L.I.F.T.

Chris at Conditioning Research posted a great entry about the different benefits of squatting and deadlifting.

What really caught my attention was this quote from Matt Metzgar, taken from a post on his blog:

“Toddlers squat constantly, but it is all “mobility” work. The squats are done for the purposes of movement, not for the purposes of lifting a weight. If a toddler wants to lift a weight, they shift into a deadlift position.”

we all used to do it...what happened?!

The Back Squat

As far as squatting goes, there are a ton of squatting types/forms.  What the authors above are talking about is a natural full-squat position, similar to the resting/seated position used by most people in most “undeveloped” countries:

many still do...

The exercise called “the back squat” involves placing a bar across your upper back, and squatting with it.  As the authors mention (and Mike Boyle harps on), this can cause injury if proper form isn’t maintained – that is, if you progress too fast in weight.

The body is only as strong as its weakest link, and, in most “modern” people the lower back is a very weak link.  When you put that weight on your shoulders, and squat down, if your mobility sucks, you bend forward, and all of that weight goes to your weak link.

Then the weak link breaks.

The “back squat” though, is called the “back squat” not just because you put the weight on your back, but because it is a back exercise.  The back squat, traditionally, was thought of more as a strengthener of the back than of the legs.  The deadlift, as the authors above mention as well, was traditionally a leg exercise – though not even the “predominant” leg exercise…that was the “front squat.”

The Front Squat

The front squat involves supporting a bar across the front of your shoulders, and squatting with the weight held there.

The front squat usually allows for a much greater range of motion than the back squat, because the weight is ahead of the individual.  It also uses the quadriceps much more than the back squat, and can take a lot of the loading off of the lower back, as the back is necessarily kept in a more upright position (to avoid falling over).

This is the squat used in Olympic lifting, where lifters frequently achieve weights in excess of 3 or 4 times their bodyweight.  And it uses the “full squat” (“mobility”) position.

The Deadlift

The deadlift was called “The Health Lift” by most writers before 1970.  It was considered the single best lift for achieving total body strength.  I think it still is.

However, the deadlift has its own problems, which are, or can be, very similar to those encountered in the back squat.

If form is sacrificed in the traditional deadlift, and the lumbar spine rounds, the load, again, is transferred to that spot, and the weakest link goes.

The Goal – Maximal Strength within Proper Technique

The problem with all of these discussions is that they try to make a claim that one exercise is “better” than another.  That “better” can mean “builds more strength,” or “is less dangerous,” or “has a higher functional carryover.”

But there is no absolute truth…except, maybe, this:

If you do any exercise with proper technique, to the current limit at which you can sustain proper technique, and progress as you are able, you will be fine.

No exercise is “better” than any other.  They’re all good.  They all have their time and place.

The problem happens when people try to rush things, and sacrifice technique for “success.”

Sacrificing technique for success = failure.

Write that on your whiteboard.

There is a whole “boutique fitness clothing” economy springing up across the country (world?).  Places like Lululemon, Athleta (which Gap Inc. is buying), were created to “cater to female athletes.”  They offer luxurious workout clothes (that can be tailored, no less), that cost a small fortune for an average person.

We all know this is make-believe.  You don’t need “yoga pants” to do yoga.  In fact, my favorite clothing for yoga is a pair of shorts.  Women may want to keep their bra’s on, but I’m fine if they don’t.

What about running?  Yeah, again, a pair of shorts.  If it’s chilly out, give me sweatpants and a sweatshirt.  If it’s too cold for that, what the hell am I running for (from?)?

Back in high school gym class we were given running shorts (the real deal…if you have big glutes, your cheeks are hanging out of the back) and a tank top.  That was our gym uniform.  Perfect.  Then, suddenly, someone designing clothes for athletes realized they could charge more if they used more fabric (or something).  Suddenly, guys in the NBA were wearing coulats in games, and arm-sleeves, or several t-shirts at the same time, and sports became a fashion-show.

Well, okay, whatever floats your boat.  But I want you, dear reader, to consider two things about these choices – Function, and Repercussions.

Function – how will you function best?  Consider that.  Then think about “fashionable” items that you might wear a lot (I mean, more than your gym clothes) – like “skinny jeans,” that inhibit hip flexion.  Suddenly everyone walks like a penguin, they can’t bend at the hips.  They have to flex their lower back (lumbar spine) when they sit, because their “skinny jeans” won’t let their hips bend.  Add high heels to that mess and you have physiological disaster waiting to happen.

Repercussions – aside from the physical repercussions (which aren’t obvious…that is, you won’t notice you’ve been crippled by your clothes till your back blows out), there are serious global environmental repercussions to the continual production, consumption, and disposal of unnecessary bullshit.  When you buy your new Lululemon workout gear, where was it made?  Where was it shipped from?  Who made it, and how much were they paid?  What happened to the environment they lived in?  How long will it last?  Longer than a skimpy pair of running shorts?  When the trends change, will it sit in your closet, or be dumped on Goodwill, or worse – in the trash can?

You are effecting very large things with your fashion choices.  Be careful.

The therapy/training world recognizes structure as being related to function.  If a person’s structure is off (forward-head, sloped shoulders, etc…see my last post), then their function is what’s causing it (barring any real deformities due to genetics or injury).  Changing their function will change their structure.  The opposite is not necessarily true.

I wonder, then, if the Sawyers of the world have bigger arms on average than the rest of us.  Or if the Smiths have stronger grips, or the Porters stronger than average back musculature.

Since these surnames were originally the occupation of the individual (John the Smith…aka John Smith, Tim the Saw-er…Tim Sawyer, or William the Porter…Bill Porter), and the names and professions were often handed down for several generations, was there any resultant morphological difference in the eventual offspring?

While it’s probably too far gone to tell, I’d hazard a guess that at one point (right before the industrial revolution) the answer may have been yes, or at least, skewed toward characteristics favorable for those professions.

But what about the structural part?  If your last name is Porter, and you don’t share your great-, or great-great-, grandfather’s strength, might you still share the structural deficiencies he passed down over the generations, but that he was able to compensate for through constant use?

Again, probably too far gone to tell.  But it begs the question – what strengths and weaknesses will you pass down to your offspring?