Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Training Q&A => Topic started by: envier on June 27, 2008, 06:24:56 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
i like smith machine deads best...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
i like smith machine deads best...
that is the most horrendous thing you could possibly do to yourself. stop it right now.
-
that is the most horrendous thing you could possibly do to yourself. stop it right now.
your trippin !
why is it bad ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.. :D
yes i understand its a fixed path for the bar, but that doesnt mean YOUR BODY is in a fixed path.
-
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.. :D
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. :-\
-
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.
-
im sorry i didnt know dead lifts were a natural mvoement :P
hahah
-
im sorry i didnt know dead lifts were a natural mvoement :P
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 ;D , as would be the case with smith machine deads. Is this correct? yes. Is this bad? I dunno.
-
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!
-
DO NOT DEADLIFT ON THE SMITH MACHINE, especially as a beginner.
Let's start over with this one ;D
-
Let's start over with this one ;D
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." :P
-
but that doesnt mean YOUR BODY is in a fixed path.
which is exactly the knock against using the smith for anything...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Machines certainly have their place – just not in every place.
Exactly.
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.
You are delusional. First of all, it's NOT the best movement....good yes, but not the best. Secondly...functional strength, a Smith Machine and our discourse do not correlate here.
We simply brought up the risk-to-benefit ratio of using a Smith Machine, and now you interject with Functional Strength? What's that about? Plane of motion can relate to functional strength, but in this case it's out of context.
-
how do you know whats the best movement for me? ive tried them all and itw roks the best for me. tnothing you can say will change that. you cant think what works for you works for everyone.
-
Now you, again, change the course conversation.
You can revert back to your know-it-all status whenever you want.
You can talk about "what's best for you" all you want.
There is a common thread through humans that adapt. You won't find anyone building a massive chest, or lower lats like Kai Greene with certain exercises. You can say "that's what works for me" all you want. Maybe you think it does. But there is commonality to every human on earth.
-
TONS of professionalbodybuilders do smith deads, dummy. go watch some training videos.
-
TONS of professionalbodybuilders do smith deads, dummy. go watch some training videos.
Ummmm AGAIN. I'm not saying DO NOT DO THEM. I'm saying there are better options out there.
Remember, a bad training session is better than no training session at all. If you hurt yourself doing an exercise exclusively on the Smith Machine that is what is going to work for you.
Brilliant colloquy we are having....::)
-
I think it's funny at one time candi is talking about deadlift not being natural, then the next he's talking about smith deads being the best........ ;D
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.. :D
smith deads are the best movement for lat thickness, especially INNNER lats (christmas tree area) i have ever don. so ill keep doing them.
-
I think it's funny at one time candi is talking about deadlift not being natural, then the next he's talking about smith deads being the best........ ;D
you need to learn how to dicepher an argument ;)
-
you need to learn how to dicepher an argument ;)
You need to learn how to have an intelligent argument after you've deciphered it. ;D
-
you need to learn how to dicepher an argument ;)
You need to learn................
-
I'm loving rack pulls at the moment. Current working set is 255kg and is still easy. I'm pulling from just above the knee. Don't know when this will peak, hopefully in and around 280kg. Only bad thing is that is tears the shit out of your hands :(
-
they have their place but i wouldn't use them as my only means of pulling unless there was something medically wrong with you to prevent you from performing a proper deadlift.
-
they have their place but i wouldn't use them as my only means of pulling unless there was something medically wrong with you to prevent you from performing a proper deadlift.
No? i was wondering about these my deads have kinda hit a sticking point and was thinking about doing these instead of deads for a month or so, is that a bad idea wicked?
Ive heard candizzle say he loved smith machine deads, I dont think i would ever do these, it seems that alot more stress would be put on the lower back and seems like it would turn into more of a SLDL or good morning. but whatever floats your boat and sets your sail.
-
i really think deadlifts in general are overrated for bodybuilders.
