Rack Pulls

[envier]

Always done full range deads but for the first time today I did rack pulls. I decided to give them a try because I want to focus more on my back and traps and take my butt and hamstrings out of the equation since they are overdeveloped. I was suprised at the weight increase I usually dead 405 for 6 to 8 reps. But with the rack pulls I got 12 no problem. Any one else had  good luck with the rack pulls and or have you had this same situation?

[Emmortal]

Due to the shortened ROM you can almost always use a higher weight with rack pulls than deads.  They are a great movement and I typically rotate them every other week with dead lifts.

[candidizzle]

i like smith machine deads best...

[Montague]

Some people swear up and down that partials are actually harder because you remove the legs & glutes from the movement, while others maintain they’re easier because of the shorter ROM as Emmortal pointed out.

However, a great deal of that has to do with how high you set the bar.
I’ve always aimed to position it as low as possible, using as a starting point the spot where I believe the back takes over most of the work from the legs.

Anything higher than that doesn’t seem as productive – almost like you’re doing a partial partial.
Anything lower begins to defeat the purpose of using a rack.

[JasonH]

People may disagree but I've never seen the point of full-range deadlifts anyway for bodybuilding purposes and have always preferred rack pulls. As long as you down far enough as to stretch out your lower back and come back up again then it doesn't matter where you start. I always start with the bar level with my knees and rep out that way.

[Montague]

I also start with the bar at about the center of my kneecaps.
For me personally, that seems to give my back the most and my legs the least.
If I were to pull that same weight from the ground, I would have a good bit of momentum by the time the bar reached that point. From a dead rest, it’s (mostly) all back.

No less an authority than Charles Glass recommends his clients perform partials. While the article I read didn’t mention specifics regarding starting positions, he did praise some advantages of rack pulls for the bb’er, including keeping the waist smaller. That bottom third of the ROM is what thickens the midsection – especially the sides – for many lifters.
Not the best result if you’re a physique guy or gal.

And if you’re particularly prone to lower back or SI problems, starting with the bar higher is much more forgiving on the lumbar region.

[MisterMagoo]

i like smith machine deads best...

that is the most horrendous thing you could possibly do to yourself. stop it right now.

[candidizzle]

that is the most horrendous thing you could possibly do to yourself. stop it right now.

your trippin !


why is it bad ?

[YoungBlood]

Try varying the placement of the pins. One week go slightly above the kneecap, and the next go a bit below. You'll notice a huge difference in the amount you pull.
When I used to do rack deads religiously, I would vary it. I'd go as high as 500lbs for a few good reps using the pins at just above knee cap. Then I'd get something like 455 with the pins just about knee height, and again slightly less again when just below the knees.
But each one stressed a different part of the deadlift, which I was (at the time) supplementing with rack deads.

[MisterMagoo]

your trippin !


why is it bad ?

are you serious? for as focused you are on human physiology and mechanics i'd think you'd be EXTRA aware of why doing a smith deadlift is terrible. the smith path isn't anywhere close to the natural path of bar movement, especially since it's almost impossible start the bar in a good place.

[candidizzle]

are you serious? for as focused you are on human physiology and mechanics i'd think you'd be EXTRA aware of why doing a smith deadlift is terrible. the smith path isn't anywhere close to the natural path of bar movement, especially since it's almost impossible start the bar in a good place.

whats unnatural about it?  and why is it bad for me ?

[YoungBlood]

whats unnatural about it?  and why is it bad for me ?

Smith Machine overall is a bad piece of machinery. It locks you into one path, or plane of movement. When you do a bench press, the barbell usually travels from your chest to somewhere close to your eyes, almost in an S-curve. When you use Dumbbells the same thing happens, but you also have complete control of left to right (side to side) movement as well.
With a Smith Machine, you are going straight up and down. No left and right, or the S-Curve that your natural plane/path of motion wants. The same thing happens when you use a Preacher Curl machine versus a regular barbell Preacher Curl. Your body is locked into one movement. Can you imagine someone the size of Lou Ferrigno using a machine built for the "average male/female" that's 100lbs less, and another 3-5" smaller in height? This machine will lock you into a plane of motion and force your attaching ligaments and such to have strain against them that they aren't used to.
I use Smith Machines here and there. They are really only "good" to use as a variation but not solely as something you should use all the time. Another example of seeing Pros doing something they shouldn't (use the Smith Machine quite a bit in mags) and people follow along without thinking....lemmings.

[candidizzle]

i dont believ that. sure, thre are stabilizer muscles being taken out of the picture when using a smith machine; but i dont think theres anything wrong with using the smith

[MisterMagoo]

i dont believ that. sure, thre are stabilizer muscles being taken out of the picture when using a smith machine; but i dont think theres anything wrong with using the smith

it's a matter of the path of motion, dude. the smith forces you into a pre-determined straight line that is NOT where the bar would be going if you were lifting free weights. it forces your body into an unnatural position, putting stresses on your joints in ways that would not happen normally.

i cannot believe that you, mr "everything based in science", would have no understanding of why a smith machine just STUPID for deadlifts. of all the lifts, smith deadlifts might be the dumbest until someone attempts a smith machine power clean.

[candidizzle]

 what is "natural' about barbell deadlifts?  i dont see many barbells and flat lifting plat forms out in nature that man would have been using while we were evolving..

yes i understand its a fixed path for the bar, but that doesnt mean YOUR BODY is in a fixed path.

[MisterMagoo]

what is "natural' about barbell deadlifts?  i dont see many barbells and flat lifting plat forms out in nature that man would have been using while we were evolving..

yes i understand its a fixed path for the bar, but that doesnt mean YOUR BODY is in a fixed path.

augh, are you for real dude?

the barbell deadlift is "natural" because your body is allowed to pull the weight along a "natural" plane of movement in the same way that any free weight exercise allows your body to move it in its most advantageous path. a smith machine wreaks all sorts of havoc on your body by artificially forcing you to push in a given plane and if you can't figure out why this is bad, i just don't know what to say any more.

seriously candy, this is absolutely ridiculous. any "training expert" cred you ever had just flew out the damn window by defending a smith deadlift.

[haider]

augh, are you for real dude?

the barbell deadlift is "natural" because your body is allowed to pull the weight along a "natural" plane of movement in the same way that any free weight exercise allows your body to move it in its most advantageous path. a smith machine wreaks all sorts of havoc on your body by artificially forcing you to push in a given plane and if you can't figure out why this is bad, i just don't know what to say any more.

seriously candy, this is absolutely ridiculous. any "training expert" cred you ever had just flew out the damn window by defending a smith deadlift.

It's an assumption that your body not moving in its "natural plane of movement" is necessarily a bad thing to do. I haven't seen any evidence yet for why that would be the case every time.

[candidizzle]

 im sorry i didnt know dead lifts were a natural mvoement 
hahah

[haider]

im sorry i didnt know dead lifts were a natural mvoement 
hahah

well, natural as in if you were to pick up something from the ground you wouldnt lift it straight up in a straight line , as would be the case with smith machine deads. Is this correct? yes. Is this bad? I dunno.

[YoungBlood]

DO NOT SQUAT ON THE SMITH MACHINE, especially as a beginner.


According to Charles Poliquin:

Squatting to parallel (legs bent 90 degrees) not only makes the exercise less effective but, additionally, it increases the risk of injury. First of all, by not squatting the full range of motion, one doesn't maintain proper lumbosacral bodymechanics. When performing the squat movement, the sacrum undergoes a process known as nutation (it tilts forward, relative to the two ilia on either side of it). At approximately 90 degrees of knee bend, the sacrum tilts back (a process known as counternutation) and sets the lifter up for lower back pain.

In order to perform a full squat, flexibility and range of motion must be maintained in the lumbar spine and SI joint, as well as in such muscles as the iliopsoas and hip external rotators ? piriformis, gemelli, etc. If the lifter can't squat past 90 degrees of knee bend without the heels raising or the body bending excessively forward at the waist, but can squat all the way to the floor while holding onto something, we know that there are some muscle imbalances in regard to the pelvis/lumbosacral region (iliopsoas, external hip rotators, erector spinae) as opposed to a knee or foot/ankle dysfunction.

Additionally, since the hip joint is considered by many authors as the "steering mechanism for the leg," improper pelvis, hip, and lumbosacral mechanics could manifest down the kinetic chain as chronic or recurring knee/ankle problems. Thus, regular performance of the full squat offers a "screen" for the athlete of his or her lumbosacral/pelvic flexibility, which may prevent injury or muscle imbalances long before they become chronic.

Parallel squats also may be potentially damaging to the knee joint. The original data on full squats causing ligament laxity was obtained in an uncontrolled manner. Recent attempts to replicate these studies haven't shown any increased laxity or knee pain/dysfunction from doing full squats as opposed to parallel squats.

Furthermore, ask any orthopedic surgeon at what degree of knee bend does one perform the Drawer test ? 90 degrees. Why? Because in this position, the knee joint is the most unstable, and if you were trying to assess the integrity of the cruciate ligaments, you'd want the least amount of interference from other structures as possible. Bend the knee to full flexion. How much does the tibia move on the femur anteriorly or posteriorly? Very little. However, do the same test at 90 degrees of flexion, and you'll get considerably more movement.

Therefore, you can imagine how much force is on the knee ligaments if the athlete is descending with a weight on their shoulders, and then at 90 degrees ? the most unstable point ? reversing the momentum and accelerating in the exact opposite direction. Couple this with the fact that most, if not everyone, are capable of squatting considerably more weight to the parallel position than the full squat position, and you've set your body up for muscular imbalances, yet again.

-------------------------------------
And from "Debunk the Chump! 5 Gym Myths Exposed" http://www.T-Nation.com/...05-069-training

The truth is that squatters usually have healthier knees than non-squatters. Studies on top powerlifters have shown that their knees are actually in better shape radiographically (X-rayed) than the general population. Squatters also have much tighter ACLs than nonlifters, meaning that their knees are more stable and less prone to injury.

The most glaring irony is that squats are often replaced with "safer" exercises such as hack squats and Smith machine movements. According to Dr. Ken Kinakin, the machine hack squat leads to more knee problems than the barbell free squat. And the Smith machine? Charles Poliquin once joked that it was invented by a physical therapist who wanted more business for himself!

What's wrong with the Smith? First, there's zero functional transfer to real life, sports or other lifts. It develops strength in only one dimension, predisposing you to injury in the undeveloped planes of movement. This is sometimes called pattern overload syndrome, and it can lead to medical bills in the long run.

Second, because the bar is fixed, a person doing Smith machine squats is able to lean against the bar, which is a natural response. This minimizes hip extension, thus allowing the hamstrings to take a siesta during the movement. Trouble is, the hamstrings help to stabilize the knee during squats, and the result of taking them out of the picture is to induce a shearing force on the joint. This might ultimately lead to a blown anterior cruciate ligament. Using the Smith machine for all your squatting definitely leads to you being a big fat dork.

Summary: As with any exercise, squats are perfectly safe if you use the correct technique, even safer than the "safe" machines misguided trainers sometimes prescribe to replace them!

[haider]

DO NOT DEADLIFT ON THE SMITH MACHINE, especially as a beginner.

Let's start over with this one 

[YoungBlood]

Let's start over with this one 

The above article could have also been posted on the Leg Extension thread below this one. I figured, "what the hell, either place is good."

[Geo]

 but that doesnt mean YOUR BODY is in a fixed path.

which is exactly the knock against using the smith for anything...

[Montague]

DO NOT SQUAT ON THE SMITH MACHINE, especially as a beginner.


According to Charles Poliquin...

Good articles & info.

which is exactly the knock against using the smith for anything...

And as Magoo & YB point out, there aren’t many exercises where the ROM travels entirely in a perfectly straight line at a 90 deg. angle to the floor, which is about all a Smith offers/allows.

If you absolutely must use a machine for a particular exercise, I believe that something along the lines of a Hammer or Cybex variety is a slightly better option. At least with some of those machines the fixed plain of motion more closely mimics the natural path the weight follows in a given exercise.

Still, even some of those machines just don’t feel good.
Machines certainly have their place – just not in every place.

[candidizzle]

sorry fellas im just nto interested at all in "functional strength"...   so whether or not the range of motion correlates to something i would find out of the weight room; i really dont give a shit.

smith deads are the best movement for lat thickness, especially INNNER lats (christmas tree area) i have ever don.   so ill keep doing them.