# Ken Leistner on deadlifts



## Stewart14 (Oct 19, 2006)

http://www.cyberpump.com/preview/sense.html

"Why stiff-legged deadlifts as opposed to regular deadlifts or cleans? Again, substitute the regular deadlift on occasion, but bear in mind that the stiff-legged deadlift gives the spinal erectors and biceps femoris more direct work than the regular deadlift."

Does anyone agree with this for a non-powerlifting based training program?


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 19, 2006)

Ken Leistner is a smart fellow, but he may be reffering to round back SLDLs.  I believe he does them himself.  I prefer to avoid this situation, as accidentally slipping too far into flexion leads to myoelectric silence of extensor musculature and very high loads on passive tissues in the spine, not to mention unequal stress placed on t vertebral disks.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

He does them in his video but he doesn't really advocate them to people.

I think he is just saying that the tension is greater because you can't put the bar down, as you do in a real deadlift.


Everyone has their way of doing things.  Boyle would say don't do them at all and just do single legs, so....whatever.....

Both guys have trained many many many professional athletes so who the fuck am I to say what they are doing is right or wrong.


----------



## Stewart14 (Oct 19, 2006)

So in English, it could be bad?  

I have read some articles that state that it isn't necessarily as bad as they make it seem to not keep a tight arch on SLDL.  Not going so far as to say it's ok to actually round the back, but it mentioned that if you lose the arch on a heavier weight attempt, it isn't the worst thing in the world


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

stiff-leg deads do gives the spinal erectors and biceps femoris more direct work, because there is greater rom of hip extension than a regular deadlift. A regular deadlift uses more quad. But I think doing them with a rounded back might lead to injury.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/ErectorSpinae/BBStraightLegDeadlift.html he does them like this?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> stiff-leg deads do gives the spinal erectors and biceps femoris more direct work, because there is greater rom of hip extension than a regular deadlift. A regular deadlift uses more quad. But I think doing them with a rounded back might lead to injury.



regular deadlifts have very little quad work in them.  Just look at the hip, knee and trunk angles.  The ROM is greater with a regular DL then it is with an RDL.  RDLs go just below the knees, DLs go all the way to the floor and you have to bend your knees just lightly, but not at the expense of sticking your ass out all the way and loading up your hamstrings, glutes, posterior chain, in an effort to drive back up, the quads don't play that big of a role.


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 19, 2006)

I do modified SLDL's and conv. deads and the conv. ones rock the shit out of my back as opposed to the SL's which really hit my glutes and hams pretty hard.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> So in English, it could be bad?
> 
> I have read some articles that state that it isn't necessarily as bad as they make it seem to not keep a tight arch on SLDL.  Not going so far as to say it's ok to actually round the back, but it mentioned that if you lose the arch on a heavier weight attempt, it isn't the worst thing in the world



I wouldn't ever do round back deadlifts on purpose.  I wouldn't do it and I would teach it that way, you are asking for to many problems.


----------



## Stewart14 (Oct 19, 2006)

I also read of a technique where you place your toes on plates while keeping your heels on the ground, and then doing a SLDL from the floor only coming up maybe 3/4 of the way to standing upright.  I haven't done it in a working set, but I tried it with some light weight to see what it was about, and it really seemed to hit my hamstring hard, and this is from someone who usually uses too much low back when trying a SLDL.

Can anyone see anything harmful about that technique?


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

doesn't the lower back only work isometrically during any type of deads with an arch, because there function is trunk extension? or are they also hip extensors?


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> I also read of a technique where you place your toes on plates while keeping your heels on the ground, and then doing a SLDL from the floor only coming up maybe 3/4 of the way to standing upright.  I haven't done it in a working set, but I tried it with some light weight to see what it was about, and it really seemed to hit my hamstring hard, and this is from someone who usually uses too much low back when trying a SLDL.
> 
> Can anyone see anything harmful about that technique?



I don't see how that would work the hams any more, you would probably just have a shorter rom because of calf flexibility.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> doesn't the lower back only work isometrically during any type of deads with an arch, because there function is trunk extension? or are they also hip extensors?



yes, your errectors are working isometrically during the deadlift.  The only way to make them work concentrically would be to flex the spine (round the back) and then extend them.  You can do this unloaded on a hyperextension bench (just don't hyperextend at the top) and work the muscles through their ROM without all the load of a deadlift.


----------



## Stewart14 (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> I don't see how that would work the hams any more, you would probably just have a shorter rom because of calf flexibility.


