Hex Bar

[Bliss]

...we perform the low bar squat primarily because we can "maximize the use of all the muscle that can potentially be brought into the exercise and thus be strengthened by it". I know there are secondary reasons for low bar (less stress on knees - for example), but the primary reason is that it engages more muscle, we can lift heavier weights, and therefore strengthen more muscle.

If that is the case, then surely we could apply that very same logic to the hex bar vs straight bar. If a person can lift more weight using the hex bar, those same principles must apply.

Lol, I was waiting for when this high vs low bar would get brought up again. Only on page 4, surprise!

Now, serious question:

The deadlift can be set up incorrectly, with hips too low and arms vertical and the bar WILL NOT begin to move up until the correct position is established.

So what's there in the hex bar lift specifically that allows the "bar" to begin moving up even when a lower hips start is done?

By extension, if a lifter set up the hex bar lift per the deadlift model, would there be a tendency to revert to a "standart" position (what would that be?) like a deadlift would revert to a standard high hips position.

PS. At or near limit weights of course.

[Brit67]

I have a Trap Bar that I rarely use because Deadlifts with a Straight Bar are Superior.

A compelling argument indeed... And after reading this thread, I had an epiphany. I have way, way too much time on my hands.

[blowdpanis]

The barbell's COM and the lifter's COM, which must be over the midfoot, must be aligned in order to preserve balance in the movement. If the COM of the barbell is not aligned with the lifter's COM, or the lifter's COM is not over the midfoot, you create a moment arm, which creates inefficiency at best, and a failed lift at worst.

The difference between hex deadlifts and conventional is not the COM, as it is the same in both when performed properly and efficiently, but rather the different involvement of the various pieces of the musculoskeletal system due to the different body segment angles produced by the two movements. A hex deadlift is closer to an inefficient squat, whereas the conventional deadlift is a true pull, with very different posterior and back involvement in the movement.

I'd like to make a few comments about a mechanical analysis of trap bar deadlifts, as I'm not sure I entirely agree with the above and see some elements missing from the discussion.

1) In the above analysis, you refer to it as an "inefficient squat." However, if we're suggesting the trap bar puts people in a more squat-like position, then it's going to look more like a 1/3 or 1/4 squat position, correct? Which, mechanically speaking, is actually a very efficient squat, which is why so many people do 1/4 squats in the first place as an ego lift. I assume you mean "efficiency" in terms of stimulus (i.e. a deeper squat is a more meaningful stimulus), but I thought this worth pointing out if we're speaking in terms of a mechanical analysis.

2) I'm not a fan of the phrase "true pull," this is an appeal to some ideal that I think doesn't really exist. By this logic the conventional deadlift is less of a "true pull" than an RDL or SLDL since they emphasize the posterior chain and spinal erector strength even more than a conventional deadlift.

3) I've seen surprisingly little mention of the profound differences between trap bars with low handles (e.g. the original way Al Gerard did them when inventing the bar in the 80's) and the high handles. The high handles are a lot more like a rack pull, and can accommodate a really upright position. I think they're essentially an ego/masturbation exercise, and for whatever reason, is the default way most people envision the lift being done. The low handles have an equivalent ROM to a conventional deadlift, and any analysis needs to keep this in mind. In fact, I would suggest that a meaningful analysis needs to assume the low handles are being used so that we can take ROM out of the equation in terms of meaningful differences. Anecdotally speaking, I have always been weaker in a trap bar from the low handles than a conventional deadlift, and I would suspect a good percentage of people would find the same.

4) I think there are two key differences between trap bars and conventional deadlifts. One of which has been pointed out in this thread, which is that the trap bar is inherently less stable, particularly at lockout, due to lack of contact with the lifter's body. The grip on the handles also require careful centering as any differences from one side to the other can also greatly affect balance. To me the biggest pain in the ass of a trap bar isn't really the lockout per se, but rather the initial pull on the first rep - the handles have a tendency to want to rotate which can easily throw balance off and make the first rep awkward. This is far less of an issue on subsequent reps, but I thought this worth noting.

However, the other factor I think people aren't really considering can be addressed by asking a simple question - what are the differences in mechanics between a barbell deadlift held in the hands and any variation of the squat aside from just the ROM? I would suggest that a good part of the difference is the fact that, by holding the bar in the hands, you introduce a constraint on knee motion due to the system needing to be balanced over the combined center of mass of the barbell/lifter.

A squat, for example, can be done comparatively more or less upright depending on cueing while still observing midfoot balance in either case, even with the same bar position. Obviously anthropometry still heavily factors in, but you can think of it as a range in which you have either more forward knee excursion or less based on how much hip flexion you allow, i.e. more bent over with the knees less forward vs. more upright with the knees more forward.

Why can't we be more or less upright in a barbell deadlift in the same way? Because the bar is held in the hands, more forward knee excursion past a point will quickly displace the barbell ahead of midfoot, violating the CCOM over midfoot rule above. As such, we have far less wiggle room here, and have to be bent over by necessity, shifting emphasis heavily towards the posterior chain. The quads can still contribute, but not nearly to the degree that they can in a squat.

In that sense, the trap bar is a lot more like the squat - because the apparatus isn't being displaced forward of midfoot with our knees going forward, like a squat, we can perform the lift a little more upright or a little more bent over. As others have said, calling the trap bar deadlift "a squat with the bar held in the hands" is reasonably accurate.

So let's do a quick list of pros and cons for trap bar deadlifts based on the above analysis:

Cons:

• Balance issues that can possibly affect both safety and efficacy of the lift.
• If we're trying to create a stimulus for our hip musculature (and lower back), it's less of a contrasting stimulus to the squat, and thus less of a meaningful stimulus to this musculature, than the conventional deadlift.
• Availability and Skill Transfer - we can find a barbell at almost any halfway decent gym on the planet, and use the skill we acquire by conventional deadlifting on said barbell just about anywhere. Trap bars are a lot less common, and even have some variations between models than can affect our skill/setup. I.e. larger or smaller models, handle spacing etc.

Pros:

• Because the knees can be a bit more forward and the lifter a little more upright at the start, it is easier to assume normal lumbar extension in the setup compared to a conventional deadlift. This might be the single biggest advantage for people wanting to still pull from the floor. Probably particularly relevant to older demographics.
• Neutral grips are the strongest position for our grip strength (e.g. farmer's carries), so we can hold the bar symmetrically with very heavy-for-us weights without the thumb assrape that is the hook grip. We could just use straps in the conventional deadlift, of course, but this does weaken the stimulus for grip strength vs. still holding the apparatus/barbell.
• We don't somtimes accidentally scrape our shins. Some people do care about this.
• If for some reason a conventional deadlift is not an option, or not preferred, we don't need to act like the trap bar isn't an option. As I've seen an SS coach note on the forums in the past (Andy I think?), the trap bar deadlift can be incrementally loaded for a long, long time productively much like barbell lifts. I would caution people against the all or nothing mindset of "barbells or nothing" when it's pretty clear that some other tools (e.g. dumbbells, trap bars) still work pretty god damn well, even if they're not quite as efficient or useful as a barbell.

[Pete Troupos]

Here's what I think is a valid question, or argument. There are two studies that show that a person can lift more with the hex bar, than with the straight bar. And there is ample empirical evidence that people can lift more with the hex bar than with the straight bar (check out Strength Level - Weightlifting Calculator (Bench/Squat/Deadlift))

No. I quoted one of the abstracts for a study you mentioned further up the thread above and it said there was no significant difference between straight bar DL and hex bar 1RM in their study.
I'm glad you're training your parents. But with a greater potential to over extend the lumbar spine on a hex bar, you're better off having them do rack pulls and progressively lowering the pins.

[Brit67]

No. I quoted one of the abstracts for a study you mentioned further up the thread above and it said there was no significant difference between straight bar DL and hex bar 1RM in their study.
I'm glad you're training your parents. But with a greater potential to over extend the lumbar spine on a hex bar, you're better off having them do rack pulls and progressively lowering the pins.

Thank you. That's good advice.

[Brit67]

I'm only able to look at the abstracts, but there's a few things that jump out.
From Camara et al.

Their EMG study told them that the quads work harder with a hex bar and the hamstrings and spinal erectors work harder with a straight bar. It goes on about peak power, force, and velocity, but I can't get to the full study to see the methods.
What did those studies tell you that we're missing?
Also, I went out and looked for videos of people explaining the hex bar deadlift vs the conventional. I stopped after watching two. They were pretty bad but they made me laugh, so not a complete waste.

