The Vertical Summit :: View topic - Deadlift article by the Gluteguy

Flextra DS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group



	FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Profile P.M. Log in

Deadlift article by the Gluteguy

The Vertical Summit Forum Index -> Articles

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Raptor

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 7345
Location: Bucuresti, Romania

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: Deadlift article by the Gluteguy

http://www.wannabebig.com/training/deadlift-5-plates-like-a-champion/

It's a pleasure to read Contreras because he's so informative.
_________________
Adarqui to squidward:

Quote:

u R teh muzt TardED mothafukka i essa seen.

squidward wrote:

squat looks good. do more weight.

www.kangaroovert.co.cc

1,83m/81 kg
Box Squat : 130 kgs
Full Squat : 130 kgs
Deadlift : 150 kgs
Standing vertical : 70 cm
Broad jump: 2.63m
Drop-step vertical (2 legged) : 75 cm
1 leg running vert : 85 cm
Running long jump: 5.1 m
Running high jump: 1.5 m

Author

Message

weezy baby

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 38

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject:

ur rediculous raptor

Author

Message

steven-miller

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:15 am Post subject:

My deadlift sucks, so I might be the least qualified person to comment on that, but I have to ask "why"? Why do you need a whole arsenal of assistance exercises? Does doing the deadlift with proper form in some way NOT train the muscles involved and won't the muscles that are lacking in relation to others eventually catch up and isn't that exactly the goal of doing this exercise in the first place, namely accomplishing strength in the muscles used? I opened a thread over on Mark Rippetoe's forum a while ago asking the people to post their stats after finishing the program. Nearly everyone who posted so far and did actually finish SS the way they are supposed to did deadlift sets of 5 in the mid 300s to high 400s. Mind you, that is after a so called novice progression and that is for reps. Most of those guys could deadlift over 400 or even over 500 in a max attempt for sure. No assistance exercises involved. Sure, after that it might be clever or necessary to do some assistance stuff, but I don't think that "pendulum donkey kicks", "straight leg situps" or "seated abduction" are the answer. People struggling with a 400 lbs deadlift should probably deadlift, do their squats and do their cleans and they will be fine - maybe with the exception of grip problems, like in my case.

Author

Message

Lakers

Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 1989

Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject:

ha.. I haven't done anything more than a squat or deadlift for my legs in over a year. This year were my fastest improvements too. My best/fastest gains in squat and vert came from doing 4x7 squats 2x a week during basketball season. _________________ 173lbs - 6'0" - 7'8" Squat 308x8 (est max 370-375) SVJ 32 - RVJ 38

Author

Message

Raptor

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 7345
Location: Bucuresti, Romania

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:35 am Post subject:

Why do we talk in maximal strength numbers? If I weigh 150 lbs at 5'5 should I be expected to deadlift 500? I mean WTF is wrong with talking relative terms?
_________________
Adarqui to squidward:

Quote:

u R teh muzt TardED mothafukka i essa seen.

squidward wrote:

squat looks good. do more weight.

Author

Message

Jack Woodrup

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:56 am Post subject:

we talk in absolute numbers because everybody knows that schlong size is directly proportional to how much you can lift. _________________ Train Hard, Jump www.verticaljumping.com http://twitter.com/verticalmastery I'm not saying that the "Next Jordan" curse ruined Harold Miner, blew out Penny Hardaway's knee, destroyed Grant Hill's ankle, made Tracy McGrady psychologically incapable of making it out of the first round, caused Kobe to develop bioplar affective disorder, or turned Jerry Stackhouse into a flaming (nice guy)... but it sure didn't help.

Author

Message

Jack Woodrup

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:24 am Post subject:

Jack Woodrup wrote:

we talk in absolute numbers because everybody knows that schlong size is directly proportional to how much you can lift.

And for the record I can squat 100,000,000, deadlift 50,000,000 and bench 175. I probably should work on that bench.
_________________
Train Hard, Jump
www.verticaljumping.com
http://twitter.com/verticalmastery

I'm not saying that the "Next Jordan" curse ruined Harold Miner, blew out Penny Hardaway's knee, destroyed Grant Hill's ankle, made Tracy McGrady psychologically incapable of making it out of the first round, caused Kobe to develop bioplar affective disorder, or turned Jerry Stackhouse into a flaming (nice guy)... but it sure didn't help.

Author

Message

Raptor

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 7345
Location: Bucuresti, Romania

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:48 am Post subject:

No I mean it's really stupid... people keep on throwing these maximal numbers like they mean something... 400 lbs squat, 500 lbs deadlift, blah blah blah...

I realize the majority of athletic men weigh in between 170 and 220 lbs... and those 400-500 lbs numbers represent something like a 2x or so of that weight range, but it still annoys me.

If people see a 150 lbs guy squat 300 lbs they say "yeah... nice..." like nothing happened, but if they see a 200 lbs guy squatting 400 lbs they're like OMG etc.

I say (expletive) that.
_________________
Adarqui to squidward:

Quote:

u R teh muzt TardED mothafukka i essa seen.

squidward wrote:

squat looks good. do more weight.

Author

Message

steven-miller

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:52 am Post subject:

I don't understand where that argument comes from suddenly. Who said that talking relative terms is not allowed? I have been talking about absolute numbers because they were talked about in that article Raptor posted and also because that is the data I gathered from that thread on Rippetoe's forum. Regardless if we are talking about relative strength or absolute strength... Bottomline of mine and also Lakers comment I think was that you do not need a gazillion assistance exercises to get damn strong.

Author

Message

Raptor

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 7345
Location: Bucuresti, Romania

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:04 am Post subject:

If it were to be a 120 lbs guy with you that squatted 240 you wouldn't be impressed and put that up in your text because "that's not cool". That's my problem.

