Stiff-legged deadlifts

We had a (very informative) thread here a while back about somebody having
problems with increasing their squat weight and tipping to far forward
during a squat. There was a suggestion that the particular scenario
described (which I shared) might reflect weak hams and glutes relative to
quads a lower back.

I have never done stiff-legged deadlifts because I had heard/read how risky
they are for the back, but I was recently reading about how they can be used
with lighter weights as an endurance or conditioning exercise (never trying
to max out or exhaust) for the hams and glutes, focussing on contracting
those muscles during the lift. I tried them this weekend, and it does feel
good. (I've also been doing front squats for a while now, as someone
recommended in the aforementioned thread.)

Any thoughts on stiff-legged deadlifts? Anybody else seeing any results in
squats after focussing on hams and glutes?

ep

Edna Pearl wrote:
> We had a (very informative) thread here a while back about somebody having
> problems with increasing their squat weight and tipping to far forward
> during a squat. There was a suggestion that the particular scenario
> described (which I shared) might reflect weak hams and glutes relative to
> quads a lower back.
>
> I have never done stiff-legged deadlifts because I had heard/read how risky
> they are for the back, but I was recently reading about how they can be used
> with lighter weights as an endurance or conditioning exercise (never trying
> to max out or exhaust) for the hams and glutes, focussing on contracting
> those muscles during the lift. I tried them this weekend, and it does feel
> good. (I've also been doing front squats for a while now, as someone
> recommended in the aforementioned thread.)
>
> Any thoughts on stiff-legged deadlifts? Anybody else seeing any results in
> squats after focussing on hams and glutes?

SL DeadLifts are great.
I do them once a week for 3 sets which is plenty as far as I am
concerned. Once a week I do SL DLs and squats. I go heavy and deep
and really do think that I need a full week to recover.
I think that with proper form SL DLs are no more dangerous than any
other excercise. When starting just try a few reps at a low weight and
keep trying until you know what the most challenging weight you can lift
is. But, really, you should be doing this anyway for any other
excersise, right?

Edna Pearl wrote:
> We had a (very informative) thread here a while back about somebody
> having problems with increasing their squat weight and tipping to far
> forward during a squat. There was a suggestion that the particular
> scenario described (which I shared) might reflect weak hams and
> glutes relative to quads a lower back.
>
> I have never done stiff-legged deadlifts because I had heard/read how
> risky they are for the back, but I was recently reading about how
> they can be used with lighter weights as an endurance or conditioning
> exercise (never trying to max out or exhaust) for the hams and
> glutes, focussing on contracting those muscles during the lift. I
> tried them this weekend, and it does feel good. (I've also been
> doing front squats for a while now, as someone recommended in the
> aforementioned thread.)
> Any thoughts on stiff-legged deadlifts?

They're an excellent exercise that target the hamstrings. Whoever told you
they were risky for the back presumably also warned you of the death risk of
crossing the road? Done properly they are perfectly safe for the back. Avoid
doing them list this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
Do them like this:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.

> Anybody else seeing any
> results in squats after focussing on hams and glutes?
>
> ep



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

> They're an excellent exercise that target the hamstrings. Whoever told you
> they were risky for the back presumably also warned you of the death risk
> of crossing the road?

So crossing the road while doing SLDLs is really something for DareDevils, i
guess?

> Done properly they are perfectly safe for the back. Avoid doing them list
> this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
> Do them like this:
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.

Leg curls are better. And safer.

At least in the gym. I have never tried them while i was crossing the road.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>> They're an excellent exercise that target the hamstrings. Whoever
>> told you they were risky for the back presumably also warned you of
>> the death risk of crossing the road?
>
> So crossing the road while doing SLDLs is really something for
> DareDevils, i guess?
>
>> Done properly they are perfectly safe for the back. Avoid doing them
>> list this:
>> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
>> Do them like this:
>> http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
>
> Leg curls are better.

Better - why?

> And safer.
>
> At least in the gym. I have never tried them while i was crossing the
> road.
> ----
> Pete



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Leg curls are better.

> Better - why?

