High Bar Back Squat Technical Model Overview:

Untitled

The high bar back squat is more commonly known as the Back Squat. ‘High Bar’ refers, as one can see in the image above ^[16] to the position of the bar on ones back – Slightly above the level of acromion and below C7 ^{[6,17, 19]}, aka on the musculature at the bottom of the neck/top of the back. Furthermore to differentiate it from the ‘Low Bar’ variation which is to be discussed in a future piece. The reasons for this will be discussed later on, for now lets have a look at the UKSCA technical model presented in table 1 ^[19] combined with an overview of the skill as laid out by the same UKSCA author ^[19]. For the sake of clarity I will explain that although this is an explanation of the skill by a single author, as he is associated with UKSCA he will be following a standardised technical model from within that association – the leading body for UK based Strength and Conditioning (S&C) coaches.

High Bar Back Squat Overview ^[20]

The back squat is a knee and hip extensor exercise. The list below highlights the key muscles that are used in the correct execution of the back squat and the muscle action:

Quadriceps-knee extension
Gluteus maximus-hip extension
Gluteus medius (posterior fibres) – hip extension and lateral hip rotation
Hamstrings-hip extension
Erector spinae-spinal and pelvic stabilization
Latissimus dorsi-spinal and pelvic stabilization
Adductors (magnus, longus, brevis, minimus)-assist with hip extension and stabilisation
Abdominals- spinal and pelvic stabilisation

Table 1

Position	Description	Problems	Variation/Solutions
Start Position	Hands evenly spaced shoulder width apart on bar	Unable to have shoulder width grip due to poor shoulder external rotation	Widen grip until comfortable
	Bar positioned just below C7 across upper trapezius and rear deltoids-high bar	Pain across neck where bar is positioned	Ensure bar is below 7th cervical vertebrae Low bar-positioned below rear deltoids and upper trapezius
	Athlete stands extended through spine, hips and knees-bracing spinal musculature	Unable to hold extended position	Ensure athlete has no spinal pathology that limits ability to extend thoracic and lumbar spine. Has ability to hold correct posture without bar or load
	Feet are positioned just outside shoulder width with toes pointing slightly outwards	Potential depth problems	Allow athlete to experiment with stance width to find a comfortable position that allows a full range of motion
Decent	Athlete takes a breath in at start
	Unlocks hips and begins to flex at knees with a slight anterior lean with trunk
	Hips go behind heels and knees and hips flexed until femur is parallel with floor	Unable to reach parallel	Widen stance, point toes out slightly
	Feet remain flat throughout	Heels come off floor	Check ankle range of motion. Widen stance, turn feet out slightly. Raise heel of shoe (weightlifting shoe)
	Knees go beyond toes in the sagittal plane and maintain alignment over toes in the coronal plane
	Athlete maintains anterior trunk lean throughout motion maintaining lumbar lordosis and thoracic rigidity	1. Athlete leans too far forward 2. Athlete allows lumbar spine to flex 3. Allows thoracic spine to flex	1. Widen stance, adjust load, encourage athlete to drive and extend hip 2. Ensure that athlete can posteriorly and anteriorly tilt pelvis in an unloaded situation. Adjust load and practice correct movement patterns 3. Encourage athlete to keep chest up and to keep their elbows under bar and not extend behind their body
Ascent	Feet forcefully driven into floor
	Knees and hips extend
	Knees maintain position over toes in coronal plane	Knees deviate inwards and hips internally rotate	Possible weakness in hip abductors. Increased foot pronation. Load too heavy? Single leg exercises may need to be considered in conjunction with reinforcement of squatting movement pattern
	Hips raised at the same tempo as bar	Hips raised at a higher tempo than bar	Athlete has relative weakness in hip extensors. Load is too heavy? Encourage athlete to extend at hip forcefully through sticking point
	Spinal curvature is maintained (rigid extended thoracic and lumbar lordosis)	Lumbar and thoracic flexion	Load too heavy? Weakness in spinal extensors Encourage athlete to drive chest up
	Breath out through mid range of movement (sticking point)

Following on from this technical model I would like to explain the evidence based rational behind the key technical aspects of the skill, as presented within this model.

Gaze

This is different from head position, as it refers specifically to where the individual is looking. Their head alignment should remain neutral and their gaze straight ahead and not downwards as this can lead to increased hip and trunk flexion. A position that can cause increased torque on the vertebral column ^{[1, 6, 15, 17]}.

Trunk Position

Maintaining a stiff torso and neutral lordotic lumbar position is a safe and optimal way to squat. Failure to do so combined with poor lifting mechanic increases the potential to overload the spine and back tissues to the point of causing injury ^[13,14,15].

Knee position in relation to toes;

The individual should prevent knee valgus (knees falling inwards), as this is structurally a weaker position for the knee when attempting to lift a load through the sagittal (up and down) plane and can damage the Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL) ^[17]. They should also prevent excessive forward translation of the tibia past the toes, as this will increase the shear forces at the knee and increasing the chance of Anterior Cruciate Ligament injuries ^{[17, 11]}. However some translation over the knee is acceptable as preventing this completely can increase anterior lean of the trunk, hip and lumbar shear forces ^{[16, 10]}.

Muscle Activation in relation to; Squat Depth & Feet Width Position

Squat Depth

During Electromyographic (EMG) studies have shown that squatting at 45 degrees (half Squat), 90 degrees (parallel Squat) and 125 degrees (full squat) resulted in a larger and larger contribution from the gluteus maximus ^{[2, 16]}. However the full squat produces pelvic tilt that compromises the lumber spine, in that natural lordotic curve is lost, thus reducing the activation of the lumbar erector muscles, and placing the spinal column in a weaker and less safe position for coping with heavier loads ^{[5, 16]}.

Feet Width

Studies have shown that there is no significant effect on muscle activity of lower limb muscles between 75-140% shoulder width ^{[7, 8, 3, 16, 18]}. However it is worth considering that a wider stance helps externally rotate the hip during the decent phase, facilitating parallel and full squat depth ^[19]. Furthermore its been shown that there is an increased activation of the adductor muscle when feet stance is greater than shoulder width ^{[3, 16]}. Therefore this increased activation of muscles used will increase the potential for force production during the lift.

In summary I hope that this overview has provided you with a clearer understanding of the exercise’s technical model and the rationales behind its structure. However as a cautionary point, I would suggest that the limitations of such a well established and seemingly robust model is that it can perhaps limit an S&C coaches creativity and impede his or hers instinct for growth and further learning. After all as long as one follows an evidence-based philosophy to exercise prescription, there is no reason that deviations to this model, which provide equal or superior adaptations to training won’t be found in the future. Stagnation is the enemy of all progression.

References:

