CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Exercises
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Exercises Movements, technique & proper execution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-20-2008, 07:24 PM   #41
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Here's a few. And you didn't have to make a new thread on it either... heh):

bar/band Dislocates.

all wfs
http://www.chainbiters.com/images/stretch6.gif

instead of pulling up for this one, use the bottom arm to pull the top arm down:
http://www.chainbiters.com/images/stretch3.gif

Here's some others in the middle:
http://www.ohsu.edu/orthopaedics/dc_shoulderstiff.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2008, 11:10 PM   #42
John Thompson
Member John Thompson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cleveland  Ohio
Posts: 59
Re: Rip's low bar argument

This was probably metioned already but a couple of weeks ago I changed to a thumbless grip recommended by Ripptoe and it made a big difference on my elbows and wrists. Some guys report they have to work the transition but I had no trouble at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 07:27 PM   #43
Mark Rippetoe
Member Mark Rippetoe is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wichita Falls  Texas
Posts: 78
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Sorry for jumping in so late -- just checked the board, saw this thread, checked my e-mail and I never got Everett's to me about this. I will kill him for you if I can ever get him to come to our BB cert.

The discussion on this thread has been good and thorough. Basically, my analysis is that there are two ways to think about the lever arms in the back squat: first, the distance between the bar and the hip -- the horizontal distance along which the force of the bar acts on the hip, and second, the distance between the hip and the bar along the length of the back. The net effect of the applied force maintaining these lever arms is to keep the bar directly over the middle of the foot where the system is in balance. A vertical back, as in a proper front squat, reduces the first lever arm to about zero. But the length of the second lever arm, the one between the bar and the hip along the back, makes keeping the first lever arm short a lot of work. It was correctly pointed out by Tom Fetter that the little perturbations and wiggles that normally occur during a squat makes the effects of the second lever arm significant.

The effects of the two are interrelated, and can be analyzed by looking at people of different anthropometry: a guy with a short back relative to his legs will have a shorter second lever arm no matter his back angle, and will have an advantage there, but since his legs are longer it might not matter since he won't be able to maintain as vertical a back angle due to his longer legs and therefore will have a longer first lever arm. The opposite case, a gal with a long torso and short legs, will show a short first lever arm due to leg length but will have to fight harder to keep it there due to a longer second lever arm. For him, back work occurs along the second lever arm every time he squats; for her, since there is not as much back work involved in holding her position, deadlifts become very important to strengthen against the inevitable loss of good position inherent in being a fallible human weightlifter.

And my discussion of shear and back stress is misunderstood here. Shear force is the stress applied to the back at non-vertical angles, and increases with horizontality. The rigidity of the spinal column is maintained by the erectors and trunk muscles, and the back angle is maintained by the hip extensors. If the trunk muscles and erectors do their anatomically correct and important job of preventing intervertebral movement -- any change in the spatial relationship between each of the vertebrae -- shearing cannot take place. So, when shear force is successfully overcome by the trunk, shearing does not take place. [Actually, when the back muscles fail to do their job, shear does not take place -- torque does. The intervertebral movement, because of the ligamentous support between the vertebral bodies, will occur as rotation when the posterior distance between two adjacent vertebral bodies increases. The space in the back opens (posterior tension) and the space in the front closes (anterior compression) Actual shearing will only take place if there is a spondylolysthesis, or if you have a bad car wreck with your wonderful seat belt on.] This is why squats and deadlifts are such effective back muscle exercises, and why the conventional exercise literature's call for more verticality in squat and deadlift technique ignores this fact. And this is why I like some stress on the back produced by a longer first lever arm.

But this is beside my primary point of argument: I maintain that high-bar squats have a limited usefulness, for several reasons. I use the low-bar squat as the primary exercise for developing hip drive, the active recruitment of the muscles of the posterior chain. The hamstrings, adductors, and glutes in a low-bar squat act directly to open the hip angle out of the bottom. In a front squat the hamstrings are shortened by the acute knee angle and open hip angle into a position of almost complete contraction, and cannot be used to make the hips extend since they are already contracted. The extremely vertical back angle is maintained by the glutes and the contracted hamstrings, which function as the primary extensors of the hip in the absence of hamstring involvement. This means that there is little hamstring in a front squat and lots of hamstring in a low-bar back squat. And a high-bar back squat is intermediate between the two. I specifically want there to be lots of hamstring involvement in the squat, especially for Olympic weightlifters, most of whom refuse to/are not allowed to deadlift heavy and thereby get their hamstring work. If all your squat work -- front squats when you clean and when you do them out of the rack, and high-bar back squats -- omits heavy hamstring involvement, your posterior chain gets inadequate training. And this can be costly on a 3rd attempt clean.

