Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
difference between sldls and rdls?
- Thread starter majutsu
- Start date
MsBeverlyHills
New member
Romanian deadlift
MsBeverlyHills
New member
gymtime said:
LOL!!! go to the sticky on Training Methods and Exercise Descriptions
bignate73
New member
rdl: the bar essentially drags down the leg to the point where you feel stretch in the hams. slight bend in the knee. you only go down as far as you can to keep the lower back arched.
sldl: legs may be fairly straight or slightly bent, but the ROM tends to be a little deeper. some even round the back a bit.
key difference is the amount of leg bend (more in a RDL), the back is arched. with RDL's ive seen the bar travel only to just above the knee and back up.
sldl: legs may be fairly straight or slightly bent, but the ROM tends to be a little deeper. some even round the back a bit.
key difference is the amount of leg bend (more in a RDL), the back is arched. with RDL's ive seen the bar travel only to just above the knee and back up.
D
Debaser
Guest
CoolColJ said:
Ditto.
RDL is more efficient, as well as safer. You could call it the "correct stiff-legged deadlift."
jackangel
New member
my hips definitely move back as i go down to the floor during a SLDL. i don't think i would maintain balance and an arch in my lower back if i didn't do that. my knees are either soft-locked or just slightly bent, and i bring the bar (using 45s) down to the floor.
i do my best to minimize the involvement of the lower back (erector spinae, is it?), because it gets hit hard enough on during deads, GMs, squats, etc...
is it really true that SLDL is inherently unsafe, no matter how its done? i love the exercise, and i hope the way i've described it is safe.
i do my best to minimize the involvement of the lower back (erector spinae, is it?), because it gets hit hard enough on during deads, GMs, squats, etc...
is it really true that SLDL is inherently unsafe, no matter how its done? i love the exercise, and i hope the way i've described it is safe.
supreme
New member
Bignate & coolcolJ are 100% correct.
The RDL is also much safer on the low back for the bend in the knee increase tension in the ITB thus allowing a force couple between the hams, glute max, spinal erectors and lower fibers of the lats. upto 80% of the fibers of the glute max insert in the ITB, if there is no tension in the band the glutes cannot aid in the lift and the majority of the work is done by the hams and and spinal erectors.
When the body reaches the critical point of lumbar flexion, approx 45 deg. the body switches from the muscular to the ligamentous system of the lumbar spine. If there is no support from the glutes there is a chance of overloading the spinal ligamnets and discs.
There is also a chance of hamstring injury,for the hamstrings attach to the lumbar fascia via the sacrotuberous ligamnet and if there is not proper tension of the TVA and glutes, the hamstrings are over recruited to aid in spinal stabilization while trying to perform hip extension - the hams get strained because they are over working. Of course any time the low back rounds and loses its natural curvature there is a chance of injury - but only if the load is heavy, for the ligaments can and do hypertrophy, in fact mathematical modeling by Gracovetsky shows that without the aid of the ligamentous system, Olympic lifters could not lift the weights they do. So it can actually be benefical for athletes and workers who do constant lumbar flexion / extension to train with light loads, higher reps with a "natural" spine i.e. they dont' hold a rigid lumbar lordosis - but the load must be light to avoid a sprained ligament.
So do RDL's - keep a tight lordosis with max loads, and a natural spine with lighter loads to gradually strengthen the ligaments.
S
The RDL is also much safer on the low back for the bend in the knee increase tension in the ITB thus allowing a force couple between the hams, glute max, spinal erectors and lower fibers of the lats. upto 80% of the fibers of the glute max insert in the ITB, if there is no tension in the band the glutes cannot aid in the lift and the majority of the work is done by the hams and and spinal erectors.
When the body reaches the critical point of lumbar flexion, approx 45 deg. the body switches from the muscular to the ligamentous system of the lumbar spine. If there is no support from the glutes there is a chance of overloading the spinal ligamnets and discs.
There is also a chance of hamstring injury,for the hamstrings attach to the lumbar fascia via the sacrotuberous ligamnet and if there is not proper tension of the TVA and glutes, the hamstrings are over recruited to aid in spinal stabilization while trying to perform hip extension - the hams get strained because they are over working. Of course any time the low back rounds and loses its natural curvature there is a chance of injury - but only if the load is heavy, for the ligaments can and do hypertrophy, in fact mathematical modeling by Gracovetsky shows that without the aid of the ligamentous system, Olympic lifters could not lift the weights they do. So it can actually be benefical for athletes and workers who do constant lumbar flexion / extension to train with light loads, higher reps with a "natural" spine i.e. they dont' hold a rigid lumbar lordosis - but the load must be light to avoid a sprained ligament.
So do RDL's - keep a tight lordosis with max loads, and a natural spine with lighter loads to gradually strengthen the ligaments.
S
supreme
New member
oh and if your flexibility improves to the point where the plates hit the floor (although doubtful with a true RDL) use smaller diameter plates or widen your grip. Don't do these off a bench; you could fall but more common is overreaching and rounding the low back for there is now no safety stop i.e. the floor
S
S
wend
New member
I was told to keep my back flat when I did SLDLs, and not to go any lower than I could with a flat back. (I get to about six inches from the floor.) I don't see how they're bad for the back, unless you round it (which wouldn't be proper form), or use weights that you're not ready for. I like the exercise, and I don't see why I should change just because some people do it wrong and hurt themselves. A lot of people say squatting is bad for the lower back, too, but it's not, if you do it right.
Similar threads