BRanTa, C. F. (2010). Sport specialization: Developmental and learning issues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 19-28.
Caterisano, A., MOSS, R. E., PELLINGER, T. K., WOODRUFF, K., LEWIS, V. C., BOOTH, W., & KHADRA, T. (2002). The effect of back squat depth on the EMG activity of 4 superficial hip and thigh muscles. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(3), 428-432.
CAW, S. T. M., & Melrose, D. R. (1999). Stance width and bar load effects on leg muscle activity during the parallel squat.
Comfort, P., & Kasim, P. (2007). Optimizing Squat Technique. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 29(6), 10-13.
Delitto, R. S., & Rose, S. J. (1992). An electromyographic analysis of two techniques for squat lifting and lowering. Physical therapy, 72(6), 438-448.
Donnelly, D. V., Berg, W. P., & Fiske, D. M. (2006). The effect of the direction of gaze on the kinematics of the squat exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 20(1), 145-150.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Barrentine, S. W., Wilk, K. E., & Andrews, J. R. (1998). Biomechanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain and open kinetic chain exercises. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 30(4), 556-569.
Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N. A. I. Q. U. A. N., Lander, J. E., Barrentine, S. W., Andrews, J. R., … & Moorman, C. T. (2001). Effects of technique variations on knee biomechanics during the squat and leg press.Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 33(9), 1552-1566.
Escamilla, R. F. (2001). Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise.Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 33(1), 127-141.
Fry, A. C., Smith, J. C., & Schilling, B. K. (2003). Effect of knee position on hip and knee torques during the barbell squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17(4), 629-633.
Klein, K. K. (1961). The deep squat exercise as utilized in weight training for athletes and its effects on the ligaments of the knee. JAPMR, 15(1), 6-11.
McLaughlin, T. M., Lardner, T. J., & Dillman, C. J. (1978). Kinetics of the parallel squat. Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 49(2), 175-189.
McGill, S. M., Marshall, L., & Andersen, J. (2013). Low back loads while walking and carrying: comparing the load carried in one hand or in both hands. Ergonomics, 56(2), 293-302.
McKean, M. R., Dunn, P. K., & Burkett, B. J. (2010). The lumbar and sacrum movement pattern during the back squat exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2731-2741.
Myer, G. D., Kushner, A. M., Brent, J. L., Schoenfeld, B. J., Hugentobler, J., Lloyd, R. S., … & McGill, S. M. (2014). The back squat: A proposed assessment of functional deficits and technical factors that limit performance.Strength and conditioning journal, 36(6), 4-27.
Ninos, J. C., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R., & Weiss, J. R. (1997). Electromyographic analysis of the squat performed in self-selected lower extremity neutral rotation and 30 of lower extremity turn-out from the self-selected neutral position. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy,25(5), 307-315.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). Squatting kinematics and kinetics and their application to exercise performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3497-3506.
Signorile, J. F., Kwiatkowski, K., Caruso, J. F., & Robertson, B. (1995). Effect of Foot Position on the Electromyographical Activity of the Superficial Quadriceps Muscles During the Parallel Squat and Knee Extension. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 9(3), 182-187.
Yule, S. (2005). The back squat. The UK Strength and Conditioning Association Newsletter, 2, 11-15.

By Alpha Maurice Cidade Cauwenbergh

© Alpha Maurice Cidade Cauwenbergh – Alphaleveltraining.com 2016. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Alpha Maurice Cidade Cauwenbergh –Alphaleveltraining.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Dead Lift (Part 1): You’re doing it wrong?

June 13, 2016June 13, 2016Leave a comment

As a Strength and Conditioning (S&C) coach or Personal Trainer (PT) you often find yourself critiquing another individual’s Dead Lift (DL) – whether that be an athlete with a relatively young or mature training age, or a recreational health and fitness enthusiast with minimal or vast experience of the power lift. You watch the biomechanics of their lift making a point to seek out any of the tell-tale kinematic deficiencies that would be symptomatic of poor lift execution – in turn yielding improper kinetic force production that, either dangerously stresses the muscles, joints and connective tissues or, is inappropriate for completing the lift at the desired load. If all the above are in action then you feel compelled to intervene and offer your expertise, with the only barrier being their ego or that doing so would put you in direct contradiction of the S&C coach that demonstrated this technical model. However the real problem comes when your own arrogance or impertinence doesn’t allow you to recognise the gaps in your knowledge. So is their DL technique wrong and/ or dangerous? Or, are they just using a variation of the conventional DL that you are unfamiliar with? One with different prime movers, synergists and injury risk parameters? One that more suits their training goals and is of greater dynamic correspondence to their sport? However, by that same token, you as the athlete or gym user should consider why you are doing that particular dead lift? If you cannot answer that by explaining; which variation you are using, what muscles you are targeting, what the injury risk parameters are, how it fits in with your training strategy/ goal then there is a very good chance that you are doing it wrong and or dangerously.

The different types of dead lifts

This particular factor is important for even MSc and UKSCA (UK Strength & Conditioning Association) qualified coaches because those qualification assessment sessions do not necessarily explore all known variants to this power lift, and instead focus (among other things) on the conventional DL and one other ‘mainstream’ variation i.e. the Romanian DL, even if in an indirect way. This is shown in figure 1, which is the assessment criteria for the UKSCA practical accreditation which is also mirrored by the MSc practical assessment.

