T Nation

Deadlift on a Leg Day or a Back Day???

Should i combine a deadlift with my squat on a leg day? or separate deadlift to a back day?

I used to use deadlift as a back movement but I moved it to leg day for two reasons:

  1. I find no matter how hard I try to make it a back exercise my hams always feel it more, the only parts of my back that truly benefit (I feel) are my traps (upper) and erectors and since these are hardly trained in my back session it’s giving my lats, rhomboids and lower traps enough time to recover.

  2. I recently added another leg day, so one is quad focused the other ham focused. So I generally perform squats on a ‘quad day’ and deadlifts on a ‘ham day’

Hope that helps

back day
as last exercise

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.

[quote]coolusername wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.[/quote]

That

  • why does it matter that you can lift more if its your first exercise? (I’m not saying this in a condescending tone, I actually want people to think about it and give me their reasonning)

[quote]coolusername wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.[/quote]

If you wee worried about legs interfering, why not just take them out of the picture and do rack pulls?

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.[/quote]

That

  • why does it matter that you can lift more if its your first exercise? (I’m not saying this in a condescending tone, I actually want people to think about it and give me their reasonning)
    [/quote]

Bc when it comes to the three big compound lifts, those are the only times when I’m focusing on heavy weight lower reps. I’d like to get the most out of them. I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb.

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

So you’re saying that lifting heavier weights over long periods of time will not make you bigger…given the the proper nutrition and rest?

I fully understand that the nervous system adapts. But what about progression overload?

Take two lifters with identical genetics, diet, etc. If both deadlift for 1 year, and the first guy stays at say…315
X 10…and the second guy progresses his way to 500 x 10…who do you think will have a bigger back at the end of said year?

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.[/quote]

That

  • why does it matter that you can lift more if its your first exercise? (I’m not saying this in a condescending tone, I actually want people to think about it and give me their reasonning)
    [/quote]

Bc when it comes to the three big compound lifts, those are the only times when I’m focusing on heavy weight lower reps. I’d like to get the most out of them. I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

Can you not lift the same manner on the Deadlifts as your last exercise? I.E. Increasing the weights/reps/Rest periods, like you would normally do if its your first? Progression is progression is progression. Doesn’t matter if its your last or first IMO.

Only reason I would hate to do it last is cuz i wouldnt be able too my lower back would be crying Q_Q

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:
back day
as last exercise[/quote]

Why last? It’s by far the most comprehensive movement you can do for your back, as well as the heaviest movement you will do that day. Just curious.[/quote]

Your back is fatigued/pumped so you it becomes the limiting factor rather than your legs.[/quote]

That

  • why does it matter that you can lift more if its your first exercise? (I’m not saying this in a condescending tone, I actually want people to think about it and give me their reasonning)
    [/quote]

Bc when it comes to the three big compound lifts, those are the only times when I’m focusing on heavy weight lower reps. I’d like to get the most out of them. I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

Can you not lift the same manner on the Deadlifts as your last exercise? I.E. Increasing the weights/reps/Rest periods, like you would normally do if its your first? Progression is progression is progression. Doesn’t matter if its your last or first IMO.

Only reason I would hate to do it last is cuz i wouldnt be able too my lower back would be crying Q_Q[/quote]

Sure you could. But why would I want to do the most comprehensive lift of my routine last, when I’m all but gassed??

I’m not saying I don’t warm up first! I do high rep sets of cable pull overs and some stretching.

That was my real question…why do the biggest, most fundamental lift for overall back development when you’re just about out of energy?

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

You’ve only got your story half-way correct. There is a limited extent to which increased intramuscular coordination and efficiency can improve one’s strength. There is a point at which more muscle is necessary to be stronger. In reality, the strongest men on earth use plenty of reps in their training and carry a large amount of muscle mass, as it’s not simply “neuromuscular effeiciency” that’s lifting those big weights.

