Deadlift Form

Bigger Stronger Leaner Powerlifting & Strength Sports
21

I wouldn’t change much, if thats how youve been doing it and you reached 500+ that way. Unless your just an animal.

Im no expert at deadlifting, and about your same stats but can only do about 315. But isn’t it safe to say that your back really doesn’t lift the weight much. Doesn’t your back for the most part stay neutral as your hams and glutes and other extensors work?

This would make me believe that you have strong hams, and maybe weak glutes compared to your hams. Thus like everyone said your kinda doing a shitty RDL.

I myself prefer to do the bent leg version, but will admit that I could probably pull just as much with my hips high. Its just how I learned it. It may take some extra ab and glute strength to get the bar moving when your hips are low though.

All in all though, your pulling good, and as long as your thrusting your hips forward instead of pulling the bar up with your upper body, your good to go. Remember its a lower body moevement, with most of the upper body acting as an anchor.

22

Maybe I can reword his question so he gets more accurate input:

“Hey world! Guess how much I can deadlift!!!”

23

[quote]hatfiejt wrote:
Maybe I can reword his question so he gets more accurate input:

“Hey world! Guess how much I can deadlift!!!”[/quote]

That is BS. No need for that. I came in asking a genuine question and I’m glad that I’ve gotten genuine replies, unlike this one.

I am looking for help and the barbs are uncalled for.

Also, look how many posts I have here and I have no history of being a “dick” like that and have in fact written an article for T-Nation.

24

No matter what, your lumbars should be contracted isometrically and the lift should come almost entirely from hip extension. Yes, there will be some flexion and extension of the spine with maximal weights, but it should be minimal (and it IS minimal in that Andy Bolton clip).

25

[quote]Hanley wrote:

While the ROM obviously wouldn’t change, the amount that your body moves would. Think about it this way, if he was to start with hips low the bar still probably wouldn’t break the floor until his hips got up high. This is wasted movement, and what I imagine was being referred to.
[/quote]

It’s not wasted movement if it helps you get a better start position. In the Femis Lambrionidis video, you’re saying his butt shouldn’t move down before he starts because it’s unnecessary motion?

The only time I could see there being extra movement that would affect the lift if one were to lower the hips after the lift started.

26

Have you tried Sumo style pulling

27

Dude thats awsome at your weight. I was deadlifting the same way for a while until I did some damage to my back. One thing that helped me was starting off deeper in the hole. Get set up like you normally do and then set back like your sitting down in a chair or like box squats. It takes some getingg used to and you may even have to drop in weight but the benefits out weigh the cost of dr. visits and chiropractors. trust me on this.

28

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Hanley wrote:

While the ROM obviously wouldn’t change, the amount that your body moves would. Think about it this way, if he was to start with hips low the bar still probably wouldn’t break the floor until his hips got up high. This is wasted movement, and what I imagine was being referred to.

It’s not wasted movement if it helps you get a better start position. In the Femis Lambrionidis video, you’re saying his butt shouldn’t move down before he starts because it’s unnecessary motion?

The only time I could see there being extra movement that would affect the lift if one were to lower the hips after the lift started.[/quote]

Your example is flawed. Watch the video again. I was never talking about the “start position”. I was talking about trying to squat the weight up and having your hips move before the bar does as a result. He pulls himself down, loads up and then brings his hips back to the starting position before breaking the floor. He makes no attempt to squat the weight up.

I stand by what I said.

29

[quote]Hanley wrote:

Your example is flawed. Watch the video again. I was never talking about the “start position”. I was talking about trying to squat the weight up and having your hips move before the bar does as a result. He pulls himself down, loads up and then brings his hips back to the starting position before breaking the floor. He makes no attempt to squat the weight up.

I stand by what I said.

[/quote]

Do you have an example of how this is possible, to squat the weight up, but have the hips moving before the bar?

30

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Hanley wrote:

Your example is flawed. Watch the video again. I was never talking about the “start position”. I was talking about trying to squat the weight up and having your hips move before the bar does as a result. He pulls himself down, loads up and then brings his hips back to the starting position before breaking the floor. He makes no attempt to squat the weight up.

I stand by what I said.

Do you have an example of how this is possible, to squat the weight up, but have the hips moving before the bar?[/quote]

My point is that attempting to do it is highly inefficient. I’m not sure if it was Rippetoe who said it, but the bar won’t move until it’s under your scapula so by “squatting” a deadlift up all your actually doing is attempting to squat the bar until your body gets into an advantageous enough position to move it, so all prior movement up until that is wasted. Can you see what I’m getting at?

Incidentally that’s why trap bar deadlifts have more quad involvement, the bar’s closer to the mid-line of your body so it can be “squatted” more than pulled.

31

Like i said, im not an expert on deadlifting, but Ive noticed some similarities in most the guys who tend to have good form and do a ton of weight.

