Controversies in Olympic Weightlifting

[damufunman]

Yeah, not enough time! I definitely welcome cloning if its only to find out what would work best for you in a training program.

Haha, I think @chromoly mentioned cloning a while back regarding this. I'll likely do some A/B testing and repeat it multiple times to see if either block gives better results. Might even just do the lifts and squats for a somewhat minimal program and to reduce confounding variables.

[MPhelps]

Low Bar Squat, at least for me, is not anything I would ever as a weightlifter for a number of reasons. The low bar position requires a "bent over" back position which leads to a higher probability of dumping cleans. It also interferes with the ability to get in a proper overhead position. If you're bent over it's going to require a ton of shoulder mobility to keep the bar overhead. The low bar squat causes quite a bit of arm and shoulder pain for a lot of lifters which is not going to help for snatch and clean and jerks. Now Rip argues that front squats will train the more upright squat position you need to clean and snatch, and you'll supplement the low bar squat with front squats. Even if that's the case, the back squat is such a huge driver of strength and positioning that if you low bar squat, it will alter all of your lifting mechanics in a negative way for snatch and clean and jerk.

If Nuckols and just about every other strength nerd outside of the SS community says that it doesn't matter that much where you put the bar on your back, I'm going to go with it on my traps and where I can drop between my legs the fastest and be able to stand up more quickly. The low bar is more of trying to stick your ass out and use your hamstrings to arrest your descent before you go "too low." It's like the difference between pooping in a hole in the ground and trying to move your ass back onto a toilet. To me, the low bar is just way too slow, requires too many technique cues to do correctly and doesn't offer much in the way of positioning for the snatch and clean and jerk to be useful. I don't see a lot of technique videos on high bar squat, but I see about 10 a day on the facebook SS group of low bar squat.

If you're powerlifting, nerdlifting, the squat is a tested lift so you want to be able to use the most weight with the least amount of ROM. If you're a weightlifter, the back squat is an assistance lift to overload a position that you can't with an overhead squat or front squat. Rip's entire claim to fame revolves around 3 sets of 5 in the low bar squat, so of course he's going to say it will work for weightlifters. So far, nobody at all has listened to him, except one 63 who was a competitive gymnast before becoming a weightlifter, and who may not do much low bar at all.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

[mbasic]

PLHBS =/= OlyHBS =/= HBS performed by a general strength trainee (i.e. bodybuilder, garage gym guy, etc)

These are all different things.
That's where Nuckols article falls apart. . . . for me.
LB and OHB are not the "practically the same"

[MPhelps]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

[mbasic]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

If your SO is an SSC, that would be the only reason.

[damufunman]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

If your SO is an SSC, that would be the only reason.

Ha!

[MPhelps]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

If your SO is an SSC, that would be the only reason.

wait who are you talking about??

JK. LOL
Not that you would know what she thought of low bar squat during the extreme close up podcast with Rip. If he wasn't outright interrupting her when she opened her mouth, DiStasio was blabbing about coaching her. So she got about 10 words in in about 45 minutes. Which actually isn't terrible since Rip speaks about 10 words a minute anyway.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

Damn it...you caught me out!

[Marenghi]

PLHBS =/= OlyHBS =/= HBS performed by a general strength trainee (i.e. bodybuilder, garage gym guy, etc)

These are all different things.
That's where Nuckols article falls apart. . . . for me.
LB and OHB are not the "practically the same"

Hm, I dont think Nuckols claimed that. He simply compared the placement of the bar and effects of that while keeping all other things constant.

It certainly matters to which depth you squat, how much stretch reflex you use and so on. Thats self-evident.

But which of the variants to use for a general strength trainee doesnt matter much by his analysis (barring individual restrictions).

[mbasic]

PLHBS =/= OlyHBS =/= HBS performed by a general strength trainee (i.e. bodybuilder, garage gym guy, etc)

These are all different things.
That's where Nuckols article falls apart. . . . for me.
LB and OHB are not the "practically the same"

Hm, I dont think Nuckols claimed that. He simply compared the placement of the bar and effects of that while keeping all other things constant.

It certainly matters to which depth you squat, how much stretch reflex you use and so on. Thats self-evident.

But which of the variants to use for a general strength trainee doesnt matter much by his analysis (barring individual restrictions).

yeah, I didn't word my post correctly.

