In that thread, before you got all pissy, he even admitted to getting NO leg drive. That’s not a deadlift because a properly done clean grip deadlift uses leg drive. He shot his hips and back lifted it which is an RDL/SLDL off the floor. Which is why his back hurts. Which is why he needs to get his butt lower.

A well, drawing a line through ONE PICTURE OUT OF THE GROUP that you think isn’t perfect is missing the entire point.

The text is correct, the starting position with plates on the bar is correct (getting into the proper position without plates is difficult and I entreat you to try it).

That one picture that you are obsessed with, I agree that the trainee could have her hips a touch higher. It’s an acceptable position but not perfect. The shoulders are over the bar rather than in front. But if you’d stop fixating on that one picture and pay attention to the overall article, you might learn more.

End of discussion.

I’m posting this now because, after following a thread started by “banderbe” concerning his deadlift woes, in which you basically call his deadlift a rdl or sldl, I’m now officially confused about what you consider a “good” deadlift.

On the one hand, your critique of his deadlift makes me think one thing about your concept, but this article makes me think another. In the article, I think your discription, and likely, therefore, your concept of a good deadlift is basically sound. The embedded photos, along with your critique of banderbe’s form, makes me think not.

Here’s your photo of a “good” start postition:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3843490307_7ff7f44955_o.jpg

I’ve drawn a line through it to show where the bar would line up relative to the midfoot and her scapula, adjusting for the fact that the photo was taken at slightly off of “exact” profile.

Here’s your photo of “shooting” the hips. As you can see, this photo shows her in a position that better approximates the setup you describe in you article. This is the setup that you criticize banderbe for, but as you can see, it is the CORRECT one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3442/3843490437_863f0f8e01_o.jpg

Please help me understand.

If you think its appropriate, I can post this over in the aforementioned “banderbe” thread as part of the ongoing conversation there. Basically, I think your “off” or being unfair (read “extreme”) in your critique of his form. Understand that I also recognize that it’s sometimes difficult to accurately critique someone over the internet.

The low back stress also tends to be lower for that reason (torso is more upright) and folks with poor mechanics for normal deadlifting may be better served by using a trap bar.

Lyle

The late Mel Siff and I discussed the JAP 2000 sprint findings and their implications on Mel’s Supertaining site– and in private conversations– back in December of 2000. These discussions, in addition to unanswered locomotion questions I had relative to the successes of paralympians Tony Volpentest and Marlon Shirley, who raced at my high school track back in 1997, led me to visit Dr. Weyand at Harvard’s Concord Field Station locomotion lab in 2001 in pursuit of some answers. The fundamental question at the time: how could a young man with no foot and ankle structure for active push-off–or lower arms for correct arm swing– run 22.94 for 200 meters, a time faster than 97% of every able bodied high school athlete I’ve coached since 1975? This debate was taking place more than ten years before interest in Oscar Pistorius and his carbon fiber Cheetah blades. In fact, before Volpentest came to Lisle, I hosted a clinic featuring Tony’s coach, Bryan Hoddle. I called that clinic: Ground Zero: The Role of the Foot and Ankle in Sprinting. The focus was on what the ‘technology’ of the paralypians could be telling us about the mechanical means by which able-bodied spinters achieve faster top end speeds.

As a result of ongoing communications with Dr. Weyand on these issues, as well as a follow-up visit to his lab at Rice University in 2004, the following eight points formed the basis of the speed training philosophy I had implemented with my high school athletes.

My relationship with Mr. Ross began after he too approached Dr. Weyand regarding the issues outlined in JAP 2000. Mr. Ross contacted Dr. Weyand, who then contacted me, asking me to share with Mr. Ross any additional insights I had gathered through our correspondences, as well as the information from the full day seminar Dr. Weyand presented here in Lisle in ‘02 called: Raising the Speed Limit: What Research Tells Us About Breaking the Barriers.

I really have no idea how these issues became so controversial, or why the debates on different forums seemed to drift beyond the basic premise of these following points, especially when all of the top applied practitioners, those whom I hold in deep respect and admiration for their career contributions to our sport, appear to be saying fundamentally the same things. Here are my initial eight points, followed by insights from some of most respected coaches in our field.

1. Based upon our interpretation of the JAP 2000 findings, an interpretation which has met with the approval of the researchers, I believe that applying mass-specific ground force is the mechanism athletes use to take longer strides. Charlie Francis noted the following in his latest manual: “Too many coaches are coaching the speed right out of their athletes. Some believe that it is stride frequency and others believe that it is stride length that causes speed. The answer is neither. They are both measurements of speed but not the cause of speed. Speed is the result of net forces acting on the ground.”

2. Sprinting comes down to large mass-specific forces applied during brief foot-ground contact times. Charlie Francis has said basically the same thing: “One of the main effects of sprint training is to allow sprinter to achieve the maximum force on the ground in the shortest time possible.”