You wouldn't even mention it. Most guys squat 4104923 tons because that's impressive.

What if I weigh 400 lbs and squat 400 lbs? Would you put me as a guy "who squatted 400 with no problems?" This stuff always bothered me...
_________________
Adarqui to squidward:

Quote:

u R teh muzt TardED mothafukka i essa seen.

squidward wrote:

squat looks good. do more weight.

Author

Message

steven-miller

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:33 am Post subject:

Raptor wrote:

This is a little off topic. But I agree that bodyweight is something that should be taken into account IF we are talking about the meaning of strength for sports performance IN certain sports - but not necessarily in other domains. Contrary to your believe I would be very impressed of a 120 lbs guy squatting 240, in fact I would be impressed that a 120 lbs adult male can even exist in the first place. However, if that 120 lbs guy squats 140 lbs and has problems progressing, I would say that his lack of muscular body mass might have something to do with that. There is probably a bodyweight for everyone where that individual has the potential to be the strongest relative to his mass. I think most athletes should strive to be around that bodyweight and I say most, because there are sports where mass or lack there-off is meaningful for performance in itself, say football or weight class sports.
So in short, yes, relative strength can be a sense making concept in certain sports but might not be that important in other sports or everyday situations. Having okay relative strength while being dangerously underweight is not terribly helpful if heavy objects need to be moved around or moderately heavy things need to be carried over a longer time or distance. That is because gravity does not care how much you weigh, it only cares about how much that objects weighs and how much strength you got to move it. And also think about this: A normal sized, outgrown man will usually not have his optimum relative strength potential at 150 lbs...

Author

Message

Raptor

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 7345
Location: Bucuresti, Romania

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject:

steven-miller wrote:

And also think about this: A normal sized, outgrown man will usually not have his optimum relative strength potential at 150 lbs...

That makes it even more impressive. You take a fat slab with muscle underneath the fat (think - powerlifter) ... you kind of expect him to generate great maximal strength. But to see a 150 lbs guy generate 2x worth of strength is really something. That's what bothers me, the inverse correlation where only maximal strength is impressive for 90% of people.
_________________
Adarqui to squidward:

Quote:

u R teh muzt TardED mothafukka i essa seen.

squidward wrote:

squat looks good. do more weight.

Author

Message

steven-miller

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject:

Raptor wrote:

steven-miller wrote:

And also think about this: A normal sized, outgrown man will usually not have his optimum relative strength potential at 150 lbs...

Finding something is impressive unfortunately is not the best criterion for determining usefulness in a given situation.

Author

Message

Jack Woodrup

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject:

All jokes aside Raptor I agree with you about this. I believe it comes from the fact that a lot of guys who write articles about squatting and deadlifting are powerlifters or have that background (Cressey, Mike Robertson, Dave tate etc). To them I believe they think in absolute terms, not in relative terms. For athletes though that are trying to propel just their own bodyweight, then obviously relative strength terms become more relevant. _________________ Train Hard, Jump www.verticaljumping.com http://twitter.com/verticalmastery I'm not saying that the "Next Jordan" curse ruined Harold Miner, blew out Penny Hardaway's knee, destroyed Grant Hill's ankle, made Tracy McGrady psychologically incapable of making it out of the first round, caused Kobe to develop bioplar affective disorder, or turned Jerry Stackhouse into a flaming (nice guy)... but it sure didn't help.

Author

Message

steven-miller

Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:44 am Post subject:

Jack Woodrup wrote:

All jokes aside Raptor I agree with you about this. I believe it comes from the fact that a lot of guys who write articles about squatting and deadlifting are powerlifters or have that background (Cressey, Mike Robertson, Dave tate etc). To them I believe they think in absolute terms, not in relative terms.

For athletes though that are trying to propel just their own bodyweight, then obviously relative strength terms become more relevant.

But powerlifting is a weight class sport and thus depends on relative strength except for super heavyweight athletes...

Author

Message

Jack Woodrup

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:20 am Post subject:

steven-miller wrote:

Jack Woodrup wrote:

But powerlifting is a weight class sport and thus depends on relative strength except for super heavyweight athletes...

I know it is a weight class sport, but have you ever heard a powerlifter regularly talk about their relative strength. Occasionally they do but most of the time they are banging on about absolute totals. I think anything where the ultimate goal is to lift an externally heavy load (so weightlifting, powerlifting basically) the tendency is to refer to the actual loads more.
_________________
Train Hard, Jump
www.verticaljumping.com
http://twitter.com/verticalmastery

I'm not saying that the "Next Jordan" curse ruined Harold Miner, blew out Penny Hardaway's knee, destroyed Grant Hill's ankle, made Tracy McGrady psychologically incapable of making it out of the first round, caused Kobe to develop bioplar affective disorder, or turned Jerry Stackhouse into a flaming (nice guy)... but it sure didn't help.

Author

Message

AlexV
Coach

Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 472

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject:

Well I for one have always spoke in relative terms with absolutes to illustrate the point (for those bad at math) 2-2.5x bw is the sweet spot. _________________ Join my new forums at http://evolutionaryathletics.com/blogs/forum to win copies of Sky High, Athletic Domination, and RJ's Training Essentials

Author

Message

tychver

Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 3493
Location: New Zealand

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject:

Not only that but the absolute loads are actually flatter across the weight clasess at elite level powerlifting than people think. You pack on as much strength as you can while staying lean and compete in the weight class determined by your build/height. The difference between the 100 and 110kg bench press IPF WR is 1kg, which is an extreme example but you get the idea. _________________ "im in the adaptive state, dreaming 4-5 times a night, with quality textured fecal matter." - adarqui

Display posts from previous:

	The Vertical Summit Forum Index -> Articles	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum