GMs

[anthrax]

A while back I had a discussion about GMs with an olympic lifter (who also tried powerlifting and BBing)

I told him that I don't like seated GMs and he replied that beside safety, seated GMs enable to use more weights, no cheating, and are in the end more efficient (unless you really have a perfect form and a strong core that enable you to take full advantage of the regular GMs)

What do you think?

On a side note, since I need to work my hams I'll do regular (standing) GMs

 

[BUBBLES]

what is GMs?

 

[anthrax]

what is GMs?

Good mornings (here)

You're in the Weight Training & Weight Lifting board baby

 

[blut wump]

I think that, in general, I'd prefer a standing movement to a seated one if nothing else to extend the 'kinetic chain' all the way to the ground and use more muscles. I've never tried seated GMs, though.

Bubbles, here's an example of a Good Morning
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Hamstrings/BBGoodMorning.html

Many do the exercise with bent rather than stiff legs and the guy in the animation is going a lttle too deep for my tastes. It's a good exercise for developing the posterior chain.


Edit:
Anthrax got the vid in while I was typing. They're the same link.

 

[BUBBLES]

ahh yes, i am familiar with them

when i used to do GMs at the gym my ex b/f was so jealous he used to make sarcastic remarks :mao:

 

[anthrax]

So you workout Bubbles?


As for the videos, blut wump, I agree with you
Moreover I like to keep my back arched and the barbell lower on the traps

I usually stop at around 30 degrees from parallel

 

[blut wump]

I like to go down to parallel but I use a lot of knee bend. I strongly agree on holding an arch with anythng more than trivial weights.

 

[Protobuilder]

I concur w/ Blut wump. It seems to me that seated GMs have a shorter ROM. Zatsiorsky talks about how during spinal flexion, the erectors are activated strongly until you reach like maybe the 30-45 degree angle, at which point the hams are more strongly activated. I can't think of very many reasons to limit the ROM, effectively "isolating" the erectors w/ seated GMs. Same problem as w/ any iso exercise, IMO. I could be wrong though . . .

 

[fortunatesun]

I'd say he's probably right about holding form, though I can't go quite as heavy on seated GMs as on standing.
On the other hand, when you go 'nose to the bench' you've changed the plane of your path enough to make it somewhat different exercise.
As you pointed out, being seated does take the weight off your hams. I believe alot of the emphasis shifts to your hip flexors. Mine are usually fairly beat up after seated GMs. Also, you haven't taken your hams entirely out of the picture as they still have to maintain a good deal of static tension.
For these reasons, I think seated GMs make a good change of pace exercise and use them occaisionally for assistance work, especially when my lower half is kind of doggin' it but still want to get some type of GM work in.

 

[Cynical Simian]

Agreed with blut wump and Protobuilder; until I saw this thread I didn't even know GMs were done seated. Any exercise will be less safe if somebody does it with poor form, relative core strength, or weight selection; if anything, standing GMs are a great way to help correct core and posterior chain problems.

 

[Introspective]

Also slightly bending the knees is good because it takes the emphasis off the hams and focus'es more on Lower Back.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Anything seated will put more harmful forces across the lumbar spine. Just ask McGill. He's the authority on lower backs. Although the Canadian thing's kind've a problem.

Standing would allow more weight as well. I don't think that guy knew what he was talking about. Unless he had some odd imbalance and could do more seated.

 

[bignate73]

Also slightly bending the knees is good because it takes the emphasis off the hams and focus'es more on Lower Back.

actually its the opposite. when you bend your knees you shift your hips back to let the glutes and hams take the brunt of the load.

 

[blut wump]

actually its the opposite. when you bend your knees you shift your hips back to let the glutes and hams take the brunt of the load.

Agreed

 

[silver_shadow]

seated and standing are a little different because of the lack of involvement of the hams in the first. i've never known oly lifters to do seated GMs... i'm guessing standing GMs are more useful for them.

 

[Introspective]

actually its the opposite. when you bend your knees you shift your hips back to let the glutes and hams take the brunt of the load.

I just quoted what it said on this site http://www.dolfzine.com/page547.htm

On that site it says... Take the hamstrings out of the equation by bending your knees slightly, like you're just starting to squat onto a high barstool.

 

[b fold the truth]

Every time I've done seated GM's...I've had lower spinal pain for several days afterwards.

 

[Illuminati]

I think that, in general, I'd prefer a standing movement to a seated one if nothing else to extend the 'kinetic chain' all the way to the ground and use more muscles. I've never tried seated GMs, though.

Bubbles, here's an example of a Good Morning
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Hamstrings/BBGoodMorning.html

Many do the exercise with bent rather than stiff legs and the guy in the animation is going a lttle too deep for my tastes. It's a good exercise for developing the posterior chain.


Edit:
Anthrax got the vid in while I was typing. They're the same link.

have you tried seated GM's? I used to feel them more. you still have to drive your legs into the ground (when seated) this will be felt in the hams.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Every time I've done seated GM's...I've had lower spinal pain for several days afterwards.

Huzzah!