 
Well, I can only tell you what I felt when I tried it, and I felt a greater degree of work in my hamstrings and less in my lower back when I did it like this.  I have horrible form on SLs despite a lot of practice, and I always feel it in my lower back as well as hamstrings.  This method seemed to make me feel it a lot less in the back and more in the hams


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> I also read of a technique where you place your toes on plates while keeping your heels on the ground, and then doing a SLDL from the floor only coming up maybe 3/4 of the way to standing upright.  I haven't done it in a working set, but I tried it with some light weight to see what it was about, and it really seemed to hit my hamstring hard, and this is from someone who usually uses too much low back when trying a SLDL.
> 
> Can anyone see anything harmful about that technique?



1) the plates under the toes just makes you sit back and drive with your heels.  if you learn to do it properly or teahc it properly, you shouldn't need that.

2) quarter ROM pulls from the bottom, to a quarter of the way up, or a technique that olympic lifters use to work on their positioning between the different segments of the pull.  I really don't do partial reps with anyone unless their goal is to work on olympic lifting specifically.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> Well, I can only tell you what I felt when I tried it, and I felt a greater degree of work in my hamstrings and less in my lower back when I did it like this.  I have horrible form on SLs despite a lot of practice, and I always feel it in my lower back as well as hamstrings.  This method seemed to make me feel it a lot less in the back and more in the hams



you sure you weren't just feeling the stretch more?


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> yes, your errectors are working isometrically during the deadlift.  The only way to make them work concentrically would be to flex the spine (round the back) and then extend them.  You can do this unloaded on a hyperextension bench (just don't hyperextend at the top) and work the muscles through their ROM without all the load of a deadlift.



can isometric work cause size/strength or tighten the muscle?


----------



## Stewart14 (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> you sure you weren't just feeling the stretch more?


 
it's possible.  I am just looking for a way to do them without killing my lower back.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> it's possible.  I am just looking for a way to do them without killing my lower back.



so just keep your back arched.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> can isometric work cause size/strength or tighten the muscle?



huh?

sure it can cause size and strength.

tighten the muscle?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

Stewart20 said:


> it's possible.  I am just looking for a way to do them without killing my lower back.



go get someone to teach you.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> huh?
> 
> sure it can cause size and strength.
> 
> tighten the muscle?



what I meant by tighten was the opposite of flexible, like can it shorten the muscle, well I know now since it can cause strength it can also shorten a muscle.

off topic question whats a good exercise for strengthening the glutes, but that does not work the hamstrings?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

in an isometric contraction the muscles does not shorten or lengthen, it is isometric (meaning no movement).

destruction of flexibility results from poor training programs.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> off topic question whats a good exercise for strengthening the glutes, but that does not work the hamstrings?




you are always going to get some hamstrings when you extend the hips.

glute bridges, hold for time and work on squeezing your ass.

x-band walks or tube walking can help.

lying or standing cable hip extensions.

clamshells.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> in an isometric contraction the muscles does not shorten or lengthen, it is isometric (meaning no movement).
> 
> destruction of flexibility results from poor training programs.



I thought that when a muscle gets stronger it wants to get shorter? (read it in a mike robertson article)


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

again, like Mike Boyle says"

desstruction of flexibility results from poor training programs.



Think about olympic weightlifters and how flexible they are to hit those crazy bottom positions in the snatch and the clean.  they are strong as heck....they are also flexible.

Male gymnasts are very strong and flexible too.


It isn't as simple as saying because you have one you have to have the other.  There are more factors involved.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> again, like Mike Boyle says"
> 
> desstruction of flexibility results from poor training programs.
> 
> ...



so is a anterior pelvic tilt caused by *weak/strong *muscles or *tight/long *muscles  

if a muscles is long how do you tighten it?

if you have tight muscles would you still train them or just focus on stretching them? 

if your tricep is long does that mean that your biceps are tight?

can a muscle be long (longer than its antagonist) while being strong (stronger than its antagonist)?

sorry for all the questions but I need to get straightened out on all these terms. thanks


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> so is a anterior pelvic tilt caused by weak/strong muscles or tight/long muscles
> 
> if a muscles is long how do you tighten it?
> *you do resistance training.*
> ...



this is what I think right now, I thought if a muscle was weak it is long, and if a mucle is tight it is strong (compared to its antagonist)


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> this is what I think right now, I thought if a muscle was weak it is long, and if a mucle is tight it is strong (compared to its antagonist)



That's just not necessarily true.  I train lots of people with tight/hyperactive muscles who did no training at all before coming to me.  I think training the right way can lead to better flexibility at times.

