Because I don't get to sleep for a few weeks: Hbbs vs LBBS

[mgage]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Technically, it can be evidence of absence as long as some evidence is reasonably predicted.

[bugbomb]

Part of what makes this discussion so annoying is people invariably read "HBBS is sub-optimal" as "HBBS is bad". No one thinks that high-bar squatting is bad. Rip doesn't, Jordan doesn't. I'm sure that in general the SS coaches are excited to see people squatting big weights and making progress regardless of style. That doesn't mean they don't think that virtually any high-bar squatter could improve their general strength by x% by switching to low-bar technique.

People keep saying that we do, but we do NOT have experimental data showing that HBBS is optimal. We have experimental data showing that it is GOOD - high bar squats get people strong and drive up the main lifts.

We do not have any data on whether LBBS is good OR bad (not really, anyways) for weightlifters, and we certainly don't have any data showing whether HBBS or LBBS is superior for weightlifters. In the absence of this direct comparative data, we are left with arguments and ONLY arguments. Part of the HBBS argument is "that's what all the great lifters use", which means it is GOOD but not that it is optimal. Think about the 3-pointer in basketball - until Larry Bird prioritized it, it wasn't really considered a scorer's weapon. Now virtually all of the best perimeter scorers in the NBA shoot it at a high percentage. Even non-specialists like Kevin Durant and Chris Paul shoot it at rates that were unheard of even from the best back in the 80s. The 3-point shot was simply assumed to be not useful for the specific things that scorers needed to do (collapse defenses, score under pressure, etc).

I think there's a similar dynamic here with squat style. There may be benefits to a hip-dominant squat that simply have not been acknowledged and realized yet, even at the high levels of the sport.

[elVarouza]

Anyone wanna hear my thoughts on the conjugate method for cross country skiiers????

Yes pls. How would you incorporate bands, chains, and DE vs ME days? Pls respond.

[Tom Narvaez]

atb makes a lot of sense here. He said what I should have said, but said it a lot better.

I think you guys are completely delusional if you really believe that the Russians/Chinese have NEVER tried the low bar squat for weightlifting. Especially because their powerlifters all do (Russia). A lot of the powerlifting coaches came from a weightlifting background in Russia. I just find it so incredibly unlikely that it is hard to believe.

I also want to point out that Kevin, the coach of the kid who started this whole shitstorm, PERSONALLY experienced poor results from using the LBBS when he transitioned to weightlifting. There are lots of possible reasons, but people keep ignoring data points like this.

The body tends to default to its strongest positions when challenged by maximal loads. This is why people round their backs on the deadlift (well, it is one reason). Personally, when I try to front squat, as the weights get heavier, my hips shift back and I start trying to lift the weight with low bar mechanics.

Now, you could make the argument that this necessarily ALWAYS happens at heavy enough weights because low bar mechanics are universally more efficient. However, I have seen a ton of videos of weightlifters grinding out reps with their knees really far fucking forward.

I know that in a million years that is never what would happen at my personal sticking point in a squat even when I place the bar high. And yes, I do believe this is due to my training the low bar squat almost exclusively. When I try to high bar, my body defaults to that low bar position when it gets heavy enough. I don't see weightlifters with this tendency and the ones that do have this tendency don't do it as badly as I do.

Knees go in on the way up frequently- genu valgum/valgus knee- because it eliminates the moment arm created between the hip and knee joint in the coronal plane, which serves other downstream functions.

Fuck. Time to rethink some things.

[Kyle Schuant]

1. Am I wrong and, in fact, most high level lifters low bar squat, I just haven't seen it?
2. High level lifters are unaware of the low-bar squat and thus haven't tried to use it?
3. High level lifters have used the lbbs, seen the benefits, and actively choose to train sub-optimally?

Number 1 could easily be true, but I have a hard time thinking #2 and #3 are true.

Remember that most lifters simply do what their coaches tell them to do. And in lifting, remarkably few coaches in each country decide how things are done, other coaches are their proteges and follow their methods. In Australia there are 3 or 4 prominent weightlifting coaches and their sidekicks, and that's basically the whole sport.

I don't pretend to know what's best for top-level lifters in PL or WL. But the fact is that there are only a few coaches, and they have their way of doing things, and that's that. There's a lot of pretty strict tradition in things like WL.

