Why is the squat superior to the deadlift as posterior chain exercise? Why is the squat superior to the deadlift as posterior chain exercise?

starting strength gym
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Why is the squat superior to the deadlift as posterior chain exercise?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2

    Default Why is the squat superior to the deadlift as posterior chain exercise?

    • phoenix arizona seminar date
    • texas seminar date
    I have a few questions regarding the argument given in the book that the squat is the superior exercise for developing the posterior chain.

    As far as I can tell there are three reasons given:

    1. The deadlift leaves out the adductors.

    Can someone explain why this? I don't understand how hip adduction is involved in the squat. Am I right to assume that the adductors have some other function?

    2. The squat has a longer range of motion.

    The hip angle at the bottom of the deadlift doesn't seem that much greater that at the bottom of the squat. Would the extra weight moved in the deadlift not make up for the slight loss in the range of motion at the hips?

    Also, couldn't you use a deficit deadlift to decrease the hip angle?

    3. The squat involves the stretch reflex.

    I accept that this will increase the force you are able to produce when performing the squat, but is there any evidence that will translate to a greater increase in strength outside of the context of the squat?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,472

    Default

    1. Our version of the deadlift -- the only one we're responsible for -- specifically incorporates the adductors with the stance and the knee position. Read the book.

    2. The hip angle in the deadlift is quite open relative to the squat, if you're deadlifting and squatting correctly. Find m a video of a deadlift that leaves the floor with the hips below parallel. $100 awaits you. Read the book.

    3. If your squat goes up from 135 to 405, you're quite a bit bigger and stronger, obviously. What is the evidence that this squat strength increase will not translate to strength outside the context of the squat? Use your common sense here: it's perfectly valid.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    1. Our version of the deadlift -- the only on we're responsible for -- specifically incorporates the adductors with the stance and the knee position. Read the book.
    From the book: "The conventional deadlift, for example, uses the hamstrings and glutes, but it leaves out much of the
    adductorsÂ’ function".

    The hip angle in the deadlift is quite open relative to the squat, if you're deadlifting and squatting correctly.
    It's clearly slightly more open but the hips are more extended at the top of the deadlift that at the top of the squat. In addition to this the more horizontal back position and the increased load will mean greater force around the hip joint.

    Find m a video of a deadlift that leaves the floor with the hips below parallel.
    By "hips below parallel" I am assuming you mean "hips below knees"? As I understand it, the vertical position of the hips has very little to do with the posterior chain. The hips will rise when the knee extents, with the posterior chain primarily responsible for opening the hip angle at the same time. Hence why I was discussing hip angle and not hip height.

    If your squat goes up from 135 to 405, you're quite a bit bigger and stronger, obviously.
    This is true, but there is no external comparison so it has little to do with my question. For example say that by squatting without utilizing the stretch reflex someone took their squat from 125 to 395. Are they necessarily weaker than someone who took their squat from 135 to 405 utilizing the stretch reflex? Maybe, but it isn't obvious. They are different movements, it is conceivable that the stretch reflex gives you a few extra lbs simply by storing elastic energy. Why would I expect this to translate to strength in any other context? It might do, I'm just asking if there is a reason to think this.

    What is the evidence that this squat strength increase will not translate to strength outside the context of the squat? Use your common sense here: it's perfectly valid.
    If there is no evidence either way then why would I accept your claim as true? As I wrote above I don't think it is as intuitive as you think; hence why I'm asking for more detail.

    Please take the above in good faith. I am not trying to argue for the sake of it, I am trying to learn.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    From the book: "The conventional deadlift, for example, uses the hamstrings and glutes, but it leaves out much of the
    adductorsÂ’ function".
    The adductors are strong hip extensors in the squat, less so in the deadlift because of the ROM. Read the book.

    It's clearly slightly more open but the hips are more extended at the top of the deadlift that at the top of the squat. In addition to this the more horizontal back position and the increased load will mean greater force around the hip joint.
    But over a shorter ROM. I don't understand your point.

    By "hips below parallel" I am assuming you mean "hips below knees"? As I understand it, the vertical position of the hips has very little to do with the posterior chain. The hips will rise when the knee extents, with the posterior chain primarily responsible for opening the hip angle at the same time. Hence why I was discussing hip angle and not hip height.
    What is your point?


    This is true, but there is no external comparison so it has little to do with my question. For example say that by squatting without utilizing the stretch reflex someone took their squat from 125 to 395. Are they necessarily weaker than someone who took their squat from 135 to 405 utilizing the stretch reflex? Maybe, but it isn't obvious. They are different movements, it is conceivable that the stretch reflex gives you a few extra lbs simply by storing elastic energy. Why would I expect this to translate to strength in any other context? It might do, I'm just asking if there is a reason to think this.
    The stretch reflex has a much greater contribution to the weights lifted than your example. Most people pause box squat maybe 70% of the full movement. If the squat goes from 135 to 405, what happened to your paused box squat? Again, I don't see your point.

    If there is no evidence either way then why would I accept your claim as true? As I wrote above I don't think it is as intuitive as you think; hence why I'm asking for more detail.
    What exactly is my claim?

    Please take the above in good faith. I am not trying to argue for the sake of it, I am trying to learn.
    I hear this from trolls all the time.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    1,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    They are different movements, it is conceivable that the stretch reflex gives you a few extra lbs simply by storing elastic energy.
    We know this is not the case, because if it were paused standing vertical jumps would yield the same jump height as SVJs using the stretch reflex. The same is true of a paused squat versus a normal squat. Elastic energy is stored equally in both, but the weight able to be lifted is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    If there is no evidence either way then why would I accept your claim as true? As I wrote above I don't think it is as intuitive as you think; hence why I'm asking for more detail.
    1) Recovering from heavy squats increases the muscular cross section of the hamstring.
    2) Hamstring muscular cross section contributes directly to contractile force of the hamstring.
    3) Hamstring contractile force is used in hip extension and knee flexion.
    4) Hip extension and knee flexion are used elsewhere in life - not just in the squat.

    Do you disagree with any of these assertions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    As I understand it, the vertical position of the hips has very little to do with the posterior chain.
    It is relevant in the context of the system. What happens to the knee and hip angle and knee and hip moment about the midfoot as hip position rises?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    the more horizontal back position and the increased load will mean greater force around the hip joint.
    Force does not act "around the hip joint". Force is the tendency to cause translation. You may be referring to moment (the tendency to cause rotation about a point), but you will have to clarify.

    If you mean "the muscles causing hip extension will require more force..." then I would ask you if there are any circumstances where that is untrue? For example, imagine if your arms were a foot longer and the rest of your body were the same lengths. Would you be able to deadlift more, less, or the same under the SS model or if we forced you to have a horizontal back? What would happen to your hip angle if you did that? What would happen to your knee angle?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne View Post
    From the book: "The conventional deadlift, for example, uses the hamstrings and glutes, but it leaves out much of the
    adductorsÂ’ function".



    It's clearly slightly more open but the hips are more extended at the top of the deadlift that at the top of the squat. In addition to this the more horizontal back position and the increased load will mean greater force around the hip joint.



    By "hips below parallel" I am assuming you mean "hips below knees"? As I understand it, the vertical position of the hips has very little to do with the posterior chain. The hips will rise when the knee extents, with the posterior chain primarily responsible for opening the hip angle at the same time. Hence why I was discussing hip angle and not hip height.



    This is true, but there is no external comparison so it has little to do with my question. For example say that by squatting without utilizing the stretch reflex someone took their squat from 125 to 395. Are they necessarily weaker than someone who took their squat from 135 to 405 utilizing the stretch reflex? Maybe, but it isn't obvious. They are different movements, it is conceivable that the stretch reflex gives you a few extra lbs simply by storing elastic energy. Why would I expect this to translate to strength in any other context? It might do, I'm just asking if there is a reason to think this.



    If there is no evidence either way then why would I accept your claim as true? As I wrote above I don't think it is as intuitive as you think; hence why I'm asking for more detail.

    Please take the above in good faith. I am not trying to argue for the sake of it, I am trying to learn.
    Stop reading T Nation

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •