Kyle Mask: Why (Almost) Nobody Should Pull Sumo

[Les Hahn]

I am so inspired by this acknowledgment for my hard work, that I went to the gym. Holy shit! I did a massive deadlift PR of 160kgx3! It's like my arm was never torn!!! This is magic.. No really, I'm serious, thanks for all the stuff you put out, it has helped me alot. Of course, it also made me injured, but that might've happened anyway.

Btw, can someone explain why I can deadlift 160kg with my post 4 months surgery-arm, but can't even hang from a bar without feeling like my arm is gonna tear off?

Magic! :-)

[CJ Gotcher]

Yes, it's technically correct. I just don't need a 3 page article to make a very simple physics argument, especially when it doesn't explore any of the shortcomings of a 2D model with ideal force vectors to describe a 3D system with non-ideal force vectors.

Even if the 2-D model is incomplete, ask yourself: according to the criteria we use for the lifts, is the sumo deadlift as effective as the conventional for general strength training?

Without a doubt, it uses less muscle mass by removing a significant moment arm from the spinal erectors (which effectively operate entirely in the sagittal plane and can be decently modeled in 2D).
It shortens the ROM (potentially dramatically, depending on the lifter)
The wider the stance, the more force is directed in the frontal plane, not lifting the barbell, limiting total weight on the bar and therefore total systemic stress.

Basically, sumo's sole value is in how it shifts the limiting factor in the lift from the back to the legs or hips... but since we're trying to train the back in the deadlift, that defeats our purpose. Sumo is still useful for some competitive lifters because it spares a back that's been cooked by 2 limit squats, but it's inferior for general strength development based on our criteria.

I can't refute it at this time, because it's impossible if you accept the 2D model as sacrosanct. Much like you can't refute my argument that, using such a 2D model, most lifters generally arch too much and touch the bar too low in the bench press for optimal strength development.

I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. Even within the limitations of a 2-D framework looked at from the side, it's perfectly easy to see why touching the bar too low limits optimal strength development because it dramatically increases the moment arm on the shoulders while (pretty much) cutting the pecs out of the equation. So... we agree???

And since EMG studies are tossed aside as useless, the only counters I could conceivably come up with are long, controlled studies with proper populations (never gonna happen), or developing a realistic, 3D computer model of human physiology and simulating in that environment. I don't have the chops for this.

EMG studies aren't necessarily useless, but what do they tell you? If the back is cut out of the equation and the knee/hip has to bear a greater share of the load (and they weren't maximally taxed in the first place), I wouldn't be surprised if the EMG for the knee or hip increased. That doesn't mean it's a great strength exercise for our purposes, though... because this ' already presupposed that we're cutting out the back, something we don't want.

Fair enough. I would never claim erectors are THE agonist, merely a minor agonist. If erector spinae are merely in isolation, though, why all the hypertrophy? I thought lengthening/shortening cycles under load was the primary means of hypertrophy. Or maybe it's just very few lifters keep an ideal back through each and every set, and some extension under load does occur.

The article you cited has been addressed in the subforums on this site several times.

The erectors are not an agonist at all. They are a stabilizer. They act isometrically to hold the spine in place so that the agonists can complete the act of hip and knee extension that define the lift. Your article author has invented his own arbitrary definitions of 'agonist' and 'synergist' and then claimed, using these definitions, that the erectors are 'agonists' (seriously: compare his definitions with a physiology text).

His argument that a shortening of the height between the sacrum and c-7 proves the erectors are acting concentrically ignores the fact that there are compressible structures (the discs of the spine) that shrink under load and could explain this change. He also slips into the common trap that a muscle 'acts' isometrically. It contracts. Period. If its force of contraction is exactly enough to counter the force of another muscle or an external weight so that the muscle does not change length (and the joint the muscle is supposed to rotate does not change angle), it is isometric, regardless of how difficult or painful it is (see his ab-wheel analogy). That's not to say it's a pointless article: it's great to find an article that appreciates the importance of the back and doesn't simply tell the lifter to be "as vertical as possible," but it's not technically correct.

As for the cause of hypertrophy, there's a lot more than lengthening/shortening under load. The mechanical stress itself, for instance, initiates a paracrine hormonal response. You could also be right, that form faults give the thoracic erectors extra concentric work, but it's not necessary to explain hypertrophy.

Anecdotally, I think it's an OK option for assistance work, especially to develop abductors, or for an extended deload cycle, or to work around other issues.

???

Gentlemen, what force loads the lifter/barbell system in barbell training? Where is its vector? What is the horizontal distance between this vector and the hip/knee?

Magic! :-)

Callador... I'm pretty sure you have a kitten meme for literally every conceivable situation. Bravo.

[KyleMask]

kidcolin, so you're essentially saying you find the argument simplistic (it is, no doubt, simple), but you can't create a more complex model/argument that would show the flaws in my analysis. Ok, thanks for your input.

I'll have to disagree with you about the importance of my experience in deciding what works. When one changes one's squat style, and a squat/pull that had been stuck for over a year increase by nearly 100 lbs each, you can bet the big hip extensors got stronger. And that you should have been training this new way the entire time. Certainly doesn't mean the box squats were useless, but does mean they were suboptimal. I don't need 100% certainty or a double blind study with a bunch of folks who have no clue how to squat/deadlift.

[Sean Herbison]

You're creating an arbitrary rule. It's your competition, do as you want. It's no different than a competition or federation where high squats are allowed.

Sports are almost entirely sets of arbitrary rules. I have to disagree with you about it being the same though. It would be the same (in some ways) if those federations allowed squatting high in their rulebooks. As it stands now, the wording is very similar (hip below knee), but the enforcement varies wildly.

There may not be many folks to whom this applies, but there are some of us that have this problem.

Most people who are having issues with conventional are simply not setting up right. I've got a deadlift over 600 pounds and I'm still one of these people off and on.

Start with the setup described in Starting Strength, and try different cues until you find one that works. I've gone through several over the last few weeks, and this Monday finally settled on "think of it as a leg press," which has largely sorted me out.

It's quite possible to have problems that are a little outside the usual, such as having your hips too high, rather than too low. Having someone knowledgeable in the gym with you to give you real-time feedback can be very beneficial here.

and if so, what the right technique would be.

Ed Coan has some good videos with SuperTraining, both about sumo and in general.

All he said was, "Ed Coan pulls sumo."

Actually, what he said was "Many top lifters, including Ed Coan, say they do." "Do" referring back to "One style helps build the other." It's a subtle but important difference.

The first is based on Ed Coan's preference for his own pulls. The second is based on Ed Coan's experience as a lifter and, to an extent, coach, saying that he's seen good results from a certain style of training.

We can see that in squats (I don't know his name, but the little person from Poland), bench and deadlift.

Andrzej Stanaszek. Only thing that stopped him from dominating all three was that his hands were too small to be effective for the deadlift.