Squatting and Deadlifting – Mobility and Strength

Posted in Uncategorized on February 23rd, 2010 by Josh

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.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Specialization…The Downfall of Humanity

Posted in Uncategorized on August 11th, 2008 by jleeger

Ok, maybe the title is hyperbolic. However, I can’t help but notice how specialization has driven the “obsessive-compulsive”-type culture we have today.

For example, and of greatest pertinence to this blog – The Olympics.

In terms of sport, through the centuries, we’ve seen more and more sports appear, and become “professional,” based on specialization. Special techniques, special tools, special rules.

In the early Olympics, Ancient Greeks competed in games that mostly represented tasks that warriors had to be proficient in – discus (shield-throwing), javelin (spear-throwing), running, wrestling, jumping, etc.

The individual skills of basic human movements gradually became more and more abstracted. Suddenly, the sports that were performed by a single athlete (pentathlon) were their own events. Then, events that really consisted of training for those events became events, like weightlifting.

Today, athletes are so specialized that they can’t possibly cross athletic boundaries successfully. In fact, genetic predispositions would prohibit them from being effective at other events.  This idea has infected youth sports as well.  More kids are suffering from overuse injuries than ever before, because they’re playing the same sport year round.

Is it strange that in a land of specialization, we’re experiencing a lack of general fitness? The lens needs to shift a bit. I propose an Olympics where all athletes have to compete in other sports. Swimmers have to compete in gymnastics events. Basketball players have to compete in cycling. Badminton players have to compete in weightlifting. Wrestlers have to compete in discus, and javelin throwers have to compete in judo.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Tags: , , , , , ,