Figure 1 (http://www.uksca.org.uk/assessments/)

The third criterion in figure 1 asks for a demonstration of the technical model of the Clean and Jerk or Snatch., both of which have a ‘start’ and ‘beginning’ phase (commonly known as the ‘set position’ and ‘first pull’) that are similar to the conventional DL with the ‘beginning’ phase mirroring the end point of the Romanian DL eccentric phase, as seen in figure 2,

Figure 2 (http://mymodules.stmarys.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=10921)

hence the focus on those DL variations during the practical learning process. This centralised focus is most likely due to the fact that those DL can act as starting points for eventual progression into the Olympic lifts seen in figure 2 ^[2,5]. Moreover, once progressed to the Olympic lifts, the dynamic correspondence to the sporting skills found in the majority of mainstream UK team and individual sports is greater than those of the other variants e.g. the Hang Clean to the vertical jump ^[8,10], which for one are not incorporated in the technical model of the Olympic lifts, and are specified towards the sports for which they were created. To those outside the MSc academic process, this method may seem flawed and incomplete, but at masters level you aim to become a highly critical self sufficient scientist of the strength and conditioning field. Meaning wherever you see a gap in your knowledge you actively seek to fill it via peer reviewed literary sources, which is exactly what I have aimed to do with the DL.

Reviewing the papers of Bird and Barrington-Higgs (2010) ^[1] and Piper and Waller (2001) ^[12] presents you with a combined list of twelve DL variants. They are listed below;

Conventional DL

Sumo DL

Stiff-Legged DL

Romanian DL

Power Rack DL

Machine DL

Snatch DL

Dumbbell DL

One-arm DL

Strongman DL

Fat-bar DL

Finger-grip DL

Although these papers appear well researched, I would not go as far as to say that this is an exhaustive list, as sports and their training regimes evolve all the time. However, the sport specific variants appear to cover all major 1^st world sports, leading to the reasonable conclusion that an S&C coach working in this part of the world can treat this list as pretty robust.

All DL exercises are predominantly designed to utilise (but not exclusively) some or all the posterior chain muscle from the knee joint up, as well as the arm musculature e.g. the forearms. But this of course varies dependent on the particular DL. This piece is not an exercise in describing the technical model for each DL, or determining if one lift variation is superior to another for x,y,z reason (to be addressed in a future piece), but a brief descriptive analysis of what the literature shows each to be specified towards in terms of muscle activation, sport specificity and rehabilitation applications.

Conventional DL

Figure 3 (www.powerx.us)

As one can assume from its name there is a lot more literature on this lift, the biomechanical and EMG analysis performed in various papers, though not always being uniform in agreement, overall suggest that the predominant muscles activated are glutes, hamstrings, quadriceps and spinal erectors ^[2,3^,6,7,9] To what degree each is firing throughout the movement is difficult to quantify because of the subject to subject variability in skill and movement pattern used even when aiming to adhere to a clear technical model. However, results do lean towards the understanding that quadriceps and spinal extensor muscle are/should be the most neurologically recruited muscles and the hip extensor muscles (glutes) recruited for the highest percentage of the movement time ^[2,3,6,9]. In terms of which sports this lift or any lift in fact is most applicable too is not necessarily a black and white matter. As although one could simply look at what muscles are predominantly used during the lift and seek for a similar correspondence with the skills used in a particular sport. It can be argued that in any cohort of athletes you will find different movement patterns to achieve the same skill outcome. This can be down to gender or ability level, this is well illustrated in the work of Chappell, (2006;2007) ^[4]. Therefore a DL prescription that’s not considerate of the firing pattern of athletes chosen movement strategy would be counter productive. An opposition to this idea would prescribe the athlete the scientifically tried and tested movement strategies, effectively making the relearn the skill. However as an S&C coach you have ask yourself if this is an meaningful use of yours and the athlete’s time? If the athlete is able to achieve high levels of performance, than could it be better to prescribe DL lifts that complements his or her already learnt movement pattern? For example selecting a less quad flexion based DL like the stiff-leg DL as opposed to one more so like the conventional DL – for an athlete who doesn’t fully utilise their potential for increased muscle recruitment via hip and knee flexion during their Vertical Jump. Answering these questions fully is beyond the scope of this piece but illustrates well the importance of understand the different DL and how they work kinetically and kinematically when making exercise prescriptions for yourself and others. Saying that, there are sports that have long been associated with particular DL variations, and bee integral in producing elite level performance. Therefore not using that information as at least a compass on the journey towards effective training modalities and enhanced performance with be negligent. For the Conventional DL traditionally it would be applicable to the training regimes of (but not exclusively) Football, Rugby and Volleyball. From a sports rehabilitation perspective based on the muscle activation rates and patterns this DL could be used in athlete’s recovering from hamstring strains (depending on severity & location in hamstring muscle group), as it would allow continued conditioning of the upper posterior chain while placing lower stress on the hamstrings in comparison to stiff leg or Romanian DL^[1,14].