Think about this guy who works at a computer all day.  He is going to have stretched back muscles and a tighter chest muscles....pulling shoulders forward and giving him a slight hunch.  He got this way with no stretching or resistance training.  His chest isn't stronger than his back necessarily either.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> That's just not necessarily true.  I train lots of people with tight/hyperactive muscles who did no training at all before coming to me.  I think training the right way can lead to better flexibility at times.
> 
> Think about this guy who works at a computer all day.  He is going to have stretched back muscles and a tighter chest muscles....pulling shoulders forward and giving him a slight hunch.  He got this way with no stretching or resistance training.  His chest isn't stronger than his back necessarily either.



not training/stretching had nothing to do with what I said lol.

if he had a stronger back than his chest, but a tight chest, wouldn't the back keep the shoulders pulled back, because it over powers the tight chest
ok so if you had to train this guy now, what would you do? strengthen his back, and have him stretch his chest until his posture is back to normal, right? would you have him do any chest training during that time, would you have him stretching his back during that time?


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> so is a anterior pelvic tilt caused by *weak/strong *muscles or *tight/long *muscles
> 
> if a muscles is long how do you tighten it?
> 
> ...





if a muscle is weak (sometimes it is lengthend but not always) you do resistance training.

if a muscle is strong then who the fuck cares?  It is strong....

if a muscle is overly tight, you stretch it.

you make this shit way to complicated for yourself.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> if a muscle is weak (sometimes it is lengthend but not always) you do resistance training.
> 
> *if a muscle is strong then who the fuck cares?  It is strong....*
> 
> ...



but don't you always want antagonistic muscles to be balanced in length, and strength? or just length? once you answer this I understand this shit lol.


----------



## P-funk (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> but don't you always want antagonistic muscles to be balanced in length, and strength? or just length? once you answer this I understand this shit lol.



you want antagonsitic muscles to be as balanced as they can be to enhance joint integrity and prevent injuries that may occur because one side is more dominant then the other.

If you properly train and balance out the joint movements (ie training 101), you should be good to go.  If you are that off balance already, then you can do remedial work for the muscles that need it (ie, when I stopped doing stupid bb'er type workouts several years ago, my posture sucked and I was anterior.  I did a graeter amount of pulling then pushing in my workouts for a few training cycles to bring back balance and restore order).

Does that make sense?


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> you want antagonsitic muscles to be as balanced as they can be to enhance joint integrity and prevent injuries that may occur because one side is more dominant then the other.
> 
> If you properly train and balance out the joint movements (ie training 101), you should be good to go.  If you are that off balance already, then you can do remedial work for the muscles that need it (ie, when I stopped doing stupid bb'er type workouts several years ago, my posture sucked and I was anterior.  I did a graeter amount of pulling then pushing in my workouts for a few training cycles to bring back balance and restore order).
> 
> Does that make sense?



yes thankyou


----------



## PWGriffin (Oct 19, 2006)

mike456 said:


> not training/stretching had nothing to do with what I said lol.
> 
> if he had a stronger back than his chest, but a tight chest, wouldn't the back keep the shoulders pulled back, because it over powers the tight chest
> ok so if you had to train this guy now, what would you do? strengthen his back, and have him stretch his chest until his posture is back to normal, right? would you have him do any chest training during that time, would you have him stretching his back during that time?



lol, let me clarify...I was trying to make the point that whether a muscle is strong or weak...trained or not...it can be tight or flexable.  Using the example of someone who hunches over all day at a computer.  

I trained a guy who actually fits my example...kinda the basis of it.  And we just did less pushing than pulling...and some of the pulling...(face pulls, pronated rows) had more scapular retraction.  We also worked on core strength and stability.  At the studios I work at, it's standard practice to stretch everything at the end of the session.  Which is good.


----------



## mike456 (Oct 19, 2006)

PWGriffin said:


> lol, let me clarify...I was trying to make the point that whether a muscle is strong or weak...trained or not...it can be tight or flexable.  Using the example of someone who hunches over all day at a computer.
> 
> I trained a guy who actually fits my example...kinda the basis of it.  And we just did less pushing than pulling...and some of the pulling...(face pulls, pronated rows) had more scapular retraction.  We also worked on core strength and stability.  *At the studios I work at, it's standard practice to stretch everything at the end of the session.  Which is good*.



that is not good yyou should only stretch what you need to stretch


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 19, 2006)

P-funk said:


> He does them in his video but he doesn't really advocate them to people.
> 
> I think he is just saying that the tension is greater because you can't put the bar down, as you do in a real deadlift.



Makes sense.




> Everyone has their way of doing things.  Boyle would say don't do them at all and just do single legs, so....whatever.....
> 
> Both guys have trained many many many professional athletes so who the fuck am I to say what they are doing is right or wrong.



Yeah, I feel you there.  I try to take what I can from each of them.  

Everyone has their own ideas though, and a lot of great coaches contradict one another all the time.  Mike Boyle for example, a very smart fellow indeed, is totally unorthodox.  Find me another coach who doesn't have his athletes back squat (Assuming we're not talking Olympic lifters here).  That's bold.


----------