There are two extremes, starting with your hips high, and upper body more horizontal, and starting with your hips very low, and upper body more vertical.

For most people the optimal starting position is somewhere in between. But it depends on many things including limb lengths, and flexibility, as well as back/ab and glute/ham strength.

You should start the lift with your hips in at the position where the bar breaks the ground. Otherwise that first movement is pretty wasted, but I doubt it wasted much energy, its just likely to throw off your form and its pointless.

Like a lot of people have said, it doesn’t matter what is correct; if your goal is max strength, then whatever lets you lift the most is probably good.

But if you want “good form”, the movement should be fluid with the legs locking out at the same time or just before the hips.

Thats just what ive noticed from looking at different lifters, but if you notice, alot of the guys lifting crazy weights, have completely different stances and different techniques, so its hard to argue that there is one correct way.

Also, if you decide not to fool with your form, then its pretty clear that you should be doing rack pulls, and maybe some speed work from the ground.

32

[quote]dankid wrote:
Like i said, im not an expert on deadlifting, but Ive noticed some similarities in most the guys who tend to have good form and do a ton of weight.

There are two extremes, starting with your hips high, and upper body more horizontal, and starting with your hips very low, and upper body more vertical.

For most people the optimal starting position is somewhere in between. But it depends on many things including limb lengths, and flexibility, as well as back/ab and glute/ham strength.

You should start the lift with your hips in at the position where the bar breaks the ground. Otherwise that first movement is pretty wasted, but I doubt it wasted much energy, its just likely to throw off your form and its pointless.

Like a lot of people have said, it doesn’t matter what is correct; if your goal is max strength, then whatever lets you lift the most is probably good.

But if you want “good form”, the movement should be fluid with the legs locking out at the same time or just before the hips.

Thats just what ive noticed from looking at different lifters, but if you notice, alot of the guys lifting crazy weights, have completely different stances and different techniques, so its hard to argue that there is one correct way.

Also, if you decide not to fool with your form, then its pretty clear that you should be doing rack pulls, and maybe some speed work from the ground.[/quote]

Much appreciated, thank you.

33

I think that you are only in danger of injury if you are rounding the lumbar region of the back. You need to make sure that your lower back is at least in a neutral position or you risk injury. Rounding of the thoracic region is unlikely to cause injury and can help lockout in maximal lifts.

34

DieselWeasel had some sic numbers for his weight when he started posting on this site. Anyone remember his early videos or his defense after form critiques?

35

[quote]Ramo wrote:
Rusty Barbell wrote:
What do you mean by “all spinal erectors?” That you don’t bend your knees much and put most of the stress of the movement on raising your back from horizontal to vertical?

Just try bending your legs a bit more. Maybe try to start your lift close to the ground with your knees fully bent, almost making your ass hit the ground. That way when you come up, you literally have to straighten (and use) your legs in the movement.

What possible good would this do? Have you ever seen anyone pull a big deadlift this way?
[/quote]

Yup. Mikhail Koklyaev, 700 for 10 reps.

To the OP, if YOU feel that you dont use your legs enough, I wouldnt necessarily try to change your form, just get your legs stronger. Front squats or back squats with your stance approximately close to your deadlift stance

36

I think you should post a video. It also seems like you’re opposed to changing the way you deadlift, which I don’t understand. You should always be looking to tweaking your technique and making it better. The deadlift can also be dangerous for your body if you’re doing it incorrectly. Maybe you’ve read this before but take a look:

37

Everyone contributing to this post needs to download and read mark rippetoe’s deadlift analysis. After I read that my understanding of the lift improved dramatically. I will summarize a few points.

During a deadlift your quads are doing a great deal of the actual lifting.

Your Glutes and Hamstrings initially act to anchor your pelvis down so your quads can press the floor away.

If your Glutes and Hamstrings do not anchor the pelvis down then your quads contract and straighten your knee without the weight moving, (this is where you see hips rise dramatically at the beginning of a pull). Now since your quads have not done any of the lifting, your glutes and hamstrings are left to lift the whole load up which is an RDL.

Your erectors keep your spine a stiff lever so the weight can be pulled effectively through it. If your back starts to round you lose some force in the lengthening erectors.

Additionally Rippetoe states if your back rounds the erectors will not be able to attain a fully erect position because they are used to isometrically contract not to concentrically pull your body upright. I would say a lifter can overcome a certain amount of rounding but only so much, then it becomes impossible to reach lockout.

38

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Everyone contributing to this post needs to download and read mark rippetoe’s deadlift analysis. After I read that my understanding of the lift improved dramatically. I will summarize a few points.

During a deadlift your quads are doing a great deal of the actual lifting.

Your Glutes and Hamstrings initially act to anchor your pelvis down so your quads can press the floor away.