-
the smith has it's place especially if you train alone and don't always have access to a power rack.
that being said I only use it for pressing movements where my safety is at risk and I would never use it for deadlifts...that just doesn't make sense to me for some reason.
-
i really think deadlifts in general are overrated for bodybuilders.
really? i did them when i first started working out(my dad made sure i did all the basics) and then didnt do them for probably 6 yrs or so (working out on and off) but when i got serious i still didnt do them and noticed that my back was lagging and I started hitting deads pretty good probably been about 2 or 3 yrs now only about a year or so seriously and they have brought my back up tremendously.
-
i agree magoo, i dont think deads are that awesome of a bak movement like people say they are.
but, just like the flat bench and the squat...they are just compound movements wher eyou can go super heavy and alot of athletes use them for raw strength build up... so bodybuilders who come from sport backgrounds (alot of bodybuilders!) always push that you need to stick to those movements.
for a natural bodybuilder i think they are important, but not so much for MOST bodybuilders.
-
i agree magoo, i dont think deads are that awesome of a bak movement like people say they are.
but, just like the flat bench and the squat...they are just compound movements wher eyou can go super heavy and alot of athletes use them for raw strength build up... so bodybuilders who come from sport backgrounds (alot of bodybuilders!) always push that you need to stick to those movements.
for a natural bodybuilder i think they are important, but not so much for MOST bodybuilders.
the stronger the trunk....
the stronger the branch's !
-
Most men will find that having the bar a little above the knee's yields the best results, both safety and power wise. If into BB'ing, than no need to start regular DL's from the floor. Another position would be mid thigh combined with the above the knee position. May also consider Romanian DL's, off a set of pins, as a good lat/back developer. There is not any leg push, but plenty of lower back/glute/ham action.
With Dl's, the upper body is holding the bar in a semi-stable position while legs do the actual pushing off. With the aid of the hips/glutes/hams of course. You are not pulling with the arms or anything else in the upper body. Which can show the effects of just holding a heavy weight as a muscle/power developer.
DL's, in any form, are a terrific back/trap/lat movement. But not meant for everyone. Gives a dense and thick total back mass that most exercises can not offer. Trouble is, a lot of people have a problem with the knee's getting in way of the moving bar (that and general sloppy style and using too much weight when not ready for it). Force to lean too far forward, trying to avoid touching the knee's, only opens the back up for more stress and over extending the lower area....equals injury's. Starting the lift from a higher position, above the knee's, may solve this problem for a lot of folks.
I do think the Smith Machine does have a place in BB'ing, but with lighter stuff. Regular DL's (and squats & BP's) would not fit well with it. When doing full ROM BB DL's there is a natural "S" curve to the lift (as with most compound exercises), like gears shifting position. The Smith Machine does not allow that, only a fixed or straight line of motion. Negative force on the joints, tendons and ligaments doing a heavier exercise. Though a Smith Machine may show some merit when partial or short range movements are done. Good Luck.
-
really? i did them when i first started working out(my dad made sure i did all the basics) and then didnt do them for probably 6 yrs or so (working out on and off) but when i got serious i still didnt do them and noticed that my back was lagging and I started hitting deads pretty good probably been about 2 or 3 yrs now only about a year or so seriously and they have brought my back up tremendously.
i honestly think if you want to wreck your total back, do heavy-ass rows. get some wrist straps and a belt and do rows ronnie-style. take the bar down below your knees and do whatever it takes to make it hit your belly. that did more for back development than deads ever did, in my opinion.
not gospel to be sure, but just something i recommend.
-
i honestly think if you want to wreck your total back, do heavy-ass rows. get some wrist straps and a belt and do rows ronnie-style. take the bar down below your knees and do whatever it takes to make it hit your belly. that did more for back development than deads ever did, in my opinion.
not gospel to be sure, but just something i recommend.
for some reason my BB rows suck ass poundage wise, but then again ive never really done them with any consistancy so maybe thats why. I have been doing DB rows for a little while now and have seen an improvement in my back so maybe ill put rowing first for a while and maybe do some lighter deads at the end.