Apparently complicated enough to confuse countless individuals both on this board and beyond. Not sure what's sadder, that they don't get it or that they're not making any gainzzz?Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
TMPHBITEU
It's not very complicated.
Member
Apparently complicated enough to confuse countless individuals both on this board and beyond. Not sure what's sadder, that they don't get it or that they're not making any gainzzz?
Member
Don't weep for me, but I don't get it at all.
Member
Blind acceptance in the name of tradition is just easier. And what do we advocate here? Easy does not work.
Member
Can I ask what start position would make more sense to you? I am legitimately curious.
TMPHBITEU
Oh, this will be useful.
Member
Don't know. Don't have a rigorous mechanical model.
In the absence of a rigorous mechanical model, I would need to
a) try shit out
b) defer to the "marketplace" of competing motor patterns (I honestly believe in the efficiency of this marketplace)
c) defer to the experiential wisdom of subject matter experts
"a" kinda sucks...not efficient
"b" is a sorta morph of appeal to authority and "appeal to high-performing majority"
"c" is unapologetically an appeal to appropriate authority
I respect the "high hips start", because I respect Rip's experiential wisdom when it comes to barbell shit. But this is an unapologetic appeal to authority. I don't understand any logic in his position beyond "this is what has worked for me". But I don't need a whole lotta logic beyond that to respect his position.
My respect for Rip's advice conflicts with the "marketplace of motor patterns".
So yeah, don't know.
To the folks who really get his stuff, help me out: my brain struggles like hell with words; please show me the math of (even a primitive) version of the model you understand.
Nope. I don't understand the optimized mechanics of either the clean and jerk or the snatch and I don't have the experience that is necessary to inform "mechanical intuition".
You certainly have the latter.
If folks understand the optimized mechanics, please show me. I struggle with stuff like the model that describes the precession of a spinning top. They've obviously got laughably simple shit like that mastered.
Member
We are still not sure how bikes work... but they do.
So having mechanical model of the body, in motion, is kind of hard. Lot's of smart guys try to reproduce how we walk, still cannot do it.
Having a mechanical model of the body, outside a rough model is not going to happen.
Remains experience, and simple stuff like gravity.
Gravity tells that the work done by the lifter for a rep is W = MxGx∆Z + ε: M = Mass, G constant, ∆Z = difference in altitude, assuming a vertical enough bar path: ε is negligible.
Optional modelling:
-- If you model the body as a chain of levers, then you want to distribute the total work on each lever as close to their max work capacity as possible.
-- Too much work on one link of the chain (upper max work bound is reached) then the whole thing is sub-optimal.
If a given lifter using technique variant A can produce more work per rep than with technique variant B, then technique variant A recruits more efficiently his body muscles (everything else being equal... risk for injury for ex).
Apparently (what Rip and friends noticed by experience), the Rip Clean extract more work from the lifter than other techniques: even with ε not negligible (bump of Alan on the bar, see above posts), Alan's barbell goes higher.
It would be nice to have clean reps of the Clean: vertical bar path, almost no loop. A comparison would give an idea of how much better the Rip Clean is from the common Clean.
Given the above and trusting Rip's experience, I would go for the Rip Clean: I did not find any other variants out there except the Rip one and the common one and don't have time to find one by myself, if it exists.
So yeah, until proven otherwise, Rip's Clean wins.
Member
Adding to John, theoretical mechanical models are fine - until they hit reality.
They need to hit reality, and "reality" means empirical scientific evidence, especially if they are rather simplistic mechanical models that dont concern much finer details of physiological peculiarities. So the highest quality evidence is testing the predictions of a model in an empirical study. Mechanistically first, measuring forces, muscle activity, and so on. And then of course longitudinal training studies.
Who knows, maybe if the high hips idea gets some traction, some will research the topic in thorough studies.
Until then, I too see both adherents with the same (rather low) quality of empirical evidence, i.e. anecdotal evidence, although I have to admit the Oly low hips camp has the more impressive one.
✓ Member
Is there something to the idea that the hips-up position is avoided in the power clean for the same proprioception-related reasons it's avoided in the deadlift (that is, besides tradition and being ill-informed on the mechanics)? I.e., I'm curious as to whether or not anyone avoids the hips-up position because it is uncomfortable to get into a la the deadlift*. We've seen form-check videos of people who have supposedly read the book still pulling with low hips, sometimes on purpose. I've coached one individual who - despite being able to touch his toes (in retrospect, he was really just tall, good at spinal flexion, and had insectoid-level belly mass) - lacked the hamstring flexibility to get into (what I thought was) an acceptable deadlift position.
*"You have to fight for that chest-up position. If the position was easy to get into, it was wrong."
To take that idea somewhat further: Is it possible that "the pros" understand that their hips rise through the motion anyway and that they're utilizing a sort of stretch reflex vs. getting into a taught hamstrings position to start? I guess not since, as demonstrated in the video, the bar doesn't go up as high.
What about a hybridization where one sets up with high hips, relaxes the hamstrings into a low-hips position, sets chest, raises his hips violently to into taught hamstrings, and then accelerates the bar. Would this sort-of stretch reflex action of the hamstrings offer advantage over setting them as taught for a short length of time before the pull? One obvious downside is that this would move the bar. Maybe the trade-off of stretch reflex outweighs the not-starting-over-midfoot efficiency leech? This is where a pre-pull roll-back could occur and help? I don't know. I'll buy Alan a Double Whopper if he'll shoot this 3rd iteration.
I want it clear that I'm not defending low hips nor concern trolling; just throwing out ideas.
Posting Permissions