Sumo DL

Figure 4 (www.deadlifttips.net)

This DL varient appears to recruit more of the quads, both inner (Vastus medialis) and outer (vastus Lateralis), the upper trapezius and has a lower recruitment of the lumbar erector muscles than the conventional DL ^[9,10,11]. Although the studies cited have used subjects of different levels, whose skill at the lift would greatly differ, they have reached similar findings – in regards to muscle activation rates and patterns. Traditionally this variant has been employed with wrestling and American football, specifically linebackers ^[2,12]. Observing this lifts wide ‘set position’ in figure 3 it is intuitively obvious why. As with the previous lift variant the key to application is understand how the lift works (prime movers/ synergists) and then prescribing it accordingly. For example utilising the lower activation of the lumbar erector muscles in athletes with injury related weaknesses in that area but still seeking to strengthen other areas within this movement pattern. I couldn’t find any specific literature that showed the effectiveness of such an intervention, however I believe the logic to be evidenced based enough to give the rational credence.

Stiff-Legged DL

Figure 5 (www.directlyfitness.com)

This particular variant stands out from the ones described so far as it’s set position is the ‘finish position’ of the conventional DL, with the first movement being the eccentric phase as opposed to the concentric like to Sumo and Conventional DL. In looking through the literature I have noticed that the term ‘Stiff- Legged’ DL also gets applied to what in fact is the Romanian DL. This most likely is due to the fact that both require the knee joint to remain still throughout the eccentric phase, however there is a reported 15-degree difference in flexion at the joint at the point of stiffness – which in turn significantly alters the firing patterns of the muscles being used ^[10]. The EMG readings for this lift indicate that the predominant muscles activated are in the posterior chain (Lumbar spine extensors, glutes and hamstrings), with the quadriceps muscles- less involved in producing force for either concentric or eccentric phases compared to the previous variations ^[14,1]. Furthermore these papers found that the hamstring muscles and gluteal muscles have the highest relative time spent in activation. It’s practical application has traditionally focused on diving and gymnastic sports, from a rehabilitation perspective, other than obviously targeting the predominant muscles being activated in order to strengthen their resilience to eccentric stress i.e. hamstring strain prone thighs. They can also alleviate the stress on the anterior knee, lending to a possible application for those recovering from anterior knee injuries but still wanting to train the posterior chain via the DL.

Romanian DL

Figure 6 ( www.mensfitness.com)

In this variation of the DL the muscular activation differences are very similar to those found in the Stiff-Leg DL, the main difference observed with muscle activation being instigated by the difference in the joint angle at the knee during both eccentric and concentric phases. This was alluded to in the previous section; however going deeper into this is a limited endeavour by comparison because there is very little literature on this. In fact most of the information I have gathered in the Romanian DL muscle firing patterns are found in bits and pieces within Stiff Leg DL research. With the authors making reference to the different knee flexion angles between the two and that this increased knee flexion shifts the work load higher up the hamstring musculature ^[10]. The applications of this variant for sporting performance, training and rehabilitation are also in line with those used for the Stiff-leg DL. However this may perhaps change if and when more research has been carried out on this lift.

