USAWA

haha Thanks Chad.

I disagree with SOME of the comments he makes, and I’m sure Dan disagrees with ALL the comments he made!

We are living in an era in which young kids make YouTube videos and act like they are experts in what they are discussing. Based on his comments, I do not consider this kid to be an expert.

Some of you may be interested in Bill Starr’s comments about stiff-legged deadlifts versus good mornings. You will see from this
http://billstarrr.blogspot.com/2012/01/lumbars.html that he prefers the latter. I agree with Starr that good mornings are great for the lower back, but they must be done properly and carefully.

I am not exactly the president of the Bill Starr fan club but I do believe that his words of wisdom may not be taken seriously enough since he is a bit off the wall. Well, more than a bit, actually. 🙂 (I will add that my only direct interaction with him has been a phone conversation a few years ago, but of course I followed his career over the years.)

I certainly consider him to be an expert on weight training.

Tom

I will actually agree to everything he states…

…if you guys agree that I know at least as much as Al does about dogs—if not more. After all, I’ve had dogs all my life and that experience is something that Al with his school knowledge simply cannot match.

Sorry for picking on you, Al. I’ll understand if you call me to the Field of Honor in a few wks.

-d

Chad, you hit the nail on the head. It’s the ass, man, it’s the ass.

You see, a lot of people just talk out of their ass. Just like that stiff leg dl guy who claims to know something about an exercise, apparently just because he has some experience in it…just like me when I claim to know just as much about dogs as Al who has earned a doctorate in veterinary medicine, just because I have experience with dogs. You seem to get how ludicrous my claim is…but dude’s claim(s) about the sldl are equally ludicrous because he doesn’t seem to have the requisite education to make the claim(s) that he does. I’ll give an example…

To claim that there’s ONE best exercise for the hamstrings is simply idiotic. First, what is the hamstring? You might think that’s a silly question, but the back of the thigh is comprised of four different muscles, each with similar and different functions. Two of the large muscles back there, the semitendinosus and the biceps femoris, while they both extend the thigh at the hip (a stiff leg dl movement) and both flex the knee, the biceps femoris also rotates the thigh.

So let me ask, how can there be ONE best exercise for the hamstrings? That would only be possible if that exercise extends the hips while at the same time bending the knees. Now there’s a thought. LOL Indeed, dude even talks about this, that you need to do leg curls for the hamstrings. So clearly, the sldl cannot be the best exercise for the hams…HE just said so. But what about the rest of the muscles in the back of the thigh and what about the remaining functions of those muscles? How could one exercise cover all of that? It can’t!

The point is, nobody on this forum would even dream of bringing their dog to me should he take ill; you’d take him to Al who’s a DVM. It’s a no-brainer. But the same holds true for human anatomy and exercise physiology. Why listen to some person who has some experience lifting weights but doesn’t understand the finer points of exercise science? To me, that’s a no-brainer, too. Though the comic relief from YouTube exercise vids shouldn’t be overlooked.

All I’m trying to do with my posts and other writings is to illustrate to you guys that how to train, what exercises to choose, etc., is far more complex than just feeling something while you train and interpreting it as meaning X, Y, or Z, or just rehashing age-old myths and conjecture in a new and fresh package. Over and over and over again science has demonstrated that those layperson’s interpretations are wrong. So let’s try not to get our heads stuck in the ass. 🙂

-d

Dan, You ARE NOT going to draw me back into this discussion!!!

The other day I was called out to treat a down cow. When I got there the cow was dead. I told the farmer I could treat her but I doubt it would change the outcome.

See Al, and that’s PRECISELY what I’m talking about. I would’ve tried to revive the cow. LOL

Heil science!

-d

Dan, I used to do Leg Curls off a high table. The entire thigh would be ‘free’ of the table and hanging down, similar to the Reverse Hyper set up. I would curl the dumbbell then proceed to push the dumbbell towards the ceiling(hip extension). I enjoyed the high amount of tension at the top. I spent ALOT of time coming up with Hamstring exercises over the years.

Yeah, Jim, that would be a way to do both knee flexion and hip extension. But there are two issues that I would like to point out.

The first is that some years back, not too long after Louie Simmons “invented” the reverse hyper exercise, a well-respected Canadian exercise physiologist and biomechanist and a team of his colleagues decided to research what goes on in the spine when you do a reverse back extension. They used all sorts of sophisticated and cool equipment and learned that the way the forces are applied to the joints due to the movement mechanics, the shearing forces on the spinal joints (translation: grinding) were immensely high when compared to “normal” hip extension. When shearing forces increase to that extent, it invites injury, or at the very minimum increases the risk of injury quite a bit. What’s scary about that, is that you won’t do a reverse hyper and get injured immediately. You might actually feel pretty good afterwards. However, you’re likely to cause microinjury that’s asymptomatic. Then, one day, you do a Steinborn and one of your vertebra end up flying against the wall across your Dungeon. And you naturally think that you hurt yourself doing the Steinborn, when in fact the Steinborn was simply the final straw that broke big Jim’s back.

The second consideration is that if you first do a leg curl, then end up doing a hip extension, you’ve severely decreased the lever arm. This means that on one hand, you’re likely reducing the shearing forces on your lower back rather drastically. But on the other hand, in doing so, how much “training” are your muscles (hip extensors) getting out of that? Not much which would lead me to question the utility of doing so.

I’d be interested in you sharing your thoughts on the above. I gotta go and train chins, 1-armed chins, db rows, and a whole host of grip work. It’s the way I end my training wk. Maybe one of these days I’ll be able to clean and press a 45 by the hub. MAN-O-MAN…

-d

Ok Dan, you’ve drawn me back into this discussion..

I was intrigued by your comments on the research on the forces generated by performing Reverse Hyperextensions. Is there a place I can find these studies?

The hamstrings are a very difficult muscle group to train because of the location of the muscle bellies and the number and locations of origins and insertions of the muscle groups.

I do believe that MOST lifters poorly train the hamstring muscles, or don’t train them at all (ie powerlifters). I also do not think performing a few lying leg curl sets is adequate.

Dan explained the importance of having knee flexion and hip extension to cover the full range of hamstring movement and motion. I do an exercise similar to James’s on my reverse hyper that does both of these – and has been my weekly “go to” hamstring exercise for a few years.

Dan – in these studies was a “neutral plane” established in the hyper. I often see lifters pass a level plane and cause hyperextension in the lower lumbar area, which I agree seems as an injury prone position. But my experience with the reverse hyper is that the exercise is more traction than compression on the lower back, thus it seems the “grinding forces” would be minimal???

However, I DO NOT do reverse hypers with heavy weight. I like sets of 10 for several sets. Years ago I tried to work heavy on them for a while, but stopped because I felt it was placing unnatural stretching forces on my knees. Al

Ok Dan, you’ve drawn me back into this discussion..

YES! I win!!! 🙂

I was intrigued by your comments on the research on the forces generated by performing Reverse Hyperextensions. Is there a place I can find these studies?

As far as I know, there was only one study done on it. I don’t remember in which journal it was published, but I’ll try to find it and post a link here.

The hamstrings are a very difficult muscle group to train because of the location of the muscle bellies and the number and locations of origins and insertions of the muscle groups.

I do believe that MOST lifters poorly train the hamstring muscles, or don’t train them at all (ie powerlifters). I also do not think performing a few lying leg curl sets is adequate.

Sadly, I’m one of those people. It’s not by choice, rather by necessity because my training set-up is extremely limited. The only work my hamstrings get is from the sq, pulls like dl and its variations, RDL, Russian curls, and back extensions. To say that my hams aren’t fully developed is the understatement of the century.

But here’s a question to which I would like to see a scientific answer: How much more would you deadlift if you trained your hams via separate exercises vs. not training them separately at all?

Dan – in these studies was a “neutral plane” established in the hyper. I often see lifters pass a level plane and cause hyperextension in the lower lumbar area, which I agree seems as an injury prone position. But my experience with the reverse hyper is that the exercise is more traction than compression on the lower back, thus it seems the “grinding forces” would be minimal???

I can’t remember to what extent the legs were extended. But this raises an important point regarding naming the lift. By calling it hyperextension, that automatically means that you should hyper extend your back/hips in performing the exercise. But if you called it a back extension, that is not automatically so. There is also the question of what functional purpose it serves to take your spine into a hyper extended position. I would argue, little, and that most health professionals would cringe at the idea of doing so.

However, I DO NOT do reverse hypers with heavy weight. I like sets of 10 for several sets. Years ago I tried to work heavy on them for a while, but stopped because I felt it was placing unnatural stretching forces on my knees. Al

Yeah, I can definitely see where the knees represent a weak link in that one. I think this is yet another perfect example of the risk:benefit ratio. I mean, what actual benefit in terms of maximal strength and USAWA performance can you expect from that exercise?

Another consideration is that if you’d do all exercise you possibly could do in terms of training your body, you’d never get out of the gym. There comes a point where the risk:benefit ratio takes on a practical dimension, too.

-d

[b]Quote from dwagman on August 2, 2013, 16:46[/b]
Yeah, Jim, that would be a way to do both knee flexion and hip extension. But there are two issues that I would like to point out.

The first is that some years back, not too long after Louie Simmons “invented” the reverse hyper exercise, a well-respected Canadian exercise physiologist and biomechanist and a team of his colleagues decided to research what goes on in the spine when you do a reverse back extension. They used all sorts of sophisticated and cool equipment and learned that the way the forces are applied to the joints due to the movement mechanics, the shearing forces on the spinal joints (translation: grinding) were immensely high when compared to “normal” hip extension. When shearing forces increase to that extent, it invites injury, or at the very minimum increases the risk of injury quite a bit. What’s scary about that, is that you won’t do a reverse hyper and get injured immediately. You might actually feel pretty good afterwards. However, you’re likely to cause microinjury that’s asymptomatic. Then, one day, you do a Steinborn and one of your vertebra end up flying against the wall across your Dungeon. And you naturally think that you hurt yourself doing the Steinborn, when in fact the Steinborn was simply the final straw that broke big Jim’s back.

The second consideration is that if you first do a leg curl, then end up doing a hip extension, you’ve severely decreased the lever arm. This means that on one hand, you’re likely reducing the shearing forces on your lower back rather drastically. But on the other hand, in doing so, how much “training” are your muscles (hip extensors) getting out of that? Not much which would lead me to question the utility of doing so.

I’d be interested in you sharing your thoughts on the above. I gotta go and train chins, 1-armed chins, db rows, and a whole host of grip work. It’s the way I end my training wk. Maybe one of these days I’ll be able to clean and press a 45 by the hub. MAN-O-MAN…

-d

Dan, I don’t think the Reverse Hyper should be anything more than a pumping exercise for say 10+ reps. Same goes for my Leg Curl/Hip Extension or Front Raises or Flyes or anything you’re naturally built to be weak. Its always bemused me that the shortened/contracted position of a muscle is usually the weakest position. On the other hand, the lengthened/stretch position tends to be the strongest position for a muscle. If you want to use a Reverse Hyper of Flyes for fascia stretching and/or pumping in a slow controlled manner, I think you’ll be OK. These are not exercises used to lift a ton of weight. I’m a big believer that Origins of muscles usually should be the anchor and the Insertion should be the end that moves.
We are built to deal with gravity. Handstand presses are cool and impressive but heavy overhead raising of weight should be done standing. Conversely, hanging upside down to pull a bar to the chest is OK but again feet towards the ground Pullups are probably how we’re supposed to work.
I spent many years figuring out the strength of body positions. Some stuff is OK to go heavy such as Squats while others are not such as the Kelley Snatch. Some of my lifting is to become faster,some is to become stronger and some is to become more flexible. Use your head and your weights and you should turn out just fine.

I don’t know Jim…first you’re having phallic fantasies with my log…now you’re talking about pumping…it might be time for you to come out of the closet and admit it…you’re a closet bodybuilder.