So, I want there to be shear stress on the back so that the muscles that control intervertebral position get strong. I want active use of the hamstrings, so that they get strong too. And this is why I like the low-bar back squat. If we're front squatting when we clean and when we front squat, what earthly reason would there be to make our back squats more like an exercise we're already doing, an exercise that leaves out a muscle group that is very important when we pull? And since low-bar squats allow more weight to be used, thus producing a more acute strength and hormone response, and since the reason Olympic lifters and all of us back squat is to get stronger (it's obviously not a contested lift in a weightlifting meet), it makes more sense to do them in the way that allows the use of the most weight. And this may be the most important point: the shorter second lever arm may compensate for the longer first lever arm, but more weight can be lifted low-bar than high-bar or front squat because there are more muscles and more muscle mass involved in the movement, and that's why we squat anyway. The front squat is specific to that movement in weightlifting, and the low-bar back squat is specific to posterior chain development and strength, and the high-bar squat is neither.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 08:34 PM   #44
Guest
Departed Guest is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 1,095
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
Sorry for jumping in so late -- just checked the board, saw this thread, checked my e-mail and I never got Everett's to me about this. I will kill him for you if I can ever get him to come to our BB cert.
Yes, threats of death always encourage me to attend events... I can't help it that you schedule your seminars at the same time I schedule mine. Besides, when I do finally make it to one, you're just going to be even more ****ed at me for continuing to supply arguments. It's OK, though, I still like you as a person.

You better get on that article! Mine is pretty much ready to go. I want it to be fair fight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 10:44 PM   #45
David Aguasca
Member David Aguasca is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Nyack  NY
Posts: 828
Re: Rip's low bar argument

that was pretty damn awesome.

thanks, coach rippetoe!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 06:13 AM   #46
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Rip,

Thanks for posting.

So on the whole, DO you feel that the low-bar squat is safer than the high-bar, or less safe, or neither?

Obviously, with perfect trunk control, they are both completely safe; this is for occasions when your erectors fail to fully perform, allowing the spine to move.

Your remarks above make perfect sense. I mention this only because the safety issue is one of the points you brought up in the lecture clip as an advantage of the low-bar position.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 01:00 PM   #47
Mark Rippetoe
Member Mark Rippetoe is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wichita Falls  Texas
Posts: 78
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Maybe "kill" was too strong a word; I should have said "spank." If you continue to schedule opposite me I may eventually come to the conclusion that you're dodging. But thanks for the brain fodder. The only thing worse than intellectual stagnation would be humiliation at the hands of a Californian.

I think the safest position is the low-bar squat, especially for a novice, due to the fact that the shorter second lever arm is always in operation because of bar placement while the first lever arm is volitional because of conscious control of the back angle. This will be used by weightlifting coaches as evidence that the high-bar position is better because it necessarily involves more positional control. But again, we are squatting for strength, not squat control practice. If you want to squat with a form that requires a lot of attention paid to back angle, you front squat.

FSs are the perfect compliment to BSs in many ways, among them the fact that a correct front squat emphasizes the upper back while the low-bar back squat works the lower lumbar muscles as discussed earlier. In fact, front squats work the upper back so well that lots of people doing barbell rows would be better off with rock-solid front squats. But I really can't see an argument for the use of an intermediate technique which essentially bastardizes both of the other two. Either you want to do a squat with lighter weights that forces you to hold a position used in weightlifting, in which case you front squat, or you want to squat with heavy weights to get as many muscles as strong as possible, so you low-bar back squat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 01:10 PM   #48
Guest
Departed Guest is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 1,095
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Oh well I'm always up for a thorough spanking at the hands of a big strong Texan.

Regarding this whole squat thing, I do have a number of arguments specific to weightlifting and having nothing at all to do with non-competitive-weightlifting athletes or what one might call the fitness enthusiast. But they comprise an article of decent length, so I'm not going to get into that here.

What I will say now, and I think I've said it before, is that the only place I see for the LBBS in weightlifting is its temporary use in times when a lifter needs to gain significant weight--and this because of the potential hormonal effect of the LBBS due the greater possible loading, not directly because of any mechanical element.

My suggestion is (as it has been) for you to stick all this into a thorough article on the subject, and I will do the same. I'll run them together and we can let the people decide! Of course, my people are small in number and generally snotty in demeanor and consequently tend to ruin their own positions. It's an uphill battle. But Sisyphus seems to be managing fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 01:15 PM   #49
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Rip's low bar argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
I think the safest position is the low-bar squat, especially for a novice, due to the fact that the shorter second lever arm is always in operation because of bar placement while the first lever arm is volitional because of conscious control of the back angle.
Very good. I think this pretty much covers all bases.

Of course, the smartass (not that there are any of those around here) would ask, if you're going to do things this way, why not have the weightlifter leave out back squats entirely and cover both ends of the spectrum by merely front squatting and deadlifting?

I suppose because you can't reasonably deadlift with the same frequency as you can squat?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultimate Paleo/Low Carb Power Bar Jay Cohen Nutrition 13 12-13-2007 02:16 AM
Low-bar back squats Brandon Oto Digital Coaching 11 11-11-2007 09:36 AM
So... I got into an argument with the wife today Kevin Mills Stuff and Nonsense 24 11-08-2007 09:09 PM
Problem with Paleo Argument Skylar Cook Nutrition 1 02-28-2007 08:10 PM
Help with the low bar position Travis Rieber Exercises 3 12-06-2006 06:17 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.