After this, the alternative DL mentioned in the list becomes even more specified towards sports, activities and training/rehabilitation interventions, moreover they are often iterations of the ‘mainstream lifts’. This subsequently results in very limited peer reviewed research, with the S&C scientific community focused on the ‘mainstream’/parent (more commonly used in practice) DL. For that reason I’ve decided to describe those lifts superficially in terms of how they are often applied in an S&C setting, leaving scope for more detailed analysis in the future. Saying that, it should be recognised that a deeper understanding of the ‘mainstream lifts’ will provide a solid foundation upon which education rationales and biomechanical inferences can be postulated about which muscles these other alternative DL use predominantly recruit and their applicability.

Power Rack DL

Figure 7 (www.menshealth.co.uk)

This DL allows for heavier loads to be lifted with a focus on the low-mid back spinal erector muscles. Good prescription for those with flexion limiting back/lower limb weakness/injuries.

Machine DL

Figure 8 (www.jerseygirltalk.com)

The Machine DL is simply a machine-assisted way of performing any of the DL variants, usually utilizing a Smith Machine. And as such will have a similar applicability as the unassisted DL version-minus the functional trunk and total body stability/strength gained from balancing a load as you lift. The main benefit of this DL is the ability to lift heavier than possible unassisted.

Snatch DL

Figure 9 (www.stupideaspaleo.com)

The Snatch DL is a Conventional or Romanian DL with a wider Snatch grip. This variation has been predominantly used for conditioning the body for the Snatch Olympic Lift. It can also be used for individuals with longer arms or hyper flexible hamstrings in order to increase the eccentric loading in those muscles at a higher point in that phase of the movement.

Dumbbell DL

Figure 10 (www.mensfitness.com)

This iteration of the Conventional/Romanian DL is made different by the use of Dumbbells as opposed to a barbell, again research on the kinematic and kinetic differences this would induce are extremely limited. However the change of size and shape of the load will stress the muscles differently due to differing stability demands.

One-arm DL

Figure 11 (www.gymowl.com)

The One-arm DL has been implemented traditionally to increase the demand for trunk stabilisation from the inner and outer core unit in conjunction with the spinal erector muscles, very useful for athletes in sports requiring bilateral throwing or swinging motions i.e. discus, golf, baseball and cricket. Anecdotally it would be fascinating to research what corrective affect this would have on individuals with imbalances in their lumbar spine musculature due to scoliosis and/or injury.

Strongman DL

Figure 12 (www.ironmind.com)

This DL, essentially is used to condition the same muscles as a Conventional DL, but with the focus being on lifting loads of unconventional size and shape something I eluded to with the dumbbell DL. These can range from tires to actual vehicles to large logs. With even a rudimentary understanding of physics one can intuitively see how lifting loads of different three dimensional widths and lengths but equal mass can change to intensity, difficulty and muscular recruitment pattern of a lift.

Fat-Bar DL

Figure 13 (www.rouguefitness.com)

The Fat-bar DL utilises a thicker bar to increase the stress placed on your phalangeal flexors aka your grip, with a view to strengthening said musculature and improving grip strength when using the regular (thinner) bar. This is not the only method of improving grip strength and its effectiveness over other methods such as the Hand Strengtheners is not clinically proven. So its uses come down to personal preference, anecdotally implied efficiency and intuitively recognisable appropriateness.

Finger-grip DL

Figure 14 (David Yeung -Youtube.com)

Athletes in sports that require high levels of isometric finger flexor strength, most commonly employ this specialised grip version of the DL variants. Sports such as rock climbing, archery, basketball and gymnastics ^[2].

In conclusion when selecting which DL to use your rational for using the exercise is the key. A rational based on a profound understanding of the biomechanics of each variation and the physiological adaptation of those kinetics and kinematics will favour. If that cognisant process is thorough and robust then it is far more likely that you are in fact doing it right. A caveat to this, is that the S&C practice is an ever evolving one, and as an S&C coach you have to be prepared to put your ego aside and adapt the training prescriptions accordingly. As a professional or recreational athlete do not be afraid to seek expert advice on your training regime no matter your training age and whether or not you believe you are performing the exercise correctly. Both parties can often benefit from the proceeding discourse. Furthermore, highly experienced trainers will be able to spot minute flaws in your DL execution with nothing more than several cursory glances; so do not be offended if advice is offered. We are all here to dominate the dead lift.