Glad you brought up the common example of Cressey’s 660. First off, that lift is incomplete and wouldn’t pass in a meet, he doesn’t lock his hips out, and his knees come unlocked. You’re using a stupid example of a guy with excellent leverages wearing a deadlift suit not completing a lift. Sure, there are people with leverages favorable to a specific lift that may be able to lift a weight on that movement that is impressive without having an impressive physique, but those individuals also start out at a higher level on that lift. Someone with orangutan arms like Cressey very realistically can pull 500 in their first year of serious training, whereas someone with more normal proportions will achieve this in 2-3 years of training.

Gaining strength nothing more to a bodybuilder than simply another method of increasing tension. It becomes necessary for becoming larger at some point, as even the most dedicated pre-fatigue/pre-exhaust/super slow/whatever advocates will acknowledge that they use heavier weights generally now than they did when they started training. Meadows is a huge advocate of this style of training and he’s still using 300-400 lbs on his pressing exercises. For bodybuilding, it’s a matter of being able to generate more force over time while also being able to do so in the manner that most adequately stresses and stimulates the muscular tissue. Going from doing 200 lbs for 8 reps to 300 lbs for 8 reps on a Mountaindog-style decline press with a slow, controlled negative, deep stretch, and hard flex/contraction will undoubtedly give you a bigger chest, neuromuscular efficiency be damned.

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

So you’re saying that lifting heavier weights over long periods of time will not make you bigger…given the the proper nutrition and rest?

I fully understand that the nervous system adapts. But what about progression overload?

Take two lifters with identical genetics, diet, etc. If both deadlift for 1 year, and the first guy stays at say…315
X 10…and the second guy progresses his way to 500 x 10…who do you think will have a bigger back at the end of said year?[/quote]

That is not what I’m saying at all.

P does not imply Q

is not equivalent to

P implies not Q.

I have made a statement like the former, not the latter.

And I can’t answer your question, because you’re missing many variables. If the guy who hit 500x10 did so by ONLY hitting squats and deads on 5/3/1 and maybe some pendlay rows for good measure, and the 315x10 guy was doing training program by JM for back, then I’d put my money on the second guy.

I have trained at PL gyms before with 500+ squatters who had smaller legs than me. I have trained at BB gyms before with natties with much bigger legs then me who I never see using more than 2pps on smith machine squats or 1pps on stiff-legs.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

You’ve only got your story half-way correct. There is a limited extent to which increased intramuscular coordination and efficiency can improve one’s strength. There is a point at which more muscle is necessary to be stronger. In reality, the strongest men on earth use plenty of reps in their training and carry a large amount of muscle mass, as it’s not simply “neuromuscular effeiciency” that’s lifting those big weights.

Glad you brought up the common example of Cressey’s 660. First off, that lift is incomplete and wouldn’t pass in a meet, he doesn’t lock his hips out, and his knees come unlocked. You’re using a stupid example of a guy with excellent leverages wearing a deadlift suit not completing a lift. Sure, there are people with leverages favorable to a specific lift that may be able to lift a weight on that movement that is impressive without having an impressive physique, but those individuals also start out at a higher level on that lift. Someone with orangutan arms like Cressey very realistically can pull 500 in their first year of serious training, whereas someone with more normal proportions will achieve this in 2-3 years of training.

Gaining strength nothing more to a bodybuilder than simply another method of increasing tension. It becomes necessary for becoming larger at some point, as even the most dedicated pre-fatigue/pre-exhaust/super slow/whatever advocates will acknowledge that they use heavier weights generally now than they did when they started training. Meadows is a huge advocate of this style of training and he’s still using 300-400 lbs on his pressing exercises. For bodybuilding, it’s a matter of being able to generate more force over time while also being able to do so in the manner that most adequately stresses and stimulates the muscular tissue. Going from doing 200 lbs for 8 reps to 300 lbs for 8 reps on a Mountaindog-style decline press with a slow, controlled negative, deep stretch, and hard flex/contraction will undoubtedly give you a bigger chest, neuromuscular efficiency be damned.[/quote]

I really like this post, and feel like much of it actually further supports my argument tbh. Because there are two components, it doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY guarantee you “force” your body to get bigger. And cressey lifted retarded weight for his bodyweight, which is precisely what I’m getting at. If you just look at the number, you miss the whole picture. A guy with normal proportions lifting 315 can very damned well have bigger hams, glutes, back, etc.!