Because the *primary* function of the hams is knee joint flexion. Hip joint
extension is secondary, as the glutes are the prime movers in that area.

----
Pete

In article <4575628d$0$54985$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
> > They're an excellent exercise that target the hamstrings. Whoever told you
> > they were risky for the back presumably also warned you of the death risk
> > of crossing the road?
>
> So crossing the road while doing SLDLs is really something for DareDevils, i
> guess?
>
> > Done properly they are perfectly safe for the back. Avoid doing them list
> > this:
> > http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
> > Do them like this:
> > http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/...gDeadlift.html.
>
> Leg curls are better. And safer.

How?

--
Keith

In article <457576c0$0$67828$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
> >> Leg curls are better.
>
> > Better - why?
>
> Because the *primary* function of the hams is knee joint flexion. Hip joint
> extension is secondary, as the glutes are the prime movers in that area.

So what? In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.

--
Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> >> Leg curls are better.

>> > Better - why?

>> Because the *primary* function of the hams is knee joint flexion. Hip
>> joint
>> extension is secondary, as the glutes are the prime movers in that area.

> So what?

Just what i said!

>In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
> curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.

Oh really ?!?!?!

How many times in *real life* do you pull a 600 pound bar of the floor?

How many times in *real life* do you lie ON a bench, UNDER a bar ?!?!?!

Yeah, thought so...

----
Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> Leg curls are better. And safer.

> How?

Because thats their primary function.

Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?

And they put less stress on the lower back.

----
Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

> So what? In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
> curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.

Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).


http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683


"That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
activation of the motor units." -- JMW


[Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
small margin (60% vs. 55%)]


Pete

In article <457580e1$0$90828$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> >> Leg curls are better.
>
> >> > Better - why?
>
> >> Because the *primary* function of the hams is knee joint flexion. Hip
> >> joint
> >> extension is secondary, as the glutes are the prime movers in that area.
>
> > So what?
>
> Just what i said!
>
> >In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
> > curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.
>
> Oh really ?!?!?!
>
> How many times in *real life* do you pull a 600 pound bar of the floor?

Pull things off the floor lots of times, and I could make you look sick
doing so...

:^?
>
> How many times in *real life* do you lie ON a bench, UNDER a bar ?!?!?!

Agreed. The only good thing about the bench press is a chance to lie
down before you deadlift. Totally useless friggin' exercise. Wrecks the
shoulders and reduces ROM for throwing.

Which is why I am now an olympic weightlifter...

--
Keith

In article <45758145$0$41770$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.
>
> > How?
>
> Because thats their primary function.
>
> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?
>
> And they put less stress on the lower back.

stress is good. distress is bad.

--
Keith

In article <457584b2$0$21487$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> > So what? In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
> > curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.
>
> Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
> semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
> respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
> 35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
> ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
>
>
> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>
>
> "That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units." -- JMW
>
>
> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]

I already debunked the study. It was poorly done and doesn't apply to
conditioned athletes. But check the title of the post, Pete, and quit
blowing smoke. Why introduce the squat to prove a point when we were
talking about the stiff-legged deadlift.

Duh.

--
Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef

>> > In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
>> > curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.

>> Oh really ?!?!?!

>> How many times in *real life* do you pull a 600 pound bar of the floor?

> Pull things off the floor lots of times, and I could make you look sick
> doing so...

Oh, i believe it!

> :^?

I have to admit that when i wrote the response i was thinking for a few
minutes...

>> How many times in *real life* do you lie ON a bench, UNDER a bar ?!?!?!

> Agreed. The only good thing about the bench press is a chance to lie
> down before you deadlift. Totally useless friggin' exercise. Wrecks the
> shoulders and reduces ROM for throwing.

Who wants to throw, anyway..

> Which is why I am now an olympic weightlifter...

How many times in real life do do snatch, clean and jerk..

Totally useless exercises...

Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef

>> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.

>> > How?

>> Because thats their primary function.

>> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?

>> And they put less stress on the lower back.

> stress is good. distress is bad.

Leg curls stress the hams...

Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef

>> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>> "That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
>> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
>> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
>> activation of the motor units." -- JMW

>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]

> I already debunked the study.

Because you are convinced these numbers are not the same in experienced
lifters. I read it.

It was poorly done and doesn't apply to
> conditioned athletes. But check the title of the post, Pete, and quit
> blowing smoke.

I am not blowing smoke.

Why introduce the squat to prove a point when we were
> talking about the stiff-legged deadlift.

Sorry about that.

But the hams act as hip extensors in the squat, just like in SLDLs...

> Duh.

DUH

Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:457589dd$0$90822$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>
>>> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.
>
>>> > How?
>
>>> Because thats their primary function.
>
>>> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?
>
>>> And they put less stress on the lower back.
>
>> stress is good. distress is bad.
>
> Leg curls stress the hams...

You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.

For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
unchallenging, sissy move, and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid
machine. But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm
actually building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to
actually *lift* things. Sometimes, in real life, you can't get neatly
positioned into deadlift stance to move what needs to be moved; I expecting
having a strong SLDL will give me more real-life versatility.

The leg curl feels is *too* targetted to the ham -- one big fat stupid
muscle body is being worked in isolation, without the stability and safety
provided by strengthening the adjacent muscles.

ep
(And benching helps my paddling strength. Who wants to throw a ball
anyway.)

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:OKgdh.302$q%1.301@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:457589dd$0$90822$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>>
>>>> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.
>>
>>>> > How?
>>
>>>> Because thats their primary function.
>>
>>>> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?
>>
>>>> And they put less stress on the lower back.
>>
>>> stress is good. distress is bad.
>>
>> Leg curls stress the hams...
>
> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.
>
> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
> unchallenging, sissy move, and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid
> machine. But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm
> actually building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to
> actually *lift* things. Sometimes, in real life, you can't get neatly
> positioned into deadlift stance to move what needs to be moved; I
> expecting having a strong SLDL will give me more real-life
> versatility.

A barbell Good Morning will accomplish a lot of what you want, and so
will plain old deadlifting. Here's a nice clip of the latter.

http://www.jackalsgym.com/athletes/m..._04Dead380.wmv

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> The leg curl feels is *too* targetted to the ham -- one big fat stupid
> muscle body is being worked in isolation, without the stability and
> safety provided by strengthening the adjacent muscles.
>
> ep
> (And benching helps my paddling strength. Who wants to throw a ball
> anyway.)
>

In article <4575899b$0$56846$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>
> >> > In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
> >> > curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.
>
> >> Oh really ?!?!?!
>
> >> How many times in *real life* do you pull a 600 pound bar of the floor?
>
> > Pull things off the floor lots of times, and I could make you look sick
> > doing so...
>
> Oh, i believe it!
>
> > :^?
>
> I have to admit that when i wrote the response i was thinking for a few
> minutes...
>
> >> How many times in *real life* do you lie ON a bench, UNDER a bar ?!?!?!
>
> > Agreed. The only good thing about the bench press is a chance to lie
> > down before you deadlift. Totally useless friggin' exercise. Wrecks the
> > shoulders and reduces ROM for throwing.
>
> Who wants to throw, anyway..
>
> > Which is why I am now an olympic weightlifter...
>
> How many times in real life do do snatch, clean and jerk..
>
> Totally useless exercises...

GREAT transfer to sporting movements. I play baseball in summer.

:^)

And hip thrust - you could do well to work it with those big-butted
women you like so much. Cleans are great for dynamic, powerful movement.

