I'm not going to watch it. Sorry. Just type us a transcript so I can read it. Much more info that way.
Member
Another confusing Kelly Starrett video
I was wondering if you care to comment on this newest video by Kelly Starrett. While his usage the confusing language is still present I was able to decipher that he is saying that the PC set up (by association DL) should be done by setting up from the top down, i.e. with the back already in extension at the top before the hands come to the bar. It's a contrast to what is taught in The Book (although I vaguely remember you saying this can be done in certain situations as well), where lumbar extension is not focused on at the top and is achieved once the hands are already gripping the bar. Now I'm confused his words at 3:04, when he says that the subject has to "yank with his anterior structures" in order to place the back into correct lumbar extension. I find this a strange way to describe this, why doesn't the subject just use his spinal erectors to place the back in lumbar extension, why does he use "anterior structures" (I assume he means psoas/rectus abdominis)?
Anyways, for your enjoyment and our fulfillment"
Relevant part starts at 2:15
Thanks.
TMPHBITEU
I'm not going to watch it. Sorry. Just type us a transcript so I can read it. Much more info that way.
Starting Strength Coach
I watched. I'm sorry, too.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
Not really.Just type us a transcript so I can read it. Much more info that way.
Member
Kelly's argument is basically that, to "pull yourself into extension" at the bottom of a clean or deadlift which starts in a rounded position, you are relying on your "anterior structures (I am assuming he means the hip flexors) to help set your spinal position. He is arguing that this is somehow a less stable position than starting/maintaining a neutral position throughout the setup, i.e. establishing the neutral spine in the standing position and then maintaining it through every step of reaching down to the bar etc. He justifies this logic with a kind of odd pole analogy, bending the pull into simulated flexion, and then having his assistant "unbend" the pole back into a straight position. The bar is now "wobbly," and Kelly feels that this wobbly bar is apparently an analogy for the forces acting on your spine when you set up after grabbing the bar instead of beforehand.
This argument doesn't make much sense to me. Even if you start with a neutral spine in the standing position, the act of bending over to grab the bar will place forces attempting to posteriorly tilt your pelvis and flex your spine (due to the way the hamstrings attach to the ischial tuberosities), and you will have to counteract this tendency with some combination of the spinal extensors and the hip flexors. I.e. the very same muscles which allow you to establish the "chest up," neutral-spined position if you set up at the bottom. His concern would seem to disappear if you simply cued keeping the abs/gut tight through the setup, since the instability he's talking about would only really exist if the abs were relaxed, as they are sometimes in hyperflexible trainees. As long as the abs stay tight during the initiating of the pull itself with an otherwise neutral spine, I can't imagine why it would matter when the back position is established.
Member
That's the thing that confuses me the most. How would the hip flexors establish the back extension? We use the back extensors to create extension not the hip flexors. I can't wrap my mind around this. Please someone explain to me that Kelly is wrong so I stop feeling stupid.
Member
Very simply, if the erectors are weak the hip flexors can be engaged to counteract the pull of the hamstrings. Kelly is wrong because if you set your back at the top, then bend to reach the bar, you will still need to use your hip flexors for compensation if you have weak erectors. Setting the back at the top might be useful to some individuals with no coach and poor positional awareness, not because it eliminates use of the hip flexors.
Starting Strength Coach
At this juncture it seems propitious to remind ourselves of the setup for any pull from the floor in the SS model (more or less from memory with a bit of vodka in me, so please indulge):
1. Approach the bar so that it is over the middle of the foot, toes pointing out about 30 degrees.
2. Without moving the bar or lowering the hips, bend over at the waist and take hold of the bar.
3. Without moving the bar or lowering the hips, bring the shins forward to the bar. Your scapulae should be over the bar, your feet should be flat, your elbows should be straight.
4. Without moving the bar or lowering the hips, raise the chest. This will cause a wave of spinal extension to propagate along the vertebral column. Everything should be tight.
5. Pull.
Or something like that. Again, I plead drunkenness if I've missed the details, not to mention being too lazy to go look it up.
Now. I invite those who have not yet imbibed in vodka or other intoxicating liquors this evening to go immediately to their bar and demonstrate to themselves that this procedure results in excellent spinal extension and a perfect deadlift setup without any catastrophic involvement of the "anterior structures."
As for the deadlift setup being somehow fundamentally different from the power clean setup...no. I don't buy that. Pulls is pulls. YMMV.
TMPHBITEU
Unfortunately, I really believe Kelly wants you to feel stupid. Every analysis he presents is overly complicated, described with obscure non-standard jargon, and explained too quickly to be grasped even if it were presented in a normal tempo in grammatically-correct English, understandable, logical, simple, and correct, which it never is. OF COURSE the lumbar extensors establish and maintain lumbar extension, because that's what they're for. OF COURSE the abs and obliques reinforce this position isometrically, like a cylinder, because the muscles on the sides can't actually move anything when they work together, and the abs in isometric contraction just pressure up the gut, holding the spine rigid from the anterior. And OF COURSE the hip flexors have nothing to do with it, because 1.) they are tiny muscles -- how much weight can you put on your knees and raise to your chest? 2.) hip flexion is easily provided for by 405 on the bar and you pushing on it at 402, and 3.) LUMBAR EXTENSION is the primary problem, not HIP FLEXION anyway -- as the weight comes off the floor, the problem is keeping the back flat (at least for the people Kelly works with), and staying in hip flexion means the hips did not extend, hip extension being a critical feature of any successful deadlift.
Postulate a mechanism whereby the erectors remain weak when training the deadlift correctly.
Member
Seems like needlessly increased fatigue. Hinge movements are great for learning things, as per D. John. However, would Dan John say to throw a discus by completing the entire (ready, set, go) throw with your arm held as it is at the point of release? You know, because that is where it actually does the throw?
Why put strain on the smaller muscles during set up for the lift when nothing is going on but set up? How does that contribute to performance? I would think that "I grab the bar completely set up" would lead to dangerous habits. Some lifters lift quickly and have little to no set up but they exist on a different plane than Starrdom.
Maybe I should watch the video.
TMPHBITEU
I'm still waiting on the transcript.
Posting Permissions