Hell, take any sport with weight classes. The training centers on getting as strong as humanly possible without increasing weight (until they finally give in to jumping to the next weight class of course).

So yea, progressive overload is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, but it’s not just reflected in the number on the bar. That’s my whole point.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

You’ve only got your story half-way correct. There is a limited extent to which increased intramuscular coordination and efficiency can improve one’s strength. There is a point at which more muscle is necessary to be stronger. In reality, the strongest men on earth use plenty of reps in their training and carry a large amount of muscle mass, as it’s not simply “neuromuscular effeiciency” that’s lifting those big weights.

Glad you brought up the common example of Cressey’s 660. First off, that lift is incomplete and wouldn’t pass in a meet, he doesn’t lock his hips out, and his knees come unlocked. You’re using a stupid example of a guy with excellent leverages wearing a deadlift suit not completing a lift. Sure, there are people with leverages favorable to a specific lift that may be able to lift a weight on that movement that is impressive without having an impressive physique, but those individuals also start out at a higher level on that lift. Someone with orangutan arms like Cressey very realistically can pull 500 in their first year of serious training, whereas someone with more normal proportions will achieve this in 2-3 years of training.

Gaining strength nothing more to a bodybuilder than simply another method of increasing tension. It becomes necessary for becoming larger at some point, as even the most dedicated pre-fatigue/pre-exhaust/super slow/whatever advocates will acknowledge that they use heavier weights generally now than they did when they started training. Meadows is a huge advocate of this style of training and he’s still using 300-400 lbs on his pressing exercises. For bodybuilding, it’s a matter of being able to generate more force over time while also being able to do so in the manner that most adequately stresses and stimulates the muscular tissue. Going from doing 200 lbs for 8 reps to 300 lbs for 8 reps on a Mountaindog-style decline press with a slow, controlled negative, deep stretch, and hard flex/contraction will undoubtedly give you a bigger chest, neuromuscular efficiency be damned.[/quote]

My point exactly.

I feel like lately…a lot of the much smaller guys have been jumping on the whole “no need to go heavy” bandwagon. That’s bullshit and an excuse for pushing heavy weight. If you bench 225 for 10 today, and 1 year from now you still only bench 225 for 10, same tempo, form, etc. Your pecs will not have grown. Something has to change to FORCE muscle growth. And eventually, whether the guys with sub par #'s for their lifts will have to increase the weight to promote further growth.

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

So you’re saying that lifting heavier weights over long periods of time will not make you bigger…given the the proper nutrition and rest?

I fully understand that the nervous system adapts. But what about progression overload?

Take two lifters with identical genetics, diet, etc. If both deadlift for 1 year, and the first guy stays at say…315
X 10…and the second guy progresses his way to 500 x 10…who do you think will have a bigger back at the end of said year?[/quote]

That is not what I’m saying at all.

P does not imply Q

is not equivalent to

P implies not Q.

I have made a statement like the former, not the latter.

And I can’t answer your question, because you’re missing many variables. If the guy who hit 500x10 did so by ONLY hitting squats and deads on 5/3/1 and maybe some pendlay rows for good measure, and the 315x10 guy was doing training program by JM for back, then I’d put my money on the second guy.

I have trained at PL gyms before with 500+ squatters who had smaller legs than me. I have trained at BB gyms before with natties with much bigger legs then me who I never see using more than 2pps on smith machine squats or 1pps on stiff-legs. [/quote]

Jskrabac, truth in everything you posted.

