look at Matt K’s back… He’s doing his assistance work more in bbing fashion and, surprise, has a bodybuilder back as well, probably much thicker than many bodybuilders have it because he pulls more (= thicker erectors+traps), shrugs more for high reps too (+traps) AND rows 300 x 12 with one arm at a time (+ upper/midback thickness and rear delts), plus a ton of chinups/Pullups/neutral-grip pullups…
Or Justin Harris… Now he started out as a bodybuilder and went from DC to his PL elite total, but how did he build his back? Heavy pulling for reps, heavy rowing for reps, width was a big weakness of his until Dante had him do some special exercises for that (funny row variant with a sort of rounded back, among others, and he hardly managed any weight at all on that exercise despite his awesome back strength… Yeah, there are exceptions to any rule even among exercises… Who’d guess that baby weight could build a super-wide back somehow… More of a scapular ROM thing though I think).
I would never expect someone who, say, did 3x3 deadlifts, bb rows and pullups (all the same rep range) all his life to have a back even remotely comparable to the guys above, or even less extreme cases.
That someone may end up strong (at least if he somehow managed to keep progressing while using the exact same scheme all the time… Dunno, via cycling intensity or so), but there’s no way that that particular someone would be all that wide or overly thick by comparison… Perhaps would have a decent back if he were a fast twitch monster, but otherwise the volume should be way too low.
Looks like he’s better at moderate rep work than ronnie. Why isn’t his back more developed?
because Ronnie Coleman could rake leaves and have a better back than 90% of the people on the planet no one in the world had a better back than Ronnie during his prime (aka anytime he competed)
how often do you see ronnie deadlift anyway?
i mean besides when he deadlifted 800 x2 5 weeks out
and just to really help that sink in that means he’d been dieting for months already and if he was off season he probably could hit that for 6. [/quote]
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
Personally, If back were my number one focus when deadlifting, I would perform rack pulls. [/quote]
Height has a lot to do with this also. I’m 6’7" and off-the-floor always gave me a deep ache in the lumbar region, and it wasn’t DOMS. I am much happier now with rack pulls. Of course, I train mostly for MA so size (while nice) is not my main concern.
Height has a lot to do with this also. I’m 6’7" and off-the-floor always gave me a deep ache in the lumbar region, and it wasn’t DOMS. I am much happier now with rack pulls. Of course, I train mostly for MA so size (while nice) is not my main concern.