3. Body and limb movement during constant-speed level running is performed largely passively by tendons and energy transfers. Isolated drills to improve form are more likely to worsen than improve the economy of running. Dr. Mike Young has noted the following in this regard: “Sprint drills do not in and of themselves develop proper sprint mechanics and may in fact be detrimental. Sprint drills can however provide an opportunity to teach cues that can be used in full speed sprinting, or create desired sensations which may carry over to full speed sprinting. These benefits however are contingent on the manner in which the sprint drills are performed. Sprint drills may also be used to develop certain physical capacities or warmup the athlete.”
.
4. Delicate proportionality between the runners mass and ground force demands a method of training that produces superior strength with minimal increase in mass Biomechanist Dan Andrews recently said the following: The role of mass and particularly that caused by hypertrophy has changed or needs to be reviewed in the context of the structure of the individual as a result of training and not to be training for added mass. Frans Bosch said the following at an ’07 symposium here in Illinois: “stop doing hypertrophical training and you’ll be a much better athlete.”

5. Volitional attempts to alter force on the ground or improve swing mechanics via such techniques as dorsiflexion or pawback are not means supported by locomotion research or the physics of a falling body. Vern Gambetta has gone on record offering his comments on dorsiflexion and the pawback: “Personally this was a vindication because I feel like I have been a voice crying out in the dark on this one. Take home point on this one: forget cueing all the stuff on dorsiflexion. The other one was in regard this idea of pawing. It does not occur; you can’t do it, so forget it.”

6. Once a runner is up to speed there is little to no mechanical work or forward propulsion required. Runners bounce along the ground like rubber balls maintaining their forward momentum as they bounce up off the surface during each contact period. Corroboration for the spring mass model goes back over forty years: all running animals, from small insects to large mammals, exhibit a center-of-mass motion that resembles a bouncing ball or a pogo stick

7. Push off in the classical sense of active plantar flexion (force at toe-off) occurs in the latter third of stance phase when forces are minimal. Considering this, active push-off (muscle shortening) is not a means by which athletes apply greater force to the ground.
Research by Giovanni Cavagna and Dick Taylor, published in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, suggested that there is little to no requirements for mechanical work and forward propulsion once a runner gets up to speed

8. Arm swing is often unique to the attachment points, lengths, and hard-wiring of each athlete, and arms in general perform like passive pendulums, providing balance and minimizing center of mass energy losses. Arm swing does not control leg movement, and the amplitude or direction of arm swing is not a contributor of force on the ground. Dr. Ralph Mann drew these conclusions in the 1980’s. “I will emphasize once more,” noted Dr. Mann, “that the hands and arms are not significant contributors to improvement in sprint performance.”

I can assure you that, based upon the personal opportunities both Mr. Ross and I have had with Dr. Weyand and Dr. Bundle in an effort to grasp these speed mechanics issues as they had presented them in their work, I believe we are not misinterpreting or misapplying the findings or offering positions that they would not find acceptable relative to their studies, or the available corroborative science.

And I fully understand your position on these matters. It is your responsibility as a scientist to challenge the findings of JAP 2000 if they conflict with what you’ve gathered from your research. That was my original intention when I first visited Dr. Weyand at Harvard, especially since the points of emphasis seemed counter to the techniques and training for speed I had been doing for the first twenty-five years of my coaching career. To my knowledge, no research over the past eight years has challenged or refuted either the support force or swing data from the 2000 study.

I regret if online discussions with Barry deteriorated to the point that these basic issues were not presented in the right manner. I certainly don’t want to come across as dismissive of the great things you and your colleagues have done for our sport, and I believe Barry feels the same way. As I mentioned to Dan Andrews on his website: I have the highest respect for Dr.Mike Young and his expertise, and the same goes for Vern Gambetta, who has been a coach’s ed “titan” for as long as I can remember. Vern was my instructor for USATF Level I Certification many years ago.”

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide this background.

Happy Holidays!

Ken Jakalski
Lisle High School
Lisle, Illinois

Well, my point was simply that from my experience, I agree with you: deadlift + a pushing exercise = a very good workout.

My secondary point is that others agree also. Too bad the one (of many) example I used was someone with whom you have issues

I wonder if it would have been better/worse/same to say “Stuart McRobert agrees with you also”

Anyway, thanks again for a helpful and instructional post (it gave me some additional cues to think about when I was deadlifting yesterday)

Put differently, I get more of a kick out of watching Ross make a fool of himself by using poor analogies, misunderstanding physics, quoting irrelevant running research (Ross seems incapable of understanding the differences between running on a treadmill and over ground) and then disappearing from forums when his arguments get torn to absolute shreds.

Lyle

You’d get a kick out of the arguments from people who insist that you MUST do more than this.

Speaking from the experience of DOING that protocol, though… man, it’s a beast, especially if you train at 85-95% of your 1RM

Thanks for a great instructional article!