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

So you’re saying that lifting heavier weights over long periods of time will not make you bigger…given the the proper nutrition and rest?

I fully understand that the nervous system adapts. But what about progression overload?

Take two lifters with identical genetics, diet, etc. If both deadlift for 1 year, and the first guy stays at say…315
X 10…and the second guy progresses his way to 500 x 10…who do you think will have a bigger back at the end of said year?[/quote]

That is not what I’m saying at all.

P does not imply Q

is not equivalent to

P implies not Q.

I have made a statement like the former, not the latter.

And I can’t answer your question, because you’re missing many variables. If the guy who hit 500x10 did so by ONLY hitting squats and deads on 5/3/1 and maybe some pendlay rows for good measure, and the 315x10 guy was doing training program by JM for back, then I’d put my money on the second guy.

I have trained at PL gyms before with 500+ squatters who had smaller legs than me. I have trained at BB gyms before with natties with much bigger legs then me who I never see using more than 2pps on smith machine squats or 1pps on stiff-legs. [/quote]

You completely took my post out of context. I said that both lifters had identical training, nutrition, etc. Only difference is the weight they could pull for 1 set of 10. Not 5/3/1, nor any other rep schemes. You are adding variables.

This is much simpler than you seem to be making it.

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I feel like lately…a lot of the much smaller guys have been jumping on the whole “no need to go heavy” bandwagon. [/quote]

C’mon dude. I really hope that’s not directed at me. You know I’m smarter than that, and I’d never say there’s “no need to go heavy.” This isn’t a polarized thing. Just because someone says “hey, going heavy is not all there is to it” doesn’t mean “don’t lift heavy! just go for pump, brah!”

FTR, I hit a 550 dead and 315 bench press within my first two years of training, and I 100% believe it’s part of the reason my back thickness stood out amongst the other guys in my division.

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]ironmanzvw wrote:
I don’t care what anyone says about rep schemes and TUT and all these different fancy methods, if your can consistently increase your lifts, particularly those big compound ones, you WILL grow. You have to in order to accommodate the increasing loads you’re moving.[/quote]

That would be true if size of the muscle were the only component that contributed to strength. You’re forgetting neuromuscular efficiency–the nervous system becoming more effective at firing more motor units in less time. That can absolutely be achieved without forcing the muscle to grow (especially when there’s not a caloric surplus). Look at Eric Cressey who deadlift 660 at like 160lb. [/quote]

So you’re saying that lifting heavier weights over long periods of time will not make you bigger…given the the proper nutrition and rest?

I fully understand that the nervous system adapts. But what about progression overload?

Take two lifters with identical genetics, diet, etc. If both deadlift for 1 year, and the first guy stays at say…315
X 10…and the second guy progresses his way to 500 x 10…who do you think will have a bigger back at the end of said year?[/quote]

That is not what I’m saying at all.

P does not imply Q

is not equivalent to

P implies not Q.

I have made a statement like the former, not the latter.

And I can’t answer your question, because you’re missing many variables. If the guy who hit 500x10 did so by ONLY hitting squats and deads on 5/3/1 and maybe some pendlay rows for good measure, and the 315x10 guy was doing training program by JM for back, then I’d put my money on the second guy.

I have trained at PL gyms before with 500+ squatters who had smaller legs than me. I have trained at BB gyms before with natties with much bigger legs then me who I never see using more than 2pps on smith machine squats or 1pps on stiff-legs. [/quote]

You completely took my post out of context. I said that both lifters had identical training, nutrition, etc. Only difference is the weight they could pull for 1 set of 10. Not 5/3/1, nor any other rep schemes. You are adding variables.

This is much simpler than you seem to be making it.[/quote]

Well you didn’t say identical training in the OP =) If identical everything else, then yes, of course 500 guy wins.