References:

Bezerra, E. S., Simao, R., Fleck, S. J., Paz, G., Maia, M., Costa, P. B.. . Serrao, J. C. (2013). Electromyographic activity of lower body muscles during the deadlift and still-legged deadlift. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 16(3), 30.
Bird, S., & Barrington-Higgs, B. (2010). Exploring the deadlift. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(2), 46-51. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181d59582
Camara, K. D., Coburn, J. W., Dunnick, D. D., Brown, L. E., Galpin, A. J., & Costa, P. B. (2016). An examination of muscle activation and power characteristics while performing the deadlift exercise with straight and hexagonal barbells. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1183-1188. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001352
Chappell, J. (2007;2006;). Kinematics and electromyography of landing preparation in vertical stop-jump: Risks for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med, 35(2), 235-241. doi:10.1177/0363546506294077
Duba, J., Kraemer, W. J., & Martin, G. (2007). A 6-step progression model for teaching the hang power clean. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 29(5), 26-35. doi:10.1519/00126548-200710000-00004
Escamilla, R. F., Francisco, A. C., Kayes, A. V., Speer, K. P., & Moorman, 3., Claude T. (2002). An electromyographic analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(4), 682-688. doi:10.1097/00005768-200204000-00019
Hales, M. (2010). Improving the deadlift: Understanding biomechanical constraints and physiological adaptations to resistance exercise. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(4), 44-51. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181e5e300
Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Andrews, W. A., Kawamori, N., McGuigan, M. R., & Nosaka, K. (2008). Does performance of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping, sprinting, and changing of direction? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 412-418. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318166052b
Nijem, R. M., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., Lynn, S. K., & Ciccone, A. B. (2016). Electromyographic and force plate analysis of the deadlift performed with and without chains. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(5), 1177-1182. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001351
Piper, T. J., & Waller, M. A. (2001). Variations of the deadlift. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 23(3), 66. doi:10.1519/00126548-200106000-00013
Scherfenberg, E., & Burns, S. (2013). Implementing hang cleans for the improvement of vertical jump in high school athletes. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 16(2), 50.
Stoppani, J. (2008). On trial: Conventional deadlifts vs. sumo deadlifts: Besides the stance, what’s the difference between doing deadlifts the conventional way versus the sumo version? Weider Publications LLC.
Escamilla, R. F., Francisco, A. C., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Welch, C. M., Kayes, A. V.. . Andrews, J. R. (2000). A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(7), 1265-1275. doi:10.1097/00005768-200007000-00013
WRIGHT, G. A., DELONG, T. H., & GEHLSEN, G. (1999). Electromyographic activity of the hamstrings during performance of the leg curl, stiff-leg deadlift, and back squat movements. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(2), 168-174. doi:10.1519/00124278-199905000-00012

By Alpha Maurice Cidade Cauwenbergh

Should female professional footballers play on a smaller pitch than men?

May 26, 2016June 17, 2016Leave a comment

This question originally came to me during the Women’s World Cup. I pondered it for weeks, letting its peculiar variables bounce around in my skull until this S&C blog post finally gave me a reason to organise them into a stream of expressible thoughts.

Why do I think that elite-level women’s football and possibly all its lower level derivatives should be played on a pitch with reduced dimensions? Well, it boils down to the fact that I believe the technical quality of the game would improve. In order to explain my rational for this statement let’s begin at the ideas inception.

During all the England matches I observed at the World Cup, I couldn’t help but notice just how many long distance passes (crosses included) and shots (which for the sake of clarity let’s define as beyond 30yrds) were off target – especially in comparison to men’s professional football. Now my first thought in trying to explain this was that it was nothing more than just the unavoidable fact that the women’s game is much younger than the men’s and, therefore, is still significantly behind their male counterparts technically. However, the seed of curiosity would not be satisfied with such minimal nourishment, and its roots delved deeper into my subconscious. At some point later on during the tournament, I recalled my belief that the technical standard of the elite women’s game was, give or take the odd under/overachieving individual, similar to that of men’s semi professional football. This in turn made me think that at that level (a level I’m very familiar with, both as spectator and player), their male players still don’t display that level of ‘poor’ long pass and shooting accuracy. Of course this is very subjective and I have not done any quantifiable tests to prove any of the above, but as stated in the title of this website section, these are just thoughts I want to share with you – and hope you find insightful and thought-provoking. And so, once I had that recollection I began looking for a different answer for this technical discrepancy I believed to exist between the sexes when playing on an 11-a-side pitch.

This is the answer I came up with. Within football (and many other sports), it is a well understood concept that when you go for power you sacrifice accuracy. Therefore, actions that require more power, like long distance passes or shots, will be less accurate than their shorter counterparts. And so one of the things that sets the very best players at all levels apart from the rest, is how accurate they can be at or near to maximal effort during (but not exclusively so) passing and shooting skills. Now consider the well-known scientific fact that female athletes are physiologically weaker then men (at the same weight or performance category) in terms of strength & power, and then ask this female athlete to pass/shoot the ball over the same distance as a male athlete (over 30yrds). One can reasonably assume that they will strike the ball at a force closer to their maximum capacity than the male, therefore, more frequently sacrificing accuracy for the required power, and thus reducing their technical efficiency of those actions. So I ask again… Should female professional footballers play on a smaller pitch than men? Personally I am convinced the answer is yes, so much so that I may very well try to answer this question scientifically in my dissertation next academic year.

However, to increase the validity of my mindset, I asked several female football players of amateur and semi-professional level their opinion on the matter. Interestingly, they all disagreed, stating similar answers of it possibly being helpful at lower levels of the game but not making a difference at the elite level. I wonder if after reading my rational they would change their mind, not to mention what the opinion of a professional player would be? I had also asked a fellow S&C coach who works with professional female footballers for his view, and he claimed fascinatingly to have never considered it – but, that after doing so, could see its potential merits, while also adding the anecdotal statement that, some of the female players would ask him how come he seemed to be able to pass the ball over the same distance with less effort? Could it be that like my colleague and female players have just never looked at the technical aspects of their game in this way? Does this lack of foresight when standardising the women’s game reach the highest authorities in football? After all, there is precedent for such action. In golf, they scale down the women’s game, and in baseball the women use bats designed to generate more power. And thinking about it now, it seems very intuitive and surprising that I did not come to this conclusion sooner.

As an aside, this thought process did lead me to another idea… Should women’s football use goals that are the same size as the men’s? Watching matches, I noticed that perhaps the goalkeepers were unable to get across the goal as well as was needed? However this could be an irrelevant thought, as you could say that the reduced shot power that female players produce automatically scales down the goal keeper’s job, thus making the goal size a non issue. Plus, you also see many pre-teen male players at prestigious academies playing matches in full-sized goal, something I find very peculiar and counter-intuitive. This is highlighted when a player scores a free kick in the ‘top corner’ and the poor 5ft goal keeper is left helpless to stop it. What could that pre-teen goalkeeper be gaining from such an experience? Not much would be my answer, but that’s a discussion for another day.

In conclusion, this idea, though something I am passionate about because of my love for the female athlete (in particular the female the footballer), and my dream to see the women’s game become as prominent as the men’s, is still in its infancy. And as such is still some way off answering the multitude of questions that will spawn from it. For example; how much smaller should it be? How will that affect participation, spectatorship and sponsorship? All of the above will require much more thought, peer discussion and empirical research before any kind of true answer is found. I just hope that this piece has gotten your cerebral cogs turning and that my uniquely inquisitive brain was the catalyst for the finding of said answer. I eagerly await that warm fuzzy feeling called satisfaction.

By Alpha Maurice Cidade Cauwenbergh

Brief Analysis Of My 135kg Dead Lift

May 16, 2016May 16, 2016Leave a comment

*I meant clockwise

Safiya Showing Her Skills

May 15, 2016Leave a comment

My prodigy and client showing off some of her technical prowess. She’s been working a lot on the amount of maximal strength expressed during her power lifts this training cycle, and is obviously enjoying a little respite from it.

Next cycle in her periodized program will be targeting her capacity for power and speed! More videos of her working towards the Dubai Jubilee Games to come.