Author Topic: abductors/adductors  (Read 773 times)

Offline Joe Brock

  • #1 Coach
  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +55/-7
  • THIS IS SPARTA!
    • View Profile
Re: abductors/adductors
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2011, 12:16:48 AM »
Are there any long-term advantages or disadvantages to either grip?

If the idea is to PClean, or to clean&jerk/clean&press, then yes, keeping the bar in a true "cleaned" position is vital.  For the Front Squat alone, I don't see an issue, as it's being used as a method to teach them to make a shelf with the front delts.  Many people feel some kind of need to use the arms and hands to lift if something is in the hands.  This can help to correct their urge to do so.
Joe; Always good to look for harder and harder skills. If you're ever the strongest person in the gym, go find a stronger gym.-Jim (from BeastSkills)
Posts are not to be mistaken for medical advice, good sense, or anything other than "under the bar" experience from an amateur powerlifter/coach.

Offline KC Parsons

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Karma: +78/-13
    • View Profile
    • Eat. Move. Improve.
Re: abductors/adductors
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2011, 08:12:36 AM »
I'm in the exact same situation as you, having to front squat instead of back.

My stance isn't significantly narrower in a front squat, so I get the same amount of adductor work.

However, if your stance is significantly narrower, you probably would lose some adductor work, since your femurs are more easily in position.

But why is your squat stance changing from front squats of back squats? Unless I'm wrong and my stance should be narrower. I was under the impression that the stance should be the same in both front and back squats.

your back should be more upright in a front squat, so you'll get less torque on the lower back but less hip activation. I though that was the most significant difference. that and using the upper back to keep the bar racked on the shoulders.

Practice up, boys.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qls96q4Phs4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qls96q4Phs4</a>

Also, front squats (done deep and properly) don't necessarily have less hip activation, mainly just less hamstring. They rely very, very heavily on the glutes to drive you out of the bottom but because of the back position, hamstrings aren't really in a position to help out as much. A very valid lift useful for many things.



Offline Scott Eustice

  • Patas
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: abductors/adductors
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2011, 08:49:21 AM »
Huh, you learn something new everyday. Maybe I'll add some hamstring work in if I need it. That has generally be the limiting factor of my deadlift.

I could never get any serious weight in a Stienborn lift. maybe I was just to scared or something. :-\ Do people actually train that as an alternative to a back squat? It seems like a fun variation, but wouldn't you be limited in the weight you could lift?

Offline KC Parsons

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Karma: +78/-13
    • View Profile
    • Eat. Move. Improve.
Re: abductors/adductors
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2011, 09:00:35 AM »
Huh, you learn something new everyday. Maybe I'll add some hamstring work in if I need it. That has generally be the limiting factor of my deadlift.

I could never get any serious weight in a Stienborn lift. maybe I was just to scared or something. :-\ Do people actually train that as an alternative to a back squat? It seems like a fun variation, but wouldn't you be limited in the weight you could lift?

haha I probalby should have verified. use the Steinborn lift as a method to get the bar on your back to then do your back squats. That's what it's used for, that video was just a demonstration of the lift itself.