Guilty as charged. A picture of Bill Pearl and a picture of Tom Platz and I was hooked. I will say the muscle control from bodybuilding has helped immeasurably in training for strength. I spent considerable time learning the actions of the joints of the body and what specific muscles controlled those joints. Fred Hatfield’s writings pushed me towards symmetry in my training approach ie. Standing Press followed by Pullups. Jeff Everson was the Editor in Chief @ Muscle & Fitness at the time. I was strongly influenced by the fact he was a top Olympic Lifter, Powerlifter and Amateur Bodybuilder. Fred also competed in Olympic Lifting and Bodybuilding in addition to being a pioneer in Powerlifting. Platz, aside from looking like he was from another planet, also had a good career in Olympic Lifting and Powerlifting before becoming a Hall Of Famer Bodybuilder. Platz made Suqatting look cool!! Lest we forget Bill Pearl was incredibly strong, breaking chains and tearing license plates in exhibitions. He won his last Mr. Universe in his 40s!!! Weighed over 240lbs!!
Recently, I had to correct a ‘lazy calf’ muscle that was a result of an old injury and bad habits. Due to muscle control I learned through Bodybuilding, I was able to bring the calf muscle back ‘online’ in a week’s worth of focus. Which leads me into your comment about specific Hamstring training for Deadlifts. I think a Bodybuilding program for the Hams to build better muscle control would be beneficial. I would say more Hack Squat training would make you lockout your Deadlifts faster. A faster lockout would PROBABLY be less stress full on the Hamstrings. I suppose you could also Deadlift for a bit with plates under the front of the feet. It would be deficit training for the Hams. Now you’ll be forced over the bar a bit more and have to engage the Hams more consciously. You don’t have to go hog wild on this exercise. Just use it to build some awareness and strength in this increased ROM on the Hams.

Yeah, Bill Pearl is definitely one of my favorites. We’ve had some good chats when I was at Weider. Super nice man, too.

But if you don’t mind, I’d like to address a misconception. There seems to be the impression that if you don’t go too heavy in the reverse back ex., that’s OK. Unfortunately shearing forces don’t always correspond directly to the load lifted, so drawing that conclusion can be false.

Personally, I want to enter my grave one strong sonnofabitch. So I just don’t do certain lifts. So I stay away from the reverse back ex. But another reason for that would be the findings of a study published in BMC Muscularskeletal Disorders, finding that overall recruitment of the hip, lumbar, and thoracic musculature in the reverse back extension (raising legs parallel to the ground) was inferior in comparison to the regular back ex. So not only do you increase shearing forces in the reverse exercise over the regular one, but you also get less out of it. Talking about a no-brainer.

-d

Al (et al.),

I’ve searched high and low for that study you wanted to know more about but couldn’t find it. That blows my mind. Please note, however, that a lot of the training myths, and even the new stuff that people come up with, have long been dispelled by science. So the study I referred to about reverse back ext. displaying higher shearing forces on the spine than regular back ext. is at least 15 years old. I thought I remembered though, who the lead scientist was on this study. This guy is world-renown for his biomechanics work on the back and spine and I dropped him an e-mail early last week and haven’t heard back yet. But there’s still good news…

So one of my main functions at JOPP[/I] is to stay up to date on the latest scientific developments and to develop the editorial lineup. I really like that part because it allows me to implement the latest scientific findings in my training. Without that, I couldn’t do what I do.

Anyway, I’ve been working on the editorial lineup for our October issue and I’ve determined that the new research on the reverse back extension I mentioned is in fact new enough for us to review in detail. Obviously, what I stated about it earlier leaves out a great deal of important information (as a side note, one of the worst things anybody can do is to read a study’s summary and think they know something). So stay tuned to our October issue to get up-to-date credible info on the reverse back ext. and of course a heck of a lot more that’ll help you become the lifting machine you wanna be…

-d

Figures…within an hour after my previous post I hear back from my friend.

OK, so the reason I couldn’t find this research is because he didn’t publish his findings. He felt that the number of subjects was too low. And that got my memory going and I recall this being discussed at an exercise science conference.

So much knowledge…so few brain cells…

-d

Not ENOUGH beer perhaps Dan?

[b]Quote from 61pwcc on August 13, 2013, 04:39[/b]
Not ENOUGH beer perhaps Dan?

Beer is like strength. There is no such thing as enough of either.

-d