Your Thoughts on Goodmornings

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
41

[quote]IronDude17 wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much poundage are you advocates out there putting up on good mornings? I do proper form but and have my feet about use shoulder width apart. For some random info, I’ve used these near the end of my hamstring workouts (bodybuilder) for about 3 sets of 10-14.[/quote]

From Dave Tate’s Squat 900 lb article he states “We’ve found a minimum good morning of 60% of your max squat to be a very important element of squatting big.” Of course if 60% of your max squat is your max good morning it doesn’t mean you should train at that weight all the time; apply the principles you would to squatting or other exercises.

As for the potential adverse affects of good mornings Tate writes “Many in the gym have worked up to 600 and 700 pound good mornings without any adverse effects and have been doing them this way for over ten years.”

In regard to the value of good mornings Tate believes “You’ll want to use some type of good morning seven out of ten workouts or 70% percent of all max effort days for the lower body.”

I think the guy might know a thing or two about lifting… if that’s any indication to the importance of good mornings for strength purposes. To conclude my point, "The reason for so many good mornings is twofold. First we’ve found this type of movement to be the absolute best for the development of the squat and deadlift. Second, remember the cardinal sin of falling over?

Well that’s exactly what happens with a good morning. If your good morning is strong enough you’ll be able to keep the arch and not fall forward. If you do begin to fall forward you’ll be able to arch the bar back into position without even thinking about it. You’ll have the strength and it’ll be automatic."

42

I obviously am not familiar with the intricacies of the human body/joints/whatever like those of you with a medical/biology/kinesiology/whatever background, which is why I pepper my posts/opinions with the “IMO” disclaimer whenever I speak purely from experience and observation.

However I can say this with certainty - If YOU haven’t been injured, then the stresses created by moving YOUR working poundages with YOUR form in said movements are obviously on the lighter side relative to your muskulo-skeletal structure (PL gear-assisted or otherwise).

Not saying you’re “weak” at all - before you break in your shiny new keyboard and copy of “Intentionally verbose, positively droll”.

Lulz mate!

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What does it take to disprove the assertion that “structural injury will strike” ?

I suppose 16 years of no such thing happening to me will not be accepted as showing that the “will strike” claim is too strong. I assume you will assert that it still “will strike” me, or do you think that is not something you can assume or claim?

Apparently it never happening to, say, Arnold or Franco (or very many other names we could come up with) also isn’t sufficient for you. But I guess you could say they didn’t do deadlifts for enough years.

Does it take an individual having done them for 50 years with no resulting structural injury? (I wouldn’t be surprised if say John Grimek did.) Or would you still have it that it “will” strike and if it seems not to have, it is only because the person inconveniently died too soon?[/quote]

43

And yes, GMs are great.
I mentioned using them as my primary movement for close to a year in the “what do y’all do for that christmas tree look” thread.

However, I TEND TO GET INJURED IN THESE LOWER BACK MOVEMENTS VERY EASILY IF I DON’T USE A LIFTING BELT…may not be the case with you lol.

44

Try Romanian Deads instead?

45

[quote]Bixente01 wrote:
Try Romanian Deads instead?[/quote]

I don’t even really feel those in my hams and if I go heavy it really messes with my back.

46

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
I obviously am not familiar with the intricacies of the human body/joints/whatever like those of you with a medical/biology/kinesiology/whatever background, which is why I pepper my posts/opinions with the “IMO” disclaimer whenever I speak purely from experience and observation.

However I can say this with certainty - If YOU haven’t been injured, then the stresses created by moving YOUR working poundages with YOUR form in said movements are obviously on the lighter side relative to your muskulo-skeletal structure (PL gear-assisted or otherwise).

Not saying you’re “weak” at all - before you break in your shiny new keyboard and copy of “Intentionally verbose, positively droll”.

Lulz mate!

Bill Roberts wrote:
What does it take to disprove the assertion that “structural injury will strike” ?

I suppose 16 years of no such thing happening to me will not be accepted as showing that the “will strike” claim is too strong. I assume you will assert that it still “will strike” me, or do you think that is not something you can assume or claim?

Apparently it never happening to, say, Arnold or Franco (or very many other names we could come up with) also isn’t sufficient for you. But I guess you could say they didn’t do deadlifts for enough years.

