Another Sumo Thread

[Dwayne_KONG_Wint]

I read Kyle's article, Why (Almost) Nobody Should Pull Sumo?, and it got me thinking about its main points which are:
1. Conventional is harder due to larger moment arm on the hip; so, the back and hip extensors need to work harder.
2. Conventional has a longer range of motion which is also harder.
3. Harder is better.

I agree on all those points 100% IF AND ONLY IF the conventional deadlift can be performed correctly. Turtle backing basically makes that moment arm argument moot because turtling shortens the moment arm and it also changes the mechanics of the lift such that the hip extensors aren't doing the amount of work they should be doing and the spinal erectors are doing work that they really shouldn't be doing. It is still harder but it is incorrect.

I would argue that more people (maybe even everyone) can achieve better spinal extension with a narrow sumo stance deadlift with the feet placed right outside of the hands. In this configuration, with the armpit over the bar, the bar over midfoot in contact with the shins, the knees in line with the toes, and the back in rigid extension, the reduction in moment arm on the hip is probably negligible, the reduction in ROM is also probably negligible, the contribution of force production from the adductor group is higher. So, the back still works hard. The hamstrings still work hard, and now, the adductors can come to the party even more than just a little.

If more people can perform the narrow sumo stance deadlift correctly (assuming that achieving and maintaining spinal extension is the most common major error in performing the conventional deadlift i.e. ppl don't get squoze enough), why not entertain the possibility that a very small change in stance which does seem to remedy the squozing issue might actually be superior?

And.......

GO!

[Cody]

Les and I have discussed this a bit in my log. I am using a stance exactly like you described. In conventional, I have a 30.5" ROM and can only wear a nylon belt. In the semi-sumo, I have a 28.5" ROM and can wear my 13mm belt. I'll know in just a couple weeks how much more I pull in this stance over conventional, but I'm willing to bet a good bit. If the ROM is very similar, you're using a similar amount of muscle mass, and you can pull more weight, shouldn't you use that? Isn't this and what you have said basically a summary of why we use low bar squats instead of high bar?

[Cody]

Here is a quick summary of our discussion:

Also, I'm running narrow sumo stance deadlifts this cycle. I had my training partner measure the height of the bar at lockout with 405 and had 30.5" conventional and 28.5" sumo. I can get a better breath and wear a real belt with the slightly wider stance. It will be an interesting experiment to see if my squat and deadlift are about the same at the end of these 6 weeks or if I'm able to pull significantly more this way. I really don't think there will be any less developed spinal erectors with a 6" difference in my stance, especially if I end up being able to pull significantly more.

I agree. Since you are using a narrow semi-sumo stance, there probably isn't much difference between the pulls mechanically. If you can lift a lot more semi-sumo because you can get set up better, I think you will work your musculature harder doing it that way. Another piece of this is that a lot of times we argue what is theoretically better. In your case it actually may not be, but lets assume someone does a wide sumo stance and pulls more that way. Technically he is doing less work, but if he gets his sumo pull from 200 to 700, he got stronger in all the areas he needed. Is it ideal, maybe not. But I don't think guys that pull 400 conventional are doing more either. On top of that, you have to do what is going to make you happy (e.g. keep hitting the gym day in and day out even though it is hard as hell). If sumo keeps you doing that, then it is a no brainer. :-)

I am with you Cody. A piece of the puzzle that I think got missed in all the recent discussion is that we as trainees need to be motivated to keep training. When you find a particular lift sucky (as I did with deadlifts) it can get really hard to keep training them consistently. I kept being unhappy with form, tweaking things etc, and my deadlift went nowhere for 12 months. Switching to a narrow stance Sumo allowed me to keep training the lift hard, and there is really only a marginal difference in ROM. I'm getting more work in a 190kg sumo set than a 170kg conventional set. I say keep going - sumo seems to work well for you

So I don't go nuts with quoting, I'll just share a few thoughts overall:

1) You Squat & Deadlift over 500lbs. I think this qualifies you to have your own opinion on how to deadlift, bench, squat, press, and if you truly prefer a strawberry daiquiri to Bourbon. Although you aren't talking about Rows, I think this quote applies:

My opinion about barbell rows is as follows: fuck barbell rows. Really. Fuck them. Stop wasting time worrying about barbell rows and get your deadlift up to 500. By then you'll have your own opinion and you won't have to worry about mine.

2) I think you have the right approach with training cycles of 6 weeks in which you can experiment what helps to push up your lifts. As such, you can experiment with conventional, sumo, knee wraps, etc. and see what pushed up your numbers, and the carry over effects to "raw"

At your level of strength, I believe it's a personal approach to see what works for you.