--
Keith

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:4tlmm3F14er38U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
> news:OKgdh.302$q%1.301@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>> news:457589dd$0$90822$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>>>
>>>>> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.
>>>
>>>>> > How?
>>>
>>>>> Because thats their primary function.
>>>
>>>>> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?
>>>
>>>>> And they put less stress on the lower back.
>>>
>>>> stress is good. distress is bad.
>>>
>>> Leg curls stress the hams...
>>
>> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.
>>
>> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
>> unchallenging, sissy move, and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid
>> machine. But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm
>> actually building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to
>> actually *lift* things. Sometimes, in real life, you can't get neatly
>> positioned into deadlift stance to move what needs to be moved; I
>> expecting having a strong SLDL will give me more real-life versatility.
>
> A barbell Good Morning will accomplish a lot of what you want, and so will
> plain old deadlifting. Here's a nice clip of the latter.
>
> http://www.jackalsgym.com/athletes/m..._04Dead380.wmv

That's a hell of a deadlift, all right. I'm deadlifting 120 pounds right
now, which is pretty good for *me* -- a 49yo woman, after six weeks of
training, after a long illness. The highest I've ever gone is 150. It's
one of my better lifts; apparently having a long torso helps. But the very
subject that came up in this thread about squat problems was my problem -- a
strong deadlift but a weak squat with a tendency to lean forward. It was
proposed that one could have a good deadlift despite, and a weak squat with,
weak hams and glutes. I know some of us were interested in this
probabililty, and it seems to be true for me.

Regular DLs just don't work my hams and glutes. SLDLs feel spot on. I'm
going to try them for a while and see if it helps my squat.

I've never been in the habit of doing good mornings. I'll put it on my list
:-)

ep

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:aVhdh.327$q%1.136@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
> news:4tlmm3F14er38U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:OKgdh.302$q%1.301@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:457589dd$0$90822$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>>>>
>>>>>> >> Leg curls are better. And safer.
>>>>
>>>>>> > How?
>>>>
>>>>>> Because thats their primary function.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are there other muscle groups that flex the knee joint?
>>>>
>>>>>> And they put less stress on the lower back.
>>>>
>>>>> stress is good. distress is bad.
>>>>
>>>> Leg curls stress the hams...
>>>
>>> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
>>> unchallenging, sissy move, and, subjectively, I don't like the
>>> stupid machine. But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels
>>> like I'm actually building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use*
>>> this lift to actually *lift* things. Sometimes, in real life, you
>>> can't get neatly positioned into deadlift stance to move what needs
>>> to be moved; I expecting having a strong SLDL will give me more
>>> real-life versatility.
>>
>> A barbell Good Morning will accomplish a lot of what you want, and so
>> will plain old deadlifting. Here's a nice clip of the latter.
>>
>> http://www.jackalsgym.com/athletes/m..._04Dead380.wmv
>
> That's a hell of a deadlift, all right. I'm deadlifting 120 pounds
> right now, which is pretty good for *me* -- a 49yo woman, after six
> weeks of training, after a long illness. The highest I've ever gone
> is 150. It's one of my better lifts; apparently having a long torso
> helps. But the very subject that came up in this thread about squat
> problems was my problem -- a strong deadlift but a weak squat with a
> tendency to lean forward. It was proposed that one could have a good
> deadlift despite, and a weak squat with, weak hams and glutes. I know
> some of us were interested in this probabililty, and it seems to be
> true for me.

I have a deadlift much stronger than my squat; this isn't a problem.
Your tendency to learn forward in the squat doesn't mean you have weak
hams and glutes - it could mean a lot of different things, but it's
probably just that you need to learn how to squat better. The squat is
a much more technically demanding lift than the deadlift - both are
basic human motions that it's good to be able to do, but there is no
need to move similar weights in each exercise. By the way, if you read
the literature, you'll find that, as a rule, most women are more quad
dominant than men, all other things being equal.

My wife happens to be your age and roughly your strength in the
deadlift - I think her all-time max is 195 lbs., and she is a pretty
poor squatter but interested in improving, so we're working on barbell
good mornings and assisted pistols (one-legged squats) and she's
enjoying working on both and making progress.

> Regular DLs just don't work my hams and glutes. SLDLs feel spot on.
> I'm going to try them for a while and see if it helps my squat.

Regular DLs require your hamstrings and glutes - it's really not
possible to lift the bar without significantly involving them both
unless you've rounding and doing most of the lift with your back.

