If hypertrophy is the main goal, shouldn’t there be a reduction in conventional deadlifts, and more deficit deadlifts or alternatives for the posterior chain? It seems that deadlifts aren’t responsible for that much hypertrophy, despite recruiting so many muscles (not full rom), but it’s very hard to recover from. Opinion?
How could i implement this if my squat and bench are severely lacking and my deadlifts are starting to push way beyond those two lifts?
How would you reason that deadlifts, despite making a lot of muscle mass contract over a relatively large range of motion, is not good for hypertrophy in the context of a post-novice trainee who is not a professional bodybuilder?
I would stop rounding your back on deadlifts, do them all from a dead stop, and change training variables necessary to improve your squat and bench while still deadlifting.
Thanks for your response.
Correct me if this premise is wrong, but axial loading is known to be associated with a ton of stress, unproportional to lifts that don’t load the spine, right? Therefore, I feel that other lifts can target certain muscles in the posterior chain, and hypertrophy them with more efficiency (movement being more tailored to the muscle group, like RDLS - Hamstrings). This will carry over to deadlift performance well in the long term, without the taxing nature of doing a deadlift, since it’s not the goal to be immediately proficient in the deadlift.
Also, I heard Mike Israetel talk about it for a moment, but I didn’t listen to it all. It just got me thinking.
I am not presenting any of my premises as arrogant facts, I was just giving a sort of deductive argument. Obviously you know the truth values better than I do.
Israetel is a bodybuilder, whereas we’re directing things more towards strength adaptations. So, despite the template being called the “hypertrophy” template, it isn’t a bodybuilding template, and retains a decent amount of specificity towards the main lifts we’re trying to drive up. Drastically reducing deadlift volume in favor of RDLs comes with a cost that may or may not be worth the benefit here - especially when you consider that the idea that “axial loading is known to be associated with a TON of stress” is probably a bit hyperbolic, and people can adapt to rather high volumes of pulling work, provided the intensities are modulated accordingly.