In that whole HBBS vs LBBS debate (Rip, SSCs, and others), people will reference the Nuckols article (which says there's really not much difference between the two), even though the Nuckols article didn't really look at a Olympic High Bar Squat, or the fact the context of that article wasn't gear towards olympic lifters. . . .

. . . or (leave the Nuckols article out of it), people will say on their own: "its just 2" difference in bar placement and/or 3-5 degrees difference is back angle."

I say no, its not.

But yeah, if you suck and high-bar squatting, then you should do the other thing.

[Marenghi]

I looked for what the SS claim is on different squats, and I regret to inform you, mbasic, that your OHB is bullshit, because "it relaxes" all kinds of things.

https://startingstrength.com/article/the-four-criteria

Gee, for the thousandth time, they cant help reiterating the "most muscle mass over longest ROM with most weight" nonsense.

I noted on SS boards several times, that throughout the years many people have explained the claim represents a mult-factorial (muscle mass, ROM, weight) optimization problem that doesnt have a single solution: Rack pulls can use more weight - but deficit pulls have longer ROM- LB uses a bit more hip extension (btw, a very suboptimal exercise for the hamstrings compared to any hip extension or knee flexion exercise), HB a bit more quad ROM and thoracic extension. High lower back torque can be a positive or negative, depending on many factors like the rest of your exercise selection.

Speaking of which, many also have noted that we dont need one single exercise in the first place, because we have a multi-exercise training program. In which a combination of exercises is what counts, not a single one. For example, for hypertrophy, HB combined with RDL is superior to LB and DL, even if the single exercises were better (which they arent, because, again, there very often is no "better" for all goals, for all criteria).

So, the article already falls apart in the first paragraph.

Then, in an hilarious and awkward attempt of looking sciency (not much practice in that, eh? ) the author tries to dismiss ALL evidence against the SS claims - which are ofc unsupported by scientific evidence, but use the usual "mechanical/anatomical analysis" - about LB vs HB by citing a 1992 article about the difficulties of EMG measurement and interpretation. Not only have several authors discussed the topic since, most recently Vigotsky and Contreras for a broad public, who explicitly explain when and when not EMG can be useful, valid - and what to watch out for when using EMG.

But the evidence is far from EMG only, although I can understand why SS people would love to get rid of the "bio" in biomechanical investigation: because this is what runs counter to their mechanical-only analysis. Sometimes, they even dont get this right when applying false thigh moment arms in the sumo, claiming theyre shorter (because they take the wrong plane instead of realizing the thighs are rotated out of the sagittal plane where they put the moment arms for calculation...).

What is also telling is that after the usual arsenal of "Have you read the book?" and the regurgitation of the very same phrase the author uses in his linked article ("most muscle mass over..." you know the continuation), there is nothing else they have left. They are not able to engage in any discussion after I repeatedly answered that yes, I did read the book and I disagreed with the claims BECAUSE of the following evidence against it (citing studies or simply Greg Nuckol´s article series https://www.strongerbyscience.com/high- ... tting-2-0/ ).

Every SS coach when the topic came up, most often in the technique forum, when guys asked if they could go on with HB squatting because they like squatting this way, had nothing to counter. And how could they, when they dont know any content outside of the SS bubble? Since they have been made to believe all sports science is flawed. All the exponential rising # of studies totalling >20,000 as of now. Every single one of them. They reassure themselves once a year in kind of a ritual ceremony about that "fact" by picking one or two mostly weakly designed studies out the 20,000 and manage to discuss them even more imcompetently (a glaring exception of this was the series on cardio by Baraki and Sullivan - when there is no dogma for brand protection and more own scientific background knowledge, things seem to work differently....).

Instead, what happened instead of discusson was ...I was blocked from the forums. A demonstration of complete intellectual helplessness.

So @SeanHerbison can make up his mind when reading this if he still wants to be part of such a group that unfortunately changed from a previous place of evolving and critical thinking to one of textbook group behavior.

Id say: Come to the grey and forbidden apples side of things, Sean!

[Savs]

Wow. My only complaint is that was so good, Marenghi, I wish I still smoked. Because I need a cigarette.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

More importantly why is the 4th Criteria not even a proper Criteria?

I like Wolf...I just feel he is a mind-change away from what he needs to get stronger.

[MPhelps]

This sums a lot of the issues with SS vs the world in weightlifting.

[TheGOAT]

This sums a lot of the issues with SS vs the world in weightlifting.

Guy seems like a plant.

Regarding the OP, I've cleaned some relatively heavy things. I no longer find "jump" to be the most useful tool for bar elevation. Now "slam the hips forward" reigns. I only use the jump cue to prevent myself from jumping backward too far.

[Skander]

Guy seems like a plant.

Regarding the OP, I've cleaned some relatively heavy things. I no longer find "jump" to be the most useful tool for bar elevation. Now "slam the hips forward" reigns. I only use the jump cue to prevent myself from jumping backward too far.

"Jump" just seems to me like one of those "little white lies" we tell beginners. It's not a very good long term cue, but it works at first until you get other stuff together. I still prefer "throw the bar to yourself" but haven't trained beginners so I have no idea how well that works.

"Slam the hips" for me just bumps it out, but cues and actual actions aren't always related of course.

I've been watching a lot of hookgrip slomo lately and what's really amazing is how little elevation elite lifters even put on their clean. Sometimes it's just a handspan above the hips.

[TheGOAT]

Guy seems like a plant.

Regarding the OP, I've cleaned some relatively heavy things. I no longer find "jump" to be the most useful tool for bar elevation. Now "slam the hips forward" reigns. I only use the jump cue to prevent myself from jumping backward too far.

"Jump" just seems to me like one of those "little white lies" we tell beginners. It's not a very good long term cue, but it works at first until you get other stuff together. I still prefer "throw the bar to yourself" but haven't trained beginners so I have no idea how well that works.

"Slam the hips" for me just bumps it out, but cues and actual actions aren't always related of course.

I've been watching a lot of hookgrip slomo lately and what's really amazing is how little elevation elite lifters even put on their clean. Sometimes it's just a handspan above the hips.

+1 on the little lie.
I really envy their efficiency.

[DirtyRed]

I guess this goes here:

You know, the more I learn about training the more hesitant I become to comment on weird stuff like this...but damn, it sure sounds like bullshit. I guess I can see a mechanism whereby someone simply learns to use a better motor program through "activation" training, but I'm color me skeptical.

What you're seeing in the clip is this:
Bullshitter: Do like this.
Lifter: *mimes triple extension gently*
Bullshitter: Now really squeeze your ass!
Lifter: *does triple extension properly* *jumps*

Miraculous!

The language used betrays the lack of knowledge. It's not "developing motor patterns to more strongly use the glutes" or "developing a better mind muscle connection" it's "they're not using their glutes at all OMG!". And they have no idea how stupid that sounds.

To be fair, "developing a better mind-muscle connection" also sounds completely retarded.

"Glute," or any other fucking prime mover in a given movement, activation in general is a load of horseshit. As if I could go from greatly bent over to upright without my glutes. What the dingleberry appears to be trying to make sound loads more complicated than it actually is, is to "FINISH YOUR PULL"

I heard Freddy Couples (note: golfer) used to think of always swinging "faster" throughout his swing. Which is why he had a swing that looked so smooth and fluid. In order to always be feeling faster, one had to start pretty slow. Obviously, he wasn't ALWAYS moving the club actually faster, it nearly stopped at the top of the backswing, like it does for everyone else except Jim Furyk. But this general feeling in his mind let him swing hard through the ball without spazzing all out at the start of the downswing or anything. he tried to feel like he was accelerating all the way through the follow through.

Something vaguely like that might work for weightlifting. Not necessary to feel like one is always pulling "faster" than they were a moment before in the pull (not that anything wrong with that jumps immediately to mind), but to feel like they pull THROUGH the top of the pull, really, really hard.

Get dat max extension.

Who has Breeze coached?
Anyone of notable success?

This is poor thinking.

Low bar vs high bar:

High bar has a greater ROM for knee extension with a more acute knee angle. Strength is angle specific. If you need that angle in your comp lifts, it helps training it in your acc. lifts.

Low back stress is another point but could be remedied by pulling a little less.

1.) So why not only front squat, if "angle specificity" is what you wish? The only reason for anyone who isn't going to compete at squats to back squat is to get stronger, and low bar indisputably (that means no arguing with me) does that better.
2.) If anything, I'd rather an oly lifter pull more and squat less.

I'm thinking of trying one of these alternatives. Turns out I can't low bar squat, deadlift and do snatch and C&Js multiple times per week.

I manage this fine. My secret? Don't be too good at the snatch or clean. When they're a rather pitiful fraction of your squat and deadlift, they don't beat your back up that much.

Yeah, for a Weight Lifter I don't know why you'd Low Bar except in very rare circumstances.

I don't even know what those instances would be. Good mornings and RDLs usually take care of posterior chain issues and front squat can be used exclusively if the high bar position is causing or exacerbating a back problem.

1.) One is trying to become a member of the Super Total Ascendant Race(TM).
2.) While I don't generally like Hanley's Pull/FrontSquatONLY scheme, I can certainly see how it might work well for a competitive weightlifter. Though, still, if they were to ever back squat, it would be for non-"specific" strength, and thus low bar would be the better option, inability to do it without crippling pain notwithstanding.
3.) Good mornings are the drizzling shits. Also, I wouldn't think not back squatting would cause any problems with posterior chain strength, since the whole point would be to deadlift an awful lot. If anything, it's going to leave your quads and knees less strong and stable, though front squats are probably enough to ensure that they're both strong enough to endure a lifter's clean and recovery. Weightlifting isn't like football, hockey, or even basketball and the like, where you want to be putting heavy ass loads on your knees in the offseason so they can better withstand external forces careening into them from all angles during the season.

This sums a lot of the issues with SS vs the world in weightlifting.

Guy seems like a plant.

Regarding the OP, I've cleaned some relatively heavy things. I no longer find "jump" to be the most useful tool for bar elevation. Now "slam the hips forward" reigns. I only use the jump cue to prevent myself from jumping backward too far.

DR, Master of Subtlety and Complex Thought, usually just thinks "FUCKING PULL" once the bar passes the knees, as if I am trying to peel the finish off the bar.

That might be less handy for a n00b that can't stop pulling with his arms, though.

[Marenghi]

To be fair, "developing a better mind-muscle connection" also sounds completely retarded.

"Glute," or any other fucking prime mover in a given movement, activation in general is a load of horseshit. As if I could go from greatly bent over to upright without my glutes.

Well, in this case it gets interesting because the prime movers for hip extension can be: hamstrings, adductors, glutes. So there is some wiggle room how to distribute the force between muscles that have similar tasks. And it makes sense to get the glutes on board as much as possible, because they are monoarticular muscles that also are quite powerful potentially. So if someone for whatever reason doesnt use them as much as he can, it may be a good idea to push their share.

--------------------------------------------

Low bar vs high bar:

High bar has a greater ROM for knee extension with a more acute knee angle. Strength is angle specific. If you need that angle in your comp lifts, it helps training it in your acc. lifts.

Low back stress is another point but could be remedied by pulling a little less.

1.) So why not only front squat, if "angle specificity" is what you wish? The only reason for anyone who isn't going to compete at squats to back squat is to get stronger, and low bar indisputably (that means no arguing with me) does that better.

Though, still, if they were to ever back squat, it would be for non-"specific" strength, and thus low bar would be the better option, inability to do it without crippling pain notwithstanding.

Well, there is no "non-specific strength". Strength is specific. So claiming high bar or low bar as "better for general strength" is pointless. The two variants present a small tradeoff between a little more quad ROM on the one hand, and a little more hip extension ROM on the other. As a non-oly lifter, it isnt much difference in the first place with no variant being superior generally and in isolation (we never do only one exercise). Meaning it above all depends on your goals, rest of the program, preferences, individual suitability which you choose. (FWIW - that was arguing with your claim )

Re why not only front squat, but also high bar back squat for specificity: Yeah, FS would be even more specific - but unfortunately, in a practical sense, the limiting factor isnt quad strength. High bar can maximally train the quads in a similar ROM, whereas its hard to front squat heavy, often, with high volume with thoracic strength and endurance, bracing, stress on shoulders limiting the quad stress both short term in a session and long term throughout a program.

-----------------------------------------------

2.) If anything, I'd rather an oly lifter pull more and squat less.

The "could be remedied by pulling a little less" comment was directed at IF you chose to train with low bar AND would experience too much low back stress. Sure, I think its a small advantage to be able to do more weightlifting specific pulling when doing high bar.