> I've never been in the habit of doing good mornings. I'll put it on
> my list :-)

Good luck.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


>
> ep
>

Pete wrote:
> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> So what? In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles
>> and curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.
>
> Neuromuscular activation of the biceps femoris caput longus (BF) and
> semitendinosus (ST) muscles in leg curls was 70% and 67%,
> respectively. Activation of the BF and ST muscles in squats was only
> 35% and 19%, respectively. That was less than leg press (BF=40%,
> ST=22%), and even pelvic bridging (BF=34%, ST=24%).
>
>
> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>
>
> "That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units." -- JMW
>
>
> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]
>
>
> Pete

Uh? Squat? Uh?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> How many times in real life do do snatch, clean and jerk..

>> Totally useless exercises...

> GREAT transfer to sporting movements. I play baseball in summer.

> :^)

> And hip thrust - you could do well to work it with those big-butted
> women you like so much. Cleans are great for dynamic, powerful movement.

That was low!

FWIW, i ALWAYS encourage women in my gym to squat deadlift...

For obvious reasons.

----
Pete

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> [Note: Leg press also activates glutes more than squats, but only by a
>> small margin (60% vs. 55%)]

> Uh? Squat? Uh?

Hip joint extension, Bully...

----
Pete

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:

>> Leg curls stress the hams...

> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.

> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
> unchallenging, sissy move...

Yeah, well...

MAYBE THATS BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, AND STILL AM A
SISSY, MISSY !!!!

> and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid machine.

There are no such things as stupid machuines, there are only stupid people
who dont understand the proper use of particular machines.

> But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm actually
> building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to actually
> *lift* things.

Eh... use the knee joint and quads to lift "things." Trust me on this one...

> The leg curl feels is *too* targetted to the ham -- one big fat stupid
> muscle...

Sure.
Millions of years of evolution gave us big useless muscles.

> body is being worked in isolation, without the stability and safety
> provided by strengthening the adjacent muscles.

Do you think that people who LC dont do other exercises? Think again...

> (And benching helps my paddling strength. Who wants to throw a ball
> anyway.)

I am still hearing echoes from Krissies site...

----
Pete

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:29:01 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:
>
>>> Leg curls stress the hams...
>
>> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.
>
>> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
>> unchallenging, sissy move...
>
>Yeah, well...
>
>MAYBE THATS BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, AND STILL AM A
>SISSY, MISSY !!!!
>
>> and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid machine.
>
>There are no such things as stupid machuines, there are only stupid people
>who dont understand the proper use of particular machines.
>
>> But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm actually
>> building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to actually
>> *lift* things.
>
>Eh... use the knee joint and quads to lift "things." Trust me on this one...
>
>> The leg curl feels is *too* targetted to the ham -- one big fat stupid
>> muscle...
>
>Sure.
>Millions of years of evolution gave us big useless muscles.
>
>> body is being worked in isolation, without the stability and safety
>> provided by strengthening the adjacent muscles.
>
>Do you think that people who LC dont do other exercises? Think again...
>
>> (And benching helps my paddling strength. Who wants to throw a ball
>> anyway.)
>
>I am still hearing echoes from Krissies site...
>

It certainly smacks of a certain feminist bias!

In article <4575c675$0$21487$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> >> How many times in real life do do snatch, clean and jerk..
>
> >> Totally useless exercises...
>
> > GREAT transfer to sporting movements. I play baseball in summer.
>
> > :^)
>
> > And hip thrust - you could do well to work it with those big-butted
> > women you like so much. Cleans are great for dynamic, powerful movement.
>
> That was low!
>
> FWIW, i ALWAYS encourage women in my gym to squat deadlift...
>
> For obvious reasons.

Well, a little below the belt, but I wouldn't go so far as to say 'low'.

--
Keith

Pete ha escrito:

> http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
>
>
> "That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> activation of the motor units." -- JMW


As someone else (Hobbes?) pointed out, this extract from the article

"Free-weight squats with a barbell. Subjects were standing upright with
a barbell
resting on the muscles of the neck just below the vertebra prominens.
The subjects descended in a controlled manner by flexing the knee and
hip simultaneously to a knee joint angle of approximately 100 degrees
and a hip joint angle of approximately 90 degrees and subsequently rose
in a similar fashion."

means that the comparision was with quarter-squats. A barely below
parallel squat, for my body, means a knee joint angle of about 60°.