Can anyone provide an example of a weightlifting team or country, who transitioned its athletes from HBBS to LBBS, found poor results and moved back to HBBS? One example? This isn't a rhetorical question. Is there any history of the sport that suggests that squat style is anything different than bunting with no outs.

And this is one reason for there being traditions. The stakes are pretty high, if you're original you may fuck everything up, if you follow tradition things may not go great, but they at least won't fuck up. How would you like to go to a top level lifter and tell them they have to deload and learn a new technique?

[Jsutt]

And this is one reason for there being traditions. The stakes are pretty high, if you're original you may fuck everything up, if you follow tradition things may not go great, but they at least won't fuck up. How would you like to go to a top level lifter and tell them they have to deload and learn a new technique?

This is a similar point to the argument about training max deadlifts between Rip's fans and Pendlay's fans. Rip argues that strengthening the slow lifts will carry over to the fast lifts, while Pendlay argues that maxing out on deads has a larger negative effect due to the time taken out of regular training for recovery than it has a positive effect in decreasing the 1RM pull % of the fast lifts.

In that situation the weightlifter's concern is that the time taken out of regular training to try a new style or try a new program is going to give their opponents the edge while they fall behind. So it's not just 'people are stupid' or 'weightlifting coaches are old fossils set in their ways', it's that (in addition to those factors) there is a real cost-benefit analysis that has to be considered; the likes of Mike C think that the benefits outweight the costs, but apparently many top-level weightlifting coaches disagree.

Of course the fact that the Chinese lifters pull limit deadlifts 3 times a week means that Pendlay's argument is bullshit and Rip's right, but we're still lacking this demonstration for HBBS vs LBBS for oly lifters. This is why you can argue all you want about what *should* happen if lifters train using LBBS, but until someone can step up and actually do it, it's just idle speculation.

It's great to hear, btw Tom Narvaez, that there are lifters who are willing to back Rip's training models enough to go for it. It'll be interesting to follow their progress.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Riddle me this. . . Let's agree that LBBS allow for moving a larger load than HBBS because they place you in a position to recruit more muscle fiber (and it is not just a mechanical advantage). Now, an Oly lifter has to stand up a heavy clean. How does training that extra muscle fiber that is not used in standing the weight up -- via the LBBS -- help you?

A trained muscle can be recruited when the load is heavy enough (or velocity fast enough) to exceed that specific motor units threshold- and then it fires to perform it's action(s). Strength, ie force production is a general adaptation that can be applied specifically. For instance, it your bench press goes up, you can swing a golf club faster because your force production of some of the muscles utilized to swing the club have been trained to produce more force. Somehow, these two activities are different.

Atb, sorry man- I don't have access to any internationally competitive athletes to teach how to LBBS. Unless move out of country, I won't either. Funny how this has nothing to do with the axial physiology or biomechanics being discussed here, unfortunately.

[Thomas Jones]

A trained muscle can be recruited when the load is heavy enough (or velocity fast enough) to exceed that specific motor units threshold- and then it fires to perform it's action(s). Strength, ie force production is a general adaptation that can be applied specifically. For instance, it your bench press goes up, you can swing a golf club faster because your force production of some of the muscles utilized to swing the club have been trained to produce more force. Somehow, these two activities are different.

Atb, sorry man- I don't have access to any internationally competitive athletes to teach how to LBBS. Unless move out of country, I won't either. Funny how this has nothing to do with the axial physiology or biomechanics being discussed here, unfortunately.

I don't understand the first sentence. You'll have to spoon feed this simpleton. What is a "motor unit threshold" vis a vis a squat?

I don't think anyone has tested to prove that a golf club swing is faster because someone benches more. Is there any such testing or study you can point me to?

[Mike C]

the likes of Mike C think that the benefits outweight the costs

Nope. Certainly don't think that. Personally, I have no opinion on that specific matter.

My issue is with a confirmation based on convention type of argument that keeps happening. As I've said several times, I think things are done more for convention than because of logic or evidence. This is why I'm waiting to hear of a specific example of a country or team that has tried both methods. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm only saying that we have no examples yet of it happening.

If Russia tried it, it would probably be documented somewhere. I'd be interested to read about those trials.

[Jsutt]

Ah, my apologies. I misinterpreted what you were saying.