[Shaun]

I would argue that more people (maybe even everyone) can achieve better spinal extension with a narrow sumo stance deadlift with the feet placed right outside of the hands. In this configuration, with the armpit over the bar, the bar over midfoot in contact with the shins, the knees in line with the toes, and the back in rigid extension, the reduction in moment arm on the hip is probably negligible, the reduction in ROM is also probably negligible, the contribution of force production from the adductor group is higher. So, the back still works hard. The hamstrings still work hard, and now, the adductors can come to the party even more than just a little.

I don't think it would be. The back would be more vertical, and the effective femur length would be shorter; ergo, the reduction in moment arm on the hip would probably not be negligible. An indicator of this would be people finding it easier to maintain back extension.

I also suspect that the adductors would still not be working in this variant of the deadlift than they are in the (low bar) squat.

[Dwayne_KONG_Wint]

I don't think it would be. The back would be more vertical, and the effective femur length would be shorter; ergo, the reduction in moment arm on the hip would probably not be negligible. An indicator of this would be people finding it easier to maintain back extension.

I also suspect that the adductors would still not be working in this variant of the deadlift than they are in the (low bar) squat.

Have you tried it?
Set up your deadlift with your knees right inside your arms. Now set up your deadlift with your knees right outside your arms. Did you significantly decrease the effective length of your femur?
Probably not.

And if our femur length didn't shrink significantly, then our back angle is still relatively horizontal.

I believe the lifter will find it easier to maintain back extension because they can achieve better back extension in the set up with the femurs more externally rotated at the hip. This clears the impingement that can be an obstacle in the conventional set up. Some folks experience impingement with the conventional set up even with toes pointed out and knees out. This will either impede good back extension and/or subsequently lead to degradation of back extension during the lift. If you can set up better, you will usually lift better.

[idlehands]

Have you tried it?
Set up your deadlift with your knees right inside your arms. Now set up your deadlift with your knees right outside your arms. Did you significantly decrease the effective length of your femur?
Probably not.

And if our femur length didn't shrink significantly, then our back angle is still relatively horizontal.

I believe the lifter will find it easier to maintain back extension because they can achieve better back extension in the set up with the femurs more externally rotated at the hip. This clears the impingement that can be an obstacle in the conventional set up. Some folks experience impingement with the conventional set up even with toes pointed out and knees out. This will either impede good back extension and/or subsequently lead to degradation of back extension during the lift. If you can set up better, you will usually lift better.

Think I'm with Dwayne on this. When I experimented with narrower foot position on deads I had more trouble setting up and ended up forming my back. Wider stance opens the hips some and back likes it better. Haven't tried sumo but there's a chick at my gym that has a narrow sumo stance. It looks closer to a conventional tbh

[Miro]

Why not do (read: publish) a mechanical analysis? Intuitively, a very narrow stance sumo deadlift does sound like a viable variant/replacement. But how much muscle mass is involved compared to conventional deadlifts? Does the work required to pull sumo shift around (i.e. more focus on legs, more focus on upper back, whatever) compared to conventional? How much ROM is sacrificed for weight? Is the strength gained from either movement transferable to the other one?

[Cody]

Why not do (read: publish) a mechanical analysis? Intuitively, a very narrow stance sumo deadlift does sound like a viable variant/replacement. But how much muscle mass is involved compared to conventional deadlifts? Does the work required to pull sumo shift around (i.e. more focus on legs, more focus on upper back, whatever) compared to conventional? How much ROM is sacrificed for weight? Is the strength gained from either movement transferable to the other one?

Those things are really dependant on an individual's anthropomorphy.

[Les Hahn]

Those things are really dependant on an individual's anthropomorphy.

I agree. For someone like me with a pretty wide conventional stance, going to a narrow semi-sumo is probably only 3-4" wider. My lockout is probably only 2-3" less too (if that). How much of a difference is that going to make for the amount of work my muscles are doing? I don't think it would be a big difference. And if the lifter can get set better and pull 50-100 more #, then they are doing more work. Now somehow I pull less with semi-sumo, even with just a small change. I was thinking maybe it is because my hands rub up my thighs for lockout, so that could be messing me up. Even locked out, my hands are not outside me legs like they are for a lot of other sumo lifters. I might mess around with it again, just because it is so much easier to get set.

[MBasic]

https://www.instagram.com/p/9j7isoNniw/

Chinese oly lifters use these occassionially...(narrowish stance sumo pull)