If your Glutes and Hamstrings do not anchor the pelvis down then your quads contract and straighten your knee without the weight moving, (this is where you see hips rise dramatically at the beginning of a pull). Now since your quads have not done any of the lifting, your glutes and hamstrings are left to lift the whole load up which is an RDL.

Your erectors keep your spine a stiff lever so the weight can be pulled effectively through it. If your back starts to round you lose some force in the lengthening erectors.

Additionally Rippetoe states if your back rounds the erectors will not be able to attain a fully erect position because they are used to isometrically contract not to concentrically pull your body upright. I would say a lifter can overcome a certain amount of rounding but only so much, then it becomes impossible to reach lockout.[/quote]

Nice post.

That last statement sums up the biggest problem with his form, and I am sure that this is the OP’s problem as he indicated he stalls at the lockout.

I have similar form to what the OP describes, with fairly high hips, and some back rounding, more in the thoracic region, but rounding no less. Speed off the floor and up to the top of my knees is my biggest strength, but at this point I tend to rely way too much on my erectors to lock it out. If I don’t build enough momentum, the lockout just isn’t going to happen as I have effectively taken the glutes out of the equation.

39

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Everyone contributing to this post needs to download and read mark rippetoe’s deadlift analysis. After I read that my understanding of the lift improved dramatically. I will summarize a few points.

During a deadlift your quads are doing a great deal of the actual lifting.

Your Glutes and Hamstrings initially act to anchor your pelvis down so your quads can press the floor away.

If your Glutes and Hamstrings do not anchor the pelvis down then your quads contract and straighten your knee without the weight moving, (this is where you see hips rise dramatically at the beginning of a pull). Now since your quads have not done any of the lifting, your glutes and hamstrings are left to lift the whole load up which is an RDL.

Your erectors keep your spine a stiff lever so the weight can be pulled effectively through it. If your back starts to round you lose some force in the lengthening erectors.

Additionally Rippetoe states if your back rounds the erectors will not be able to attain a fully erect position because they are used to isometrically contract not to concentrically pull your body upright. I would say a lifter can overcome a certain amount of rounding but only so much, then it becomes impossible to reach lockout.[/quote]

I think there are many things to take issue with in that article. Academically it sounds great. However, from a purely academic standpoint one could reference many articles from this site that are in direct conflict with what Rippetoe asserts.

Additionally, I have observed repeatedly the positive effect implementing front squats can have on lifters with the exact problem Rippetoe describes in a conventional pull. An argument can easily be made that the hip problem he describes could also be contributed to quad weakness. If you don’t have the quad strength to break the floor the body will compensate.

Although, I do agree with his statement about erectors. That is a problem that can typically be corrected through revamping starting position and heavy rack work to build mass to support the isometrics. The problem is, most conventional pullers are going to pull less at first when they alter their starting position and often times are reluctant to do so.

40

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
Everyone contributing to this post needs to download and read mark rippetoe’s deadlift analysis. After I read that my understanding of the lift improved dramatically. I will summarize a few points.

During a deadlift your quads are doing a great deal of the actual lifting.

Your Glutes and Hamstrings initially act to anchor your pelvis down so your quads can press the floor away.

If your Glutes and Hamstrings do not anchor the pelvis down then your quads contract and straighten your knee without the weight moving, (this is where you see hips rise dramatically at the beginning of a pull). Now since your quads have not done any of the lifting, your glutes and hamstrings are left to lift the whole load up which is an RDL.

Your erectors keep your spine a stiff lever so the weight can be pulled effectively through it. If your back starts to round you lose some force in the lengthening erectors.

Additionally Rippetoe states if your back rounds the erectors will not be able to attain a fully erect position because they are used to isometrically contract not to concentrically pull your body upright. I would say a lifter can overcome a certain amount of rounding but only so much, then it becomes impossible to reach lockout.

I think there are many things to take issue with in that article. Academically it sounds great. However, from a purely academic standpoint one could reference many articles from this site that are in direct conflict with what Rippetoe asserts.

Additionally, I have observed repeatedly the positive effect implementing front squats can have on lifters with the exact problem Rippetoe describes in a conventional pull. An argument can easily be made that the hip problem he describes could also be contributed to quad weakness. If you don’t have the quad strength to break the floor the body will compensate.

Although, I do agree with his statement about erectors. That is a problem that can typically be corrected through revamping starting position and heavy rack work to build mass to support the isometrics. The problem is, most conventional pullers are going to pull less at first when they alter their starting position and often times are reluctant to do so.[/quote]

That is a good point about quad strength, the fact that the quads have to get that dead weight moving really makes things difficult. I think the point to take out this issue is that many people unless they learn it somewhere along the line lack the discipline to keep the hips down from both standpoints, because it is harder to do.

Also, this usually depends on the type of depth a lifter is getting, long femured individuals who’s arm length does not make up for it pull with very low hips and are in a quad intensive portion of the lift for a much longer period.