Does it take an individual having done them for 50 years with no resulting structural injury? (I wouldn’t be surprised if say John Grimek did.) Or would you still have it that it “will” strike and if it seems not to have, it is only because the person inconveniently died too soon?

[/quote]

As I thought, and can be gathered from my previous reply, you have designed yourself a position where no conceivable evidence would ever be accepted by you as showing your statement wrong that structural injury “will strike.”

As for your peppering your statements with “IMO’s”, you didn’t do so there in that flat, universal assertion. And in this most recent post you say you state it as “certainty.” So I am not misreading you.

As for your above further statement, of course you’re still not wrong (or rather have designed things so you feel, I think, you cannot be shown to be wrong) since after all Franco and Arnold doing 700 lb DL’s for many years, or for that matter Ronnie Coleman and many others, with no structural injury does not prove that it’s not necessarily so that a person “will” have structural injury from either of these exercises that you specified,

Since now there’s the new escape clause that they and others were lifting too far below their real capacity for your statement to count.

How 'bout just admitting that it is not so that structural injury is a “will strike” matter in this instance? May occur for some individuals would be the correct statement.

47

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Bixente01 wrote:
Try Romanian Deads instead?

I don’t even really feel those in my hams and if I go heavy it really messes with my back.[/quote]

SLDL’s, same principle as on gm’s (ass back and forward etc).

Still, all of those kinds of movements involve the low-back an awful lot… Can’t do anything about that.

Rev-hypers maybe?

48

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As I thought, and can be gathered from my previous reply, you have designed yourself a position where no conceivable evidence would ever be accepted by you as showing your statement wrong that structural injury “will strike.”[/quote]

True dat, it can only be proved/disproved when it “happens”, depending on your position.

It WILL happen when the poundage you’re using gets to a certain point…assuming your muscular strength gets to that stage allowing you to handle said poundages in said movement using whatever form you use Is that better, lol? Not that I’m taking back my previous statement.

IF your muscular strength does not get to that point ever, then sure…it won’t happen to you. Do we all have an estimate of our individual muscular potential vis-a-vis structural limits? Does anyone? We train as though we have no limits. If we RDL 650 for reps, a longer aim is to RDL 700 for reps, and when/if we get there we set a newer goal. Some of us exceed our structural limits, the rest do not…but that does not mean they CAN’T.

So given that the goal of many on here is to continually gain muscular strength, why add the “if” clause?

Thats usually how I try to operate.

And what would happen if they worked to an 800 DL? or if Ronnie finished his DLs without protective gear? you might as well have tried to attack my proposition with “my niece can deadlift 225 pounds and she hasn;t injured herself”.

Amazing how that works, huh? I should do this for a living.

Well, I’ll meet you halfway there, but I will need a while to prepare the air-tight clause that I plan to put forth this time. Stay tuned.

49

How you can continue to maintain your “will strike” statement (with regard to supposed inevitability of structural injury from DL’s or GM’s) despite knowing that there are countless individuals who have done these exercises over entire careers of lifting without such injury, thus disproving your “will strike” statement, really is kind of mind-boggling.

That’s the last I’ll say on it.

50

I personally love GM’s. Next to DL’s they are my favorite exercise. You have obviously gotten some great advice regarding form in this thread, so I won’t repeat the same things but make sure your form is on. Even if you have to start with the bar.

Once you have that down you can get up to some descent pounds. They can add alot of size to your posterior chain. I have been using them for 10 years(without structural damage),have gotten up to 500 and my back & hams are bigger and stronger than they have ever been. Good Luck.

51

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Bixente01 wrote:
Try Romanian Deads instead?

I don’t even really feel those in my hams and if I go heavy it really messes with my back.[/quote]

Uhmm, man you are probably doing them wrong. The actual point of the RDL is not to pull the weight up with your lower back like you do in the traditional DL, you must focus on the hip extension, this is what recruits the hamstrings. … if you are actually doing that and the problem still consists then you should ditch the exercise.

52

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I’d like to hear from some of you guys experienced with this exercises. I have only tried it like once or twice and found it extremely uncomfortable. You just put the bar on your back and then keep your back arched and bend at the waist correct?

I’m wondering if I may be missing out on some lower back development in not doing these. For instance, I just started recently deadlifting in the past 2 months and have already added quite a bit of thickness that I was missing out on before. Are goodmornings one of those crucial exercises as well? Any thoughts?

Also do these target spinal erectors or what?

Thanks fellas.[/quote]

I fucking love them! That’s it. Period.

They add a ton of thickness at the spinal erectors. Also, lots of mass your hamstrings. I firmly believe they are crucial for developing that “brick wall” look. Not to mention, I know next to NO good PLers who avoid them.

In terms of targeting, they emphasize different groups, depending on how you tweak the form. I would say that they are a big low back movement, but you should also be able to get a ton of glute/hamstring stress as well. Really though, it’s the definitive p-chain compound movement, aside from the deadlift.

The focus should generally be on pushing the hips back during the eccentric portion of the lift, while maintaining an arched back and a “high” chest. Don’t keep your legs stiff–allowing the knees to bend somewhat–without turning it into a quarter squat of course-- allows a greater recruitment of the hamstrings.

I can get a really nasty stretch out of them. Also, pointing your toes out somewhat allows a greater hip/glute activation (which you probly already knew of course).

On the way up, you basically focus on 1) staying on your heels, pushing off the floor through them 2) pushing your hips forward with a hard contraction of the glutes and hams, and 3) pushing back (not up) with your head.

Bar position is lower, like a PL squat, or sometimes even lower than that.

All that being said, however, they require a pretty gradual break-in period.

Form errors are less forgiving than deadlifts, and there’s an even greater tendency for your form and low back to go to shit on maximal weight sets because of the biomechanics of the lift (on max triples and such). So it pays to hardwire your form really well and work up gradually.

Once you get it down though, you can go to town on heavy weights. My low back is bulletproof now, thanks mostly to GMs. W00t injury resistance!

53

My lower back takes enough of a pounding each week with squats and dead lifts. Besides, good mornings have always been an awkward movement for me. I have only used them a handful of times and just felt too much discomfort when doing them. My lower back and hamstrings have developed quite nicely without them.

54

I hated them at first because I was placing the bar way too high and going to low. Once I spread my feet out and started using a low bar position, I really felt it. I don’t think I’ve ever had so much soreness in my glutes and hams before.

I like higher reps better too. I tend to stick with 8-10 reps and then just do heavy deads another day for more posterior strength.

55

[quote]forlife wrote:
buckeye girl wrote:
To the guys saying that GMs don’t do much for size, I have no idea where you are getting that from.

Since you quoted me, I never said GMs don’t do much for size. My issue is that they require bending at the neck and spine, which can cause damage at high weights.[/quote]

Do you not do military press as the neck bends with them?

Anything can cause damage at near maximal weight.

56

[quote]Yossarian wrote:
plateau wrote:
Do them like Romanian deadlifts

  1. Chest up, shoulder blades down and together
  2. Spread your legs nice and wide (think PL squat).
  3. Grip bar as wide as shoulders are comfy
  4. Poke chin forward
  5. Try and push your bum back as far as possible. Don’t try and lower the weight.

My back and hammies are bigger and stronger than ever before. 1st time I did I had hammie DOMS for about 9 days…

This is exactly how I do them. I’ve applied dan john’s advice about RDL’s (get your ass and your chin as far apart as possible) and it puts great tension on the hamstrings. Definitely worth adding to a program. As for that link someone posted with the animated gif of someone doing them, that looks nothing like the GM’s I’ve seen most people doing.[/quote]

Watching that vid by Dan, helped my form no end.

57

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

Also, how low are you supposed to go? Until you lose leverage on the weight or just as far back as you can push your hips?[/quote]

Shoot for torso nearly parallel to the floor. Take the time to learn the move.

58

Why not do seated goodmornings, or floor goodmornings, or if you are really all that worried about the neck, zercher goodmornings?

59

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Why not do seated goodmornings, or floor goodmornings, or if you are really all that worried about the neck, zercher goodmornings?[/quote]

Cause those exercises are hard too.

60

I do GM’s, hate every second, but wouldn’t trade them for any other low back/hamstring type of work.

It’s a love hate thing.