Oly Lifts for Muscle

Bigger Stronger Leaner Christian Thibaudeau Coaching
21

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]orcrist wrote:
CT,
Your high pull argument go me thinking (always dangerous) about volume of the olympic lifts versus other pulls. Simmons talked about his guys never doing deadlifts (except some speed deads) but developing their deadlift though various rack pulls, goodmornings, and squat variations. His theory (as I understood it) was that the body became neurally less efficient when the same lift was done w >95% intensity with frequency.

Obviously the full olympic lifts need to be trained frequently because of the complexity in timing, etc. but I am wondering if the full lifts should be trained frequently but in the range of 70-85%, with perfect form, and use other lifts like pulls and squats to provide the overload for muscle stim. This is probably obvious to most here, but I keep reading about “max attempts every workout” for a lot of training in the Sn/C&J, and wondering how to keep that up without burnout.
[/quote]

most people don’t follow a bulgarian approach. However, there’s a reason the coach who came up with the bulgarian method said you have to be taking drugs in order to do it how he intended.

You can also look at programs like the LSUS 10-5-3 peaking program and see that there are in fact some coaches that produce excellent lifters (like kendrick farris and Jared Fleming) who apparently only have their lifters do the classic lifts 2x a week until they get to their peaking cycle (about 3 weeks out of competition)[/quote]

True, Klokov himself said that he only does the full lifts once a week most of the year and focuses a lot on pulls (explosive and deadlifts), presses (push or strict) and squats.

22

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:
Are you seriously saying that Olympic Lifts are not going to build muscle like a ‘high pull’ will? What an absolute joke! [/quote]

Well, simple anecdotal evidence: the olympic lifters who look jacked (with some exceptions of course) are those who supplement their training with a lot of pulls (Chinese and Russian lifters) while those who stick to the competitive lifts and their variations and Bulgarian school for example) tend to me much less muscular, especially in the upper body (there are exceptions of course e.g. Ivan Markov).

Also I competed and trained as an olympic lifter for 7 years and I can tell you that except for a quick adaptation phase to the new type of work, you don’t gain a lot of muscle from doing only the olympic lifts… BUT explosive pulls will give you hypertrophy to a greater extent.

Why?

  1. The movement is less technical, so unless you become very efficient in the olympic lifts you wont be able to use a weight that constitute a true overload on the muscles… with the high pull you can become efficient much easier and rapidly, allowing you to create that overload.

  2. The actual olympic lifts have a big drop-off in performance as the reps are increased. For example doing 5 reps with 80% on the deadlift, bench or squat isn’t that hard… but doing 5 reps at 80% on the snatch and especially clean and jerk is VERY hard if you have a decent qualification and can use a decent amount of weight. Heck, even Ilya Ilyin who is arguably one of the best technician in olympic lifting frequently miss reps when he does triples… why is that important? Because you need a certain amount of volume and set duration to fully activate the muscle-building process. And this is very hard to do with the olympic lifts because technique breakdown due to fatigue will prevent you from using big weights for high reps… on explosive pulls doing sets of 4-6 reps with a big weight is easier.

  3. The “turnover”, going under the bar after the pull is a very complex action especially in the snatch. Just because you can pull a bar high enough doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to go under it efficiently. The bar has to be exactly in the right place and your body position has to be perfect.

  4. You can use a lot more weight in explosive pulls than you can in the actual olympic lifts… between 110 and 140% of the corresponding lift depending on the individual. If your goal is simply to build muscle and gain strength then the exercise allowing you to use the most weight over a full range of motion will be the most effective. Now the argument is that the full lifts have a greater range of motion. That’s not totally true when it comes to building the traps, back, lower back, delts since the “pull” has the full range of motion of the pulling action, it’s just the squat part that’s not in there and that is trained by other movements in any decent program anyway. In fact when doing high pulls the range of motion is often longer than on the corresponding olympic lift because in an effort to go under the bar, the pull is often cut slightly short.

  5. Any lift in which you can use big weight WILL build muscle, there is no denying that. But there are exercises that don’t lend themselves quite as well to maximize muscle growth, and the olympic lifts (although they are my favorite lifts) are in that category.[/quote]

Wow these High Pulls sound so great I might have to start doing them 5 days a week!! Haha.
[/quote]

You don’t have to agree with the use of the movement. I’m not being antagonist. I use it extensively (actually I once did use it 5 days a week for 3 weeks). You have your opinion and I respect it. I present you my logic and my experience, no need to be sarcastic or unpleasant.[/quote]

CT I do apologise if I came across sarcastic or unpleasant as this was not my intention. I have a great respect for the information you provide on this site and incorporate some of your training theory into my own programming. On the high pull subject I’d just like to say I think it has it’s place however I believe it has been over emphasised on this site, as a lift which in my opinion is only a partial lift to the full movements (Olympic Lifts). Much like a rack pull for a Deadlift or a partial squat for a full range squat. I do understand why in certain circumstances partial movements are trained however I don’t believe they should be the focal point for a vast majority of people, unless there is a specific need.
[/quote]

Thank you for that post.

Regarding pulls… we can also look at it another way. If we are talking about high pulls from the floor, sure they can be seen as partial portions of the olympic lifts… OR they can be seen as a deadlift with a greater range of motion :wink: It’s all in the perception!

Furthermore, is it the nature of the exercise or its effect that is important? For example let’s say that half squats were A LOT more effective than full squats for building the legs (it’s not true, but let’s pretend that it is for the sake of the argument). Would you avoid this MORE EFFECTIVE exercise just because it’s not a full lift, or would you use it since it builds more muscle?

The answer to that is probably dependent on your goal: someone who competes in a strength sport where the squat is a competed lift would claim that the full squat is superior and that the half squat is merely an assistance exercise for the full squat, while the bodybuilder interested only in adding muscle might have a different answer.

Again, the half squat is NOT more effective than the full squat. BUT the argument is valid, what is more important: the results you get from doing an exercise even if that means doing a partial version of the exercise, or doing that exercise over the fullest range of motion even if that gives you less gains?

23

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:
Are you seriously saying that Olympic Lifts are not going to build muscle like a ‘high pull’ will? What an absolute joke! [/quote]

Well, simple anecdotal evidence: the olympic lifters who look jacked (with some exceptions of course) are those who supplement their training with a lot of pulls (Chinese and Russian lifters) while those who stick to the competitive lifts and their variations and Bulgarian school for example) tend to me much less muscular, especially in the upper body (there are exceptions of course e.g. Ivan Markov).

Also I competed and trained as an olympic lifter for 7 years and I can tell you that except for a quick adaptation phase to the new type of work, you don’t gain a lot of muscle from doing only the olympic lifts… BUT explosive pulls will give you hypertrophy to a greater extent.

Why?

  1. The movement is less technical, so unless you become very efficient in the olympic lifts you wont be able to use a weight that constitute a true overload on the muscles… with the high pull you can become efficient much easier and rapidly, allowing you to create that overload.

  2. The actual olympic lifts have a big drop-off in performance as the reps are increased. For example doing 5 reps with 80% on the deadlift, bench or squat isn’t that hard… but doing 5 reps at 80% on the snatch and especially clean and jerk is VERY hard if you have a decent qualification and can use a decent amount of weight. Heck, even Ilya Ilyin who is arguably one of the best technician in olympic lifting frequently miss reps when he does triples… why is that important? Because you need a certain amount of volume and set duration to fully activate the muscle-building process. And this is very hard to do with the olympic lifts because technique breakdown due to fatigue will prevent you from using big weights for high reps… on explosive pulls doing sets of 4-6 reps with a big weight is easier.

  3. The “turnover”, going under the bar after the pull is a very complex action especially in the snatch. Just because you can pull a bar high enough doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to go under it efficiently. The bar has to be exactly in the right place and your body position has to be perfect.

  4. You can use a lot more weight in explosive pulls than you can in the actual olympic lifts… between 110 and 140% of the corresponding lift depending on the individual. If your goal is simply to build muscle and gain strength then the exercise allowing you to use the most weight over a full range of motion will be the most effective. Now the argument is that the full lifts have a greater range of motion. That’s not totally true when it comes to building the traps, back, lower back, delts since the “pull” has the full range of motion of the pulling action, it’s just the squat part that’s not in there and that is trained by other movements in any decent program anyway. In fact when doing high pulls the range of motion is often longer than on the corresponding olympic lift because in an effort to go under the bar, the pull is often cut slightly short.

  5. Any lift in which you can use big weight WILL build muscle, there is no denying that. But there are exercises that don’t lend themselves quite as well to maximize muscle growth, and the olympic lifts (although they are my favorite lifts) are in that category.[/quote]

Wow these High Pulls sound so great I might have to start doing them 5 days a week!! Haha.
[/quote]

You don’t have to agree with the use of the movement. I’m not being antagonist. I use it extensively (actually I once did use it 5 days a week for 3 weeks). You have your opinion and I respect it. I present you my logic and my experience, no need to be sarcastic or unpleasant.[/quote]

CT I do apologise if I came across sarcastic or unpleasant as this was not my intention. I have a great respect for the information you provide on this site and incorporate some of your training theory into my own programming. On the high pull subject I’d just like to say I think it has it’s place however I believe it has been over emphasised on this site, as a lift which in my opinion is only a partial lift to the full movements (Olympic Lifts). Much like a rack pull for a Deadlift or a partial squat for a full range squat. I do understand why in certain circumstances partial movements are trained however I don’t believe they should be the focal point for a vast majority of people, unless there is a specific need.
[/quote]

Thank you for that post.

Regarding pulls… we can also look at it another way. If we are talking about high pulls from the floor, sure they can be seen as partial portions of the olympic lifts… OR they can be seen as a deadlift with a greater range of motion :wink: It’s all in the perception!

Furthermore, is it the nature of the exercise or its effect that is important? For example let’s say that half squats were A LOT more effective than full squats for building the legs (it’s not true, but let’s pretend that it is for the sake of the argument). Would you avoid this MORE EFFECTIVE exercise just because it’s not a full lift, or would you use it since it builds more muscle?

The answer to that is probably dependent on your goal: someone who competes in a strength sport where the squat is a competed lift would claim that the full squat is superior and that the half squat is merely an assistance exercise for the full squat, while the bodybuilder interested only in adding muscle might have a different answer.

Again, the half squat is NOT more effective than the full squat. BUT the argument is valid, what is more important: the results you get from doing an exercise even if that means doing a partial version of the exercise, or doing that exercise over the fullest range of motion even if that gives you less gains?[/quote]

I see what you mean regarding perception. I guess I view the High Pull (from the floor) as a Deadlift with an Upright Row, executed explosively. I know you rate it (Snatch Grip High Pull) as the No.1 ‘yoke’ builder however I’ve always used the good old Deadlift for this purpose. I would find it hard to reduce the load on my Deadlift to perform what I consider the ‘second portion’ of that movement, the Upright Row.

Personally I prefer performing the strength movement (Deadlift) and then proceeding that with an explosive hip hinge of either Cleans or Snatches, as a completely separate exercise. As per the other comments I’ve played with strength and power/speed movements and I definitely hit better numbers with strength prior to power/speed movements. And just for the record my training is devoted purely to getting bigger, faster and stronger, and I come from a bodybuilding training ground.

24

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Big Damo wrote:
Are you seriously saying that Olympic Lifts are not going to build muscle like a ‘high pull’ will? What an absolute joke! [/quote]

Well, simple anecdotal evidence: the olympic lifters who look jacked (with some exceptions of course) are those who supplement their training with a lot of pulls (Chinese and Russian lifters) while those who stick to the competitive lifts and their variations and Bulgarian school for example) tend to me much less muscular, especially in the upper body (there are exceptions of course e.g. Ivan Markov).

Also I competed and trained as an olympic lifter for 7 years and I can tell you that except for a quick adaptation phase to the new type of work, you don’t gain a lot of muscle from doing only the olympic lifts… BUT explosive pulls will give you hypertrophy to a greater extent.

Why?

  1. The movement is less technical, so unless you become very efficient in the olympic lifts you wont be able to use a weight that constitute a true overload on the muscles… with the high pull you can become efficient much easier and rapidly, allowing you to create that overload.

  2. The actual olympic lifts have a big drop-off in performance as the reps are increased. For example doing 5 reps with 80% on the deadlift, bench or squat isn’t that hard… but doing 5 reps at 80% on the snatch and especially clean and jerk is VERY hard if you have a decent qualification and can use a decent amount of weight. Heck, even Ilya Ilyin who is arguably one of the best technician in olympic lifting frequently miss reps when he does triples… why is that important? Because you need a certain amount of volume and set duration to fully activate the muscle-building process. And this is very hard to do with the olympic lifts because technique breakdown due to fatigue will prevent you from using big weights for high reps… on explosive pulls doing sets of 4-6 reps with a big weight is easier.

  3. The “turnover”, going under the bar after the pull is a very complex action especially in the snatch. Just because you can pull a bar high enough doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to go under it efficiently. The bar has to be exactly in the right place and your body position has to be perfect.

  4. You can use a lot more weight in explosive pulls than you can in the actual olympic lifts… between 110 and 140% of the corresponding lift depending on the individual. If your goal is simply to build muscle and gain strength then the exercise allowing you to use the most weight over a full range of motion will be the most effective. Now the argument is that the full lifts have a greater range of motion. That’s not totally true when it comes to building the traps, back, lower back, delts since the “pull” has the full range of motion of the pulling action, it’s just the squat part that’s not in there and that is trained by other movements in any decent program anyway. In fact when doing high pulls the range of motion is often longer than on the corresponding olympic lift because in an effort to go under the bar, the pull is often cut slightly short.

  5. Any lift in which you can use big weight WILL build muscle, there is no denying that. But there are exercises that don’t lend themselves quite as well to maximize muscle growth, and the olympic lifts (although they are my favorite lifts) are in that category.[/quote]

Wow these High Pulls sound so great I might have to start doing them 5 days a week!! Haha.
[/quote]

You don’t have to agree with the use of the movement. I’m not being antagonist. I use it extensively (actually I once did use it 5 days a week for 3 weeks). You have your opinion and I respect it. I present you my logic and my experience, no need to be sarcastic or unpleasant.[/quote]

CT I do apologise if I came across sarcastic or unpleasant as this was not my intention. I have a great respect for the information you provide on this site and incorporate some of your training theory into my own programming. On the high pull subject I’d just like to say I think it has it’s place however I believe it has been over emphasised on this site, as a lift which in my opinion is only a partial lift to the full movements (Olympic Lifts). Much like a rack pull for a Deadlift or a partial squat for a full range squat. I do understand why in certain circumstances partial movements are trained however I don’t believe they should be the focal point for a vast majority of people, unless there is a specific need.
[/quote]

Thank you for that post.

Regarding pulls… we can also look at it another way. If we are talking about high pulls from the floor, sure they can be seen as partial portions of the olympic lifts… OR they can be seen as a deadlift with a greater range of motion :wink: It’s all in the perception!

Furthermore, is it the nature of the exercise or its effect that is important? For example let’s say that half squats were A LOT more effective than full squats for building the legs (it’s not true, but let’s pretend that it is for the sake of the argument). Would you avoid this MORE EFFECTIVE exercise just because it’s not a full lift, or would you use it since it builds more muscle?

The answer to that is probably dependent on your goal: someone who competes in a strength sport where the squat is a competed lift would claim that the full squat is superior and that the half squat is merely an assistance exercise for the full squat, while the bodybuilder interested only in adding muscle might have a different answer.

Again, the half squat is NOT more effective than the full squat. BUT the argument is valid, what is more important: the results you get from doing an exercise even if that means doing a partial version of the exercise, or doing that exercise over the fullest range of motion even if that gives you less gains?[/quote]

Like the board press - its a better tricep builder than a full bench press, because you can apply a heavier load to a specific range of motion where power development is required.

25

[quote]Big Damo wrote:
I see what you mean regarding perception. I guess I view the High Pull (from the floor) as a Deadlift with an Upright Row, executed explosively. I know you rate it (Snatch Grip High Pull) as the No.1 ‘yoke’ builder however I’ve always used the good old Deadlift for this purpose. I would find it hard to reduce the load on my Deadlift to perform what I consider the ‘second portion’ of that movement, the Upright Row.

Personally I prefer performing the strength movement (Deadlift) and then proceeding that with an explosive hip hinge of either Cleans or Snatches, as a completely separate exercise. As per the other comments I’ve played with strength and power/speed movements and I definitely hit better numbers with strength prior to power/speed movements. And just for the record my training is devoted purely to getting bigger, faster and stronger, and I come from a bodybuilding training ground.[/quote]

I have been very intrigued by the “Olympic Deadlift” that Amit Sapir described in an article a week or two ago. Seems like it would have a similar effect as the high pull (which I love, especially as a first movement to wake my body up) but with more of an overload effect. Havent actually called on it yet because my dead is still progressing but it is definitely waiting in the toolbox to be implemented on a speed dead day, when that becomes necessary.

26

This might be a dumb question but how does the high pull hit the “yoke” area? Regarding how the load is held and the movement I see no reason why it would be so effective, the load is pulled explosively with the leg and hip drive and the arms are merely conexions, since the movement is mostly pasive and takes advantage of momentum the muscles of this area do not seem to be working that much.
How could it be any better than doing say regular deads for building the yoke?

27

The arms are merely connectors, the traps are not. They are active movers in all of the olympic variations. At least, that’s how SOME people teach them, including the Russians and the Chinese.

If you want to see a huge shrug, look up Pyrros Dimas. He used a massive shrug and had giant traps.

28

[quote]nkklllll wrote:
The arms are merely connectors, the traps are not. They are active movers in all of the olympic variations. At least, that’s how SOME people teach them, including the Russians and the Chinese.

If you want to see a huge shrug, look up Pyrros Dimas. He used a massive shrug and had giant traps.[/quote]
What about the rear delts? I’ve read CT saying high pulls, specially SGHP, hit them. There is no arm extension whatsoever to involve the rear delts or am I just missing another function of these posterior fibers?

29

Well, its gonna hit the upper back hard no matter what because of the grip.

I think a huge part of it is the movement is just a different training stimulus than most people are used to. Way different movement patter, more dynamic, etc.

30

I think CT said at some point that he thought that one of the reasons the high pull was so effective at building traps was because of the shock load going up and catching the weight as it is going down after the pull. I can’t remember the thread but he talked about the forces involved because of the acceleration through the movement and compared it to the deadlift. The forces generated in the high pull are higher and therefore the traps have to work harder in the high pull. The traps do work just by doing the movement as they are connected to the weight by the arms as mentioned above.

31

I also think a lot of the rear delt and middle trap work comes from actively keeping the bar close to your body while pulling. I definitely have noticed a great deal of rear delt growth since I’ve been working high pulls hard.

There have been some other variables in my training but rear delts had previously been a weak point and are now a strength. I’m getting close to the point, which CT mentioned reached (obviously on a different level than me as a lifter) where I might take a break from high pulls as my traps are overwhelming the rest of my physique. Wouldn’t mind slapping a little more muscle on the delts before i take my hiatus though.

32

High pulls are primarily in my opinion merely for building muscle and don’t necessarily carry over to the snatch. There are 2 pulls in a snatch unlike the High Pull. You wouldn’t ever pull the bar up above your chest line in a single pull on a snatch. So Mr. Big Damo’s logic is completely false and pretty much asinine. As far as the muscle building aspect of high pulls for the upper back, the high pull will target the upper back and traps immensely.

The people that say it doesn’t haven’t ever cleaned (power clean or squat clean) properly ever in their life. One of the most important aspects of cleaning or the High Pull is aggressively shrugging the bar. With High Pulls if performed correctly (elbows high) the shrug portion of the weight will cause extreme contraction of upper the back and traps at the upper portion of the lift. For even more contraction, the Chinese high pull will even force more contraction of the traps.

Also, Olympic weightlifting is so very technical that brute strength and size doesn’t have much of a carry over. Mobility and timing are as important or more than just raw power. Big arms can get in the way (cause mobility issues) when pulling yourself under the bar on a squat clean. The Crossfit craze has everybody rushing into Olympic lifting because Crossfit athletes are pretty muscular and ripped, but this doesn’t have anything to do with their Olympic lifting training. Most are former collegiate athletes (football and wrestling) . I will bet money they could of been even more muscular before they started Crossfit.

33

Also, the sport where Olympic lifting has the most carry over is throwing (shotput, discus, etc) due to the transitional phases of power (timing). My older brother was once a world champion Highland games athlete and I would say about 50% or maybe more more of his training is spent Olympic lifting variations.

34

[quote]Salpinx wrote:
This might be a dumb question but how does the high pull hit the “yoke” area? Regarding how the load is held and the movement I see no reason why it would be so effective, the load is pulled explosively with the leg and hip drive and the arms are merely conexions, since the movement is mostly pasive and takes advantage of momentum the muscles of this area do not seem to be working that much.
How could it be any better than doing say regular deads for building the yoke?[/quote]
Whaaaaaaaaaa? So your scapulae are staying in the same place when you high pull? You don’t pull with the arms, but you pull with the whole shoulder girdle.

35

Bkbertz… I don’t agree with your post though. First the snatch is now “broken down” into 3 pulls, or more precisely 3 pulling phases:

1st pull: from floor to power position (hip crease for the snatch, upper thigh to hips for clean)
2nd pull: the violent explosion upward
3rd pull: the lifter pulling himself under the bar. He shouldn’t just drop under, he is still interacting with the barbell, using it to pull himself under faster while also placing the barbell in the right spot.

You aren’t really supposed to “shrug up” in an olympic lift. It used to be taught like that years ago (I even taught it like that in the beginning since that’s how I learned it). You aren’t really using the traps to pull the bar higher, you are actually using them to pull your body under, which is why a chinese pull is actually exactly the same structure as a full snatch, without the fixing of the barbell overhead.

A high pull from the hang or blocks is basically a truncated portion of the first pull (from knees to power position instead of from floor to power position), the 2nd pull and the third pull without the squat under and the fixing of the barbell. It’s the same structure as a snatch.

I want to mention that you CAN do a high pull that is not structurally the same as a snatch but ideally it would be as close to one as possible, especially if you are a competitive lifter: practicing two very similar, yet different, movements can really hurt timing.

So even though it’s a similar type of pull (it should be the same structure) it’s much less technical since the toughest element (moving under the barbell) isn’t there.

36

[quote]lotsi81 wrote:
I also think a lot of the rear delt and middle trap work comes from actively keeping the bar close to your body while pulling. I definitely have noticed a great deal of rear delt growth since I’ve been working high pulls hard.

[/quote]

Actually it is, and the same thing could be said about the lats involvement in the high pull.

37

[quote]bkbetz wrote:
High pulls are primarily in my opinion merely for building muscle and don’t necessarily carry over to the snatch. There are 2 pulls in a snatch unlike the High Pull. You wouldn’t ever pull the bar up above your chest line in a single pull on a snatch. So Mr. Big Damo’s logic is completely false and pretty much asinine. As far as the muscle building aspect of high pulls for the upper back, the high pull will target the upper back and traps immensely.

The people that say it doesn’t haven’t ever cleaned (power clean or squat clean) properly ever in their life. One of the most important aspects of cleaning or the High Pull is aggressively shrugging the bar. With High Pulls if performed correctly (elbows high) the shrug portion of the weight will cause extreme contraction of upper the back and traps at the upper portion of the lift. For even more contraction, the Chinese high pull will even force more contraction of the traps.

Also, Olympic weightlifting is so very technical that brute strength and size doesn’t have much of a carry over. Mobility and timing are as important or more than just raw power. Big arms can get in the way (cause mobility issues) when pulling yourself under the bar on a squat clean. The Crossfit craze has everybody rushing into Olympic lifting because Crossfit athletes are pretty muscular and ripped, but this doesn’t have anything to do with their Olympic lifting training. Most are former collegiate athletes (football and wrestling) . I will bet money they could of been even more muscular before they started Crossfit. [/quote]

Snatch pulls, and clean pulls, if executed correctly, have a ton of carry over to the full lifts . . . high pulls, unless you’re performing them at the top of the pull, have two pulls just like the classic lifts. There is the pull from the start to just below the hip (or mid thigh), and then the explosive second pull which propels the bar upward as high as possible.

38

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Bkbertz… I don’t agree with your post though. First the snatch is now “broken down” into 3 pulls, or more precisely 3 pulling phases:

1st pull: from floor to power position (hip crease for the snatch, upper thigh to hips for clean)
2nd pull: the violent explosion upward
3rd pull: the lifter pulling himself under the bar. He shouldn’t just drop under, he is still interacting with the barbell, using it to pull himself under faster while also placing the barbell in the right spot.

You aren’t really supposed to “shrug up” in an olympic lift. It used to be taught like that years ago (I even taught it like that in the beginning since that’s how I learned it). You aren’t really using the traps to pull the bar higher, you are actually using them to pull your body under, which is why a chinese pull is actually exactly the same structure as a full snatch, without the fixing of the barbell overhead.

A high pull from the hang or blocks is basically a truncated portion of the first pull (from knees to power position instead of from floor to power position), the 2nd pull and the third pull without the squat under and the fixing of the barbell. It’s the same structure as a snatch.

I want to mention that you CAN do a high pull that is not structurally the same as a snatch but ideally it would be as close to one as possible, especially if you are a competitive lifter: practicing two very similar, yet different, movements can really hurt timing.

So even though it’s a similar type of pull (it should be the same structure) it’s much less technical since the toughest element (moving under the barbell) isn’t there.

[/quote]

There was a right up of the Klokov, Ilin, and Polovnikov seminar in LA that said that they were teaching a powerful “shrug” at the top of the second pull. Maybe that’s jsut how they wanted people to think about it, but that’s what was reported.

39

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Bkbertz… I don’t agree with your post though. First the snatch is now “broken down” into 3 pulls, or more precisely 3 pulling phases:

1st pull: from floor to power position (hip crease for the snatch, upper thigh to hips for clean)
2nd pull: the violent explosion upward
3rd pull: the lifter pulling himself under the bar. He shouldn’t just drop under, he is still interacting with the barbell, using it to pull himself under faster while also placing the barbell in the right spot.

You aren’t really supposed to “shrug up” in an olympic lift. It used to be taught like that years ago (I even taught it like that in the beginning since that’s how I learned it). You aren’t really using the traps to pull the bar higher, you are actually using them to pull your body under, which is why a chinese pull is actually exactly the same structure as a full snatch, without the fixing of the barbell overhead.

A high pull from the hang or blocks is basically a truncated portion of the first pull (from knees to power position instead of from floor to power position), the 2nd pull and the third pull without the squat under and the fixing of the barbell. It’s the same structure as a snatch.

I want to mention that you CAN do a high pull that is not structurally the same as a snatch but ideally it would be as close to one as possible, especially if you are a competitive lifter: practicing two very similar, yet different, movements can really hurt timing.

So even though it’s a similar type of pull (it should be the same structure) it’s much less technical since the toughest element (moving under the barbell) isn’t there.

[/quote]

There was a right up of the Klokov, Ilin, and Polovnikov seminar in LA that said that they were teaching a powerful “shrug” at the top of the second pull. Maybe that’s jsut how they wanted people to think about it, but that’s what was reported.[/quote]

Yes, Russian technique teaches a shrug (that’s actually how I was coached). Really it’s a matter of the important thing is not what you think that is important, but that what you think leads to the correct movement. The movement is so fast that you can’t think about pulling yourself down under the bar by using your traps… you just think about firing the traps at the top of the pull. It’s dumb to confuse the athlete with a long sentence, just use a simple term like “fire the traps” or “shrug at the end” to get the body doing what you want.

For example they also teach that you should jump up, where in reality what happens is that you are standing up with the barbell as fast as you can, then moving your feet to get into a better position for the reception. But if you think “stand up fast, use the barbell to pull yourself under then move your feet laterally” there is not way you’ll make the lift, it’s too fast. That’s why something like “jump and punch the traps”, even though it’s not what you should really try to do, will actually get the body doing the right thing… motor learning is sometimes a very weird thing!

40

Very good explanation. I would agree the 3rd pulling phase you outlined is actually a pull, not just a drop under even though some don’t count it as a pull.

CT,

Why and when did you stop competing in Oly lifting?