On Mehdi's site (Stronglifts), he makes a good point that the hex lift doesn't strengthen the lower back the way the straight bar does. That would have been enough for me.

[Brit67]

I'm only able to look at the abstracts, but there's a few things that jump out.
From Camara et al.

Their EMG study told them that the quads work harder with a hex bar and the hamstrings and spinal erectors work harder with a straight bar. It goes on about peak power, force, and velocity, but I can't get to the full study to see the methods.
What did those studies tell you that we're missing?
Also, I went out and looked for videos of people explaining the hex bar deadlift vs the conventional. I stopped after watching two. They were pretty bad but they made me laugh, so not a complete waste.

I'd like to make a few comments about a mechanical analysis of trap bar deadlifts, as I'm not sure I entirely agree with the above and see some elements missing from the discussion.

1) In the above analysis, you refer to it as an "inefficient squat." However, if we're suggesting the trap bar puts people in a more squat-like position, then it's going to look more like a 1/3 or 1/4 squat position, correct? Which, mechanically speaking, is actually a very efficient squat, which is why so many people do 1/4 squats in the first place as an ego lift. I assume you mean "efficiency" in terms of stimulus (i.e. a deeper squat is a more meaningful stimulus), but I thought this worth pointing out if we're speaking in terms of a mechanical analysis.

2) I'm not a fan of the phrase "true pull," this is an appeal to some ideal that I think doesn't really exist. By this logic the conventional deadlift is less of a "true pull" than an RDL or SLDL since they emphasize the posterior chain and spinal erector strength even more than a conventional deadlift.

3) I've seen surprisingly little mention of the profound differences between trap bars with low handles (e.g. the original way Al Gerard did them when inventing the bar in the 80's) and the high handles. The high handles are a lot more like a rack pull, and can accommodate a really upright position. I think they're essentially an ego/masturbation exercise, and for whatever reason, is the default way most people envision the lift being done. The low handles have an equivalent ROM to a conventional deadlift, and any analysis needs to keep this in mind. In fact, I would suggest that a meaningful analysis needs to assume the low handles are being used so that we can take ROM out of the equation in terms of meaningful differences. Anecdotally speaking, I have always been weaker in a trap bar from the low handles than a conventional deadlift, and I would suspect a good percentage of people would find the same.

4) I think there are two key differences between trap bars and conventional deadlifts. One of which has been pointed out in this thread, which is that the trap bar is inherently less stable, particularly at lockout, due to lack of contact with the lifter's body. The grip on the handles also require careful centering as any differences from one side to the other can also greatly affect balance. To me the biggest pain in the ass of a trap bar isn't really the lockout per se, but rather the initial pull on the first rep - the handles have a tendency to want to rotate which can easily throw balance off and make the first rep awkward. This is far less of an issue on subsequent reps, but I thought this worth noting.

However, the other factor I think people aren't really considering can be addressed by asking a simple question - what are the differences in mechanics between a barbell deadlift held in the hands and any variation of the squat aside from just the ROM? I would suggest that a good part of the difference is the fact that, by holding the bar in the hands, you introduce a constraint on knee motion due to the system needing to be balanced over the combined center of mass of the barbell/lifter.

A squat, for example, can be done comparatively more or less upright depending on cueing while still observing midfoot balance in either case, even with the same bar position. Obviously anthropometry still heavily factors in, but you can think of it as a range in which you have either more forward knee excursion or less based on how much hip flexion you allow, i.e. more bent over with the knees less forward vs. more upright with the knees more forward.

Why can't we be more or less upright in a barbell deadlift in the same way? Because the bar is held in the hands, more forward knee excursion past a point will quickly displace the barbell ahead of midfoot, violating the CCOM over midfoot rule above. As such, we have far less wiggle room here, and have to be bent over by necessity, shifting emphasis heavily towards the posterior chain. The quads can still contribute, but not nearly to the degree that they can in a squat.

In that sense, the trap bar is a lot more like the squat - because the apparatus isn't being displaced forward of midfoot with our knees going forward, like a squat, we can perform the lift a little more upright or a little more bent over. As others have said, calling the trap bar deadlift "a squat with the bar held in the hands" is reasonably accurate.

So let's do a quick list of pros and cons for trap bar deadlifts based on the above analysis:

Cons:

• Balance issues that can possibly affect both safety and efficacy of the lift.
• If we're trying to create a stimulus for our hip musculature (and lower back), it's less of a contrasting stimulus to the squat, and thus less of a meaningful stimulus to this musculature, than the conventional deadlift.
• Availability and Skill Transfer - we can find a barbell at almost any halfway decent gym on the planet, and use the skill we acquire by conventional deadlifting on said barbell just about anywhere. Trap bars are a lot less common, and even have some variations between models than can affect our skill/setup. I.e. larger or smaller models, handle spacing etc.

Pros:

• Because the knees can be a bit more forward and the lifter a little more upright at the start, it is easier to assume normal lumbar extension in the setup compared to a conventional deadlift. This might be the single biggest advantage for people wanting to still pull from the floor. Probably particularly relevant to older demographics.
• Neutral grips are the strongest position for our grip strength (e.g. farmer's carries), so we can hold the bar symmetrically with very heavy-for-us weights without the thumb assrape that is the hook grip. We could just use straps in the conventional deadlift, of course, but this does weaken the stimulus for grip strength vs. still holding the apparatus/barbell.
• We don't somtimes accidentally scrape our shins. Some people do care about this.
• If for some reason a conventional deadlift is not an option, or not preferred, we don't need to act like the trap bar isn't an option. As I've seen an SS coach note on the forums in the past (Andy I think?), the trap bar deadlift can be incrementally loaded for a long, long time productively much like barbell lifts. I would caution people against the all or nothing mindset of "barbells or nothing" when it's pretty clear that some other tools (e.g. dumbbells, trap bars) still work pretty god damn well, even if they're not quite as efficient or useful as a barbell.

One of the better critiques that I've read. You are right. It doesn't have to be either or

[Michael Wolf]

On Mehdi's site (Stronglifts), he makes a good point that the hex lift doesn't strengthen the lower back the way the straight bar does. That would have been enough for me.

Brilliant! Why didn't we think of that? I need to reevaluate my life.

Since Brit doesn't seem to do well with sarcasm: We have made this point before. Lots of times. You received the treatment that you did, because you didn't do your homework before posting.

[Scaldrew]

Another reason to forego the trap bar is the simple reason that it's a 300 bucks specialised piece of waste of space. If you'd rather buy one bar and do one movement with it than buy an equally expensive, glorious nippon steel barbell for general lifting and strength training, you need to do some more thinking, especially if you're buying it for a home gym setting and not a powerlifting type gym or what have you where more than one person gets to use it. Exaggeration aside, just spend the extra 300 on another barbell that's up to par. Or give me the 300 dollars. Hold on, I'm looking up my PayPal details now.

[donfrancisco]

I have a general point to make that may, and I emphasize MAY, reduce the incidence of acrimony that often arises during the course of various threads.

I’m someone who reveres rationality, the scientific mindset and intellectual independence. But it is not inconsistent with rationality, the scientific mindset or one’s intellectual independence to exhibit deference for someone’s expertise where appropriate. Because we live in a division of labor society, where there are deep levels of specialization even among professionals of the same profession, it is cognitively necessary to give due weight to what those that have devoted their lives to acquiring mastery of their field have to say. We do this with our medical specialists, with our automotive mechanics and with many of our scientists.

I see that Rip is often criticized for being dogmatic and dismissive. That has not been my experience. And perhaps that is because, despite the fact that I have supplemented my career as a philosopher by working as a strength trainer (within the HIT/Super Slow paradigm) and martial arts coach for over twenty years, I’ve always approached Rip and the other SSCs with the mindset that I have something to learn from their collectively vast experience with strength coaching using primarily barbell movements.

As a result of his vast experience and his superior ability to communicate the fruits of that experience I believe that Rip has earned a certain degree of deference. And as someone who has taught courses in logic, I don’t think expressing said deferrence is an example of the argument from authority fallacy. It is a rational recognition of the fact that we can’t know everything and that giving due weight to someone’s expertise is often a fruitful way to initiate our improved understanding of matters outside the purview of our own area of expertise.