Experience of the weightlifters has no relevance wrt this issue.

In article <1165349767.263846.240920@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
"Sag" <stickbow7@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pete ha escrito:
>
> > http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/reprint/86/5/683
> >
> >
> > "That definitely defies conventional wisdom and MFW dogma, but it's
> > hard to argue with those numbers. It appears that leg curls *are*
> > better than squats for hamstring development, at least in terms of
> > activation of the motor units." -- JMW
>
>
> As someone else (Hobbes?) pointed out, this extract from the article
>
> "Free-weight squats with a barbell. Subjects were standing upright with
> a barbell
> resting on the muscles of the neck just below the vertebra prominens.
> The subjects descended in a controlled manner by flexing the knee and
> hip simultaneously to a knee joint angle of approximately 100 degrees
> and a hip joint angle of approximately 90 degrees and subsequently rose
> in a similar fashion."
>
> means that the comparision was with quarter-squats. A barely below
> parallel squat, for my body, means a knee joint angle of about 60?.
>
> Experience of the weightlifters has no relevance wrt this issue.
>

They were also untrained subjects. The study has little relevance to
experienced weightlifters who really squat.

--
Keith

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:12:55 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article <457576c0$0$67828$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>
>> >> Leg curls are better.
>>
>> > Better - why?
>>
>> Because the *primary* function of the hams is knee joint flexion. Hip joint
>> extension is secondary, as the glutes are the prime movers in that area.
>
>So what? In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
>curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.

I do all my SLDLs with a clean grip with an extra shrug at the end.
Excellent compound movement.

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:h0jbn29suvl1gs3n4l4udsdeecvhqeqmei@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:29:01 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:
>>
>>>> Leg curls stress the hams...
>>
>>> You guys would argue about the time of day. And I love ya for it.
>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, subjectively, leg curls feel like a totally
>>> unchallenging, sissy move...
>>
>>Yeah, well...
>>
>>MAYBE THATS BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, AND STILL AM A
>>SISSY, MISSY !!!!
>>
>>> and, subjectively, I don't like the stupid machine.
>>
>>There are no such things as stupid machuines, there are only stupid people
>>who dont understand the proper use of particular machines.
>>
>>> But when I SLDL, it's a real-life lift that feels like I'm actually
>>> building the whole glute/ham area. I can *use* this lift to actually
>>> *lift* things.
>>
>>Eh... use the knee joint and quads to lift "things." Trust me on this
>>one...
>>
>>> The leg curl feels is *too* targetted to the ham -- one big fat stupid
>>> muscle...
>>
>>Sure.
>>Millions of years of evolution gave us big useless muscles.
>>
>>> body is being worked in isolation, without the stability and safety
>>> provided by strengthening the adjacent muscles.
>>
>>Do you think that people who LC dont do other exercises? Think again...
>>
>>> (And benching helps my paddling strength. Who wants to throw a ball
>>> anyway.)
>>
>>I am still hearing echoes from Krissies site...
>>
>
> It certainly smacks of a certain feminist bias!

I'll take that as a compliment. Actually, I think I got the habit of
calling muscles that are injury-prone due to having been worked in isolation
"stupid" from a former publication by the BFL folks.

I'm giving odds that the mere mention of BFL is going to cause a shitstorm
around here.

ep
(sitting back to watch)

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Hobbes wrote:

> The only good thing about the bench press is a chance to lie down before
> you deadlift.

Er, how does one go about nominating something for a humour award?

tom

--
the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Pete wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef
>
>>>> In real life how often do you load the back of the ankles and
>>>> curl the thighs? Totally useless friggin' exercise.
>>>
>>> How many times in *real life* do you lie ON a bench, UNDER a bar ?!?!?!
>>
>> Which is why I am now an olympic weightlifter...
>
> How many times in real life do do snatch, clean and jerk..

Well, i like to do as much snatch as i can, or otherwise, plenty of
jerking. Either way, i usually clean afterwards.

tom

--
the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology