I’m obviously having some trouble interpreting a post on the deadlift stances I saw on Jordans instagram today:
“With respect to hypertrophy results in the active muscle groups of the legs, trunk, and back, we don’t expect a lift-specific difference if trained at the same relative intensity and similar volumes as the magnitude of motor unit recruitment is similar and the ROM are large for both.”
The conventional DL works the legs through only a tiny, tiny percentage of their effective range of motion, so it is traditionally not seen as a leg exercise at all. The sumo deadlift works the knee extending mucles through about half of their effective ROM, so it is seen as sorta-kinda a leg exercise. The squat works the exercise through essentially all of its ROM, so it is seen as the best leg-specific exercise around.
Jordan’s post asserts that there are NOT more muscle fibers recruited in the quads in the sumo deadlift compared to conventional. But if he really, honestly believes this, then what exactly is the basis of his belief that there are more units recruited in the legs during the squat compared to the conventional deadlift? After all, if range of motion is irrelevant, why is the squat a better leg exercise than the deadlift? I’m so confused!
I disagree unless you make an arbitrary definition of “effective range of motion” that is unrelated to muscle CSA or lift-specific strength performance.
No, this isn’t true either. Knee extension is about 12* greater in conventional compared to sumo.
Below parallel squats have a greater range of motion than both deadlifts, but so what? They aren’t any better than leg press for hypertrophy…
Because their aren’t.
I don’t believe this so…
Better for what? Hypertrophy depends on ROM used and motor unit recruitment so for lower limb muscle CSA I think you’d probably see a bigger hypertrophy response from squats compared to either form of deadlift due to the ROM differences. That said, in my post I was talking about conventional vs. sumo deadlifts.
lay people would probably be SOMEWHAT TEMPTED to assume that because more torque is required to extend the knee in the sumo deadlift, that the muscles responsible for extending the knee would get a bigger stimulus in the sumo deadlift. Can you please explain to me why this is fallacious, despite that it will probably go over my head?
Seriously, how hard is learning about fitness? I swear to god, this is the least intuitive field in the frickin world
Shoot, not even just lay people- see those other people for a lesson in how “logical” reasoning can go wrong.
In human biomechanics, moment arm length does not necessarily equate to force. Rather, net moment joint is the preferred metric here and that correlates better with force production requirements- though this also has to be put into movement-specific context.
Additionally, moments do not equate to any muscular training effect.
A few real-world examples:
Low bar squats don’t stress the erectors more than a front squat.
Low bar squats don’t use more hamstrings than high bar.
Sumo deadlifts don’t use less hamstrings than conventional.
I would argue those types of comparisons shouldn’t even be made, but you know…people do say that stuff.
Ha! I would argue that very few things science related are intuitive.
They place greater demands on the triceps in somewhat different positions, muscle lengths, joint angles, etc. than a wider grip bench press. That said, motor unit recruitment in the triceps is likely to be similar between the two unless anthropometry or style are very different.
Nope.
Yes, due to the supination their is a greater recruitment of biceps during the movement. To what extent this alters the training effect however, is not known.
@Jordan_Feigenbaum So this means that there’s no absolute reason to differentiate a horizontal pull, for example rows, from a vertical pull, pull-ups, from a point of view of muscle recruitment and hypertrophy outcomes?
I’m asking if hypertrophy outcomes and muscle recruitment is the same for all types of pulling movements, that obviously work the back in it’s majority, for example horizontal pulling and vertical pulling.
I may not be asking properly what I want, yeah I see the problem, let’s put it like this: between a lat pulldown and a bent over/pendlay row, should I expect the same hypertrophy outcome if I do the same volume for both? or is it superior one over the other in overall back musculature development?
I am pretty sure that what he is asking is wether or not chinups/lat pulldowns/et cetera develop each of the muscle groups that constitute the musculature of the back in the same proportions as rows.
Like, if one twin only does chinups and the other one only does rows, do their backs look about the same?
I wouldn’t say that one is superior than the other, but rather that they are different and work different muscles. To the extent the musculature they work crosses over, I’m not sure that you’d see differential outcomes in hypertrophy, though the fatigue you dealt with might be greater than the size of the return (e.g. lower efficiency).
The authors say that there is a statistically significant difference in VM and VL involvement between the two DL styles. BUT they also say in the very same data table that there are not significant differences in VL and VM involvement between the two styles at any specific knee angle?? Is this the thrust of your objection to this study? Am I just misreading the data table? How is it possible that they could have made such a glaring mistake?
What are you shocked about? Their own data shows there’s not a big difference in muscle activation. Is it statistically significant? Sure. Is this meaningful from a hypertrophy standpoint? I don’t think I can get too worked up about ~8% difference at <50% of max voluntary contractions for surface EMG. It’s more suggestive that the motor pattern is different (which it is) than there is any difference in hypertrophy stimulus.
the only thing im shocked about is this revelation that sumo dls dont make your quads (slightly) bigger than conventional dls
The researchers clearly believe that its meaningful from a hypertrophy standpoint, because the results section strongly implies this. I know you have read the study, so surely you are not saying that this is not the case.
So why are you so sure they’re wrong? You don’t think muscle CSA would be ~8% increased in an athlete that did sumo DLs only rather than that same person who only did conventional DLs?
Doesn’t a statistically significant P-value mean, you know, “statistically significant”? How do you tell the difference between statistically significant and actually significant in cases like these?
@Jordan_Feigenbaum if you prefer rows over pull/chin ups, why in GPP you prescribe pull ups or lat pulldowns instead of rows? Is it a thing of fatigue management?
I am saying that there’s no meaningful difference we can predict based on these results. The authors have this to say:
Athletes may choose to employ either the sumo or conventional deadlift style, depending on which muscles are considered most important according to their training protocols. Moderate to high cocontractions from the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius imply that the deadlift may be an effective closed kinetic chain exercise for strength athletes to employ during knee rehabilitation.
Not even close- no.
Yes. This is not the same as “clinically significant”
Short of actual data evaluating this, e.g. muscle CSA studies, you hypothesize based on existing data and understanding of the science.
I usually prescribe “upper back work” - leaving it up to the end user to pick their favorite flavor. If there are rows already in the program, I’ll typically specify to do something else.