Stronger by Science

The online home for thinking lifters

By

Should you Deadlift Conventional or Sumo?

CONVENTIONAL VS. SUMO

What You’re Getting Yourself Into:

1,900 words, 6-13 minute read time

Key Points:

  1. Your hip structure will impact your strength and comfort in the conventional and sumo deadlift much more than factors like height and limb lengths.
  2. There are no factors that make either the conventional or the sumo deadlift inherently easier or harder.  It’s more a matter of individual strengths and weaknesses.
  3. Hip extension demands are nearly identical between the conventional and sumo deadlifts.  Conventional pulls are a little easier on your quads, and sumo pulls are a little easier on your back.
  4. To determine which deadlift style will be best for you, just train both of them for a few months, and stick with the one that’s the strongest and most comfortable with submaximal loads.  If that style is weaker with maximal loads, then it’s easy to identify the specific weakness that’s holding you back.

 

At least once per week, I get a question along the lines of “given my build (insert height, arm length, inseam length, etc., here), would I be better off deadlifting conventional or sumo?”

I addressed most of the common deadlifting questions I get in this article, but this is a question I still get pretty frequently that I haven’t addressed yet.

My response is always a variation of, “train both hard for a while, then stick with whichever is strongest and most comfortable.”

Sometimes, I fear, this comes across as a dismissive answer.  However, it’s actually the best one because, quite frankly, there’s no surefire way to determine which deadlifting style will be best for you. And if there was, it would likely be based on an x-ray of your hips, not arm and leg measurements.

The Key Determinant – Hip Structure

Whether you’re stronger in straight-ahead hip flexion (favoring the conventional deadlift) or hip flexion with hip abduction (favoring the sumo deadlift) depends, in large part, on your hip structure.  I’ll spare you the technical anatomical terms, but in simple terms, pelvises come in all shapes and sizes, hip sockets can be located farther forward or farther back on a pelvis, those hip sockets can be shallower or deeper, the angle of the femur where it meets the pelvis can vary, and there’s also some variation in how rotated the femur is where it meets the pelvis.

Those five distinct variables will determine both the range of motion your hips can go through, and the amount of muscular tension you can develop in different hip positions.

Just to illustrate one of those factors, this shows the variation in the angle of femoral neck relative to the shaft of the femur:

09_angles_of_inclination_(edit)1311818202628

Image 1 shows what a “normal” angle of inclination looks like.  Image 2 shows a coxa vara hip, and image 3 shows a coxa valga hips.

Person 2 will almost certainly need to deadlift conventional (especially if they have deep hip sockets), and they’ll probably squat with a pretty narrow stance as well.  With too much hip abduction, the top of their femur will be encroaching upon the pelvis itself.

Person 3 probably has no issues doing splits, and they may be better off pulling sumo.  With more hip abduction, they may be able to get more tension on their adductors (specifically the adductor magnus) to aid in hip extension.

(If this is a topic that interests you, I’d strongly recommend this series – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.  Dean Somerset has done such a thorough job delving into these distances, I can’t really think of a way to improve upon it; delving into all the specific differences isn’t too relevant for our purposes here anyways.)

Does Range of Motion Matter?

Some people have the idea that sumo deadlifts should be easier because they allow for a shorter range of motion.

Does that notion hold any water?

No, not really.

It IS true that sumo deadlifts allow for a shorter range of motion.  Escamilla found (or at least validated – it’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s minimally observant) that a sumo deadlift has a ~20-25% shorter range of motion than a conventional deadlift.

However, the difference in range of motion doesn’t really matter.  Yes, it DOES mean that a conventional deadlifter needs to do 20-25% more mechanical work to complete a lift, but:

  1. Most maximal deadlifts take 5 seconds or less to complete.  Even the grindiest deadlift is usually locked out within 10 seconds.  Your muscles have enough stored ATP and phosphocreatine to ensure that maximal outputs lasting shorter than 8-10 seconds won’t be limited by energy production.  The difference in mechanical work would likely make a difference in a deadlift-for-reps challenge, but not when talking about a 1rm attempt.  In other words, stance width influences the ability to, say, deadlift 405 for 40 reps in under a minute, but not necessarily the maximum amount of weight someone can lift (in a general sense, though one variation will likely be stronger for you than the other).
  2. It’s important to keep in mind that you don’t miss a lift because you were too weak through the entire range of motion.  You miss a lift because you were too weak through your very weakest part of the movement.  In other words, the critical range of motion that determines whether you make or miss a lift is similarly tiny for a lift with a long range of motion, and a lift with a short range of motion.
You miss a lift because you were too weak through your very weakest part of the movement. Click To Tweet

It’s worth mentioning that the only two 1,000lb. deadlifters both pull conventional, and the majority of the 900+lb. deadlifts performed thus far have been conventional deadlifts, so even if a shorter range of motion does offer a slight advantage, it hasn’t manifested itself at the very top levels.

Don’t sumo deadlifts require less hip extension torque?

I’ve seen another notion floating around that sumo deadlifts are easier than conventional deadlifts because there’s a major difference in hip extension torque required to lift the weight.  That idea is supported by pictures like this:

Image source: http://www.powerliftingtowin.com/powerlifting-technique-deadlift-form/ I'm not intentionally picking on Izzy here. Other than this one issue, the article it came from was very good overall. This was just the best picture I could find to illustrate this point.
Image source: http://www.powerliftingtowin.com/powerlifting-technique-deadlift-form/
I’m not intentionally picking on Izzy here. Other than this one issue, the article it came from was very good. This was just the best picture I could find to illustrate this point.

Now, this is an idea that makes intuitive sense if you combine physics 101 with biomechanics 101.  Hip extension is (classically) defined as a movement in the sagittal (front-to-back) plane, and torque is equal to moment arm multiplied by the load applied.  So, with a sumo deadlift, since the hip moment arm (the horizontal distance between your hips and the bar) is shorter, it requires less hip extension torque to lift the weight, right?

Not exactly.

What you learned in biomechanics 101 doesn’t necessarily apply here.  Hip extension occurs in three dimensions.  When the hips are externally rotated, that means hip extension occurs in both the sagittal (front-to-back) plane and the frontal (left-to-right) planes.

It’s helpful to think about it one leg at a time.  No matter how much the hip is abducted and externally rotated, the length of the moment arm is essentially unaffected, so it’s going to take just as much torque to extend the hip.

The black ball is the hip, the line coming off it is the femur, the skinny black line is the bar, and the red line is the moment arm.
The black ball is the hip, the line coming off it is the femur, the skinny black line is the bar, and the red line is the moment arm.

You can see the same principle in action below.  Additionally, you can also see how bad I am at trying to draw in three dimensions using MS Paint.

The side view would be dead-on from the side for the narrow stance, and from beside and slightly behind for the wide stance (it’s a side view of the leg, not necessarily of the body). Taking depth into account, all of the red lines are the same length in three dimensions, and the moment arm is unaffected. For the narrow stance, most of that length is in the sagittal plane, and for the wide stance, it’s partially in the sagittal plane and partially in the frontal plane.

So, when you take into account that hip extension occurs in three dimensions and not just in the sagittal (front-to-back) plane, it becomes clear that stance width doesn’t affect hip extension demands in any meaningful way.  Or, put another way, hip extension takes place in the sagittal plane relative to the femur – not necessarily the sagittal plane relative to the torso.  Here’s a top view to illustrate:

rVjwVkBHRjmdIaViC2T7f5JgUfulP6biAyMTRvBi030

Hip extension demands are nearly identical between the conventional and sumo deadlifts. Click To Tweet

This was also what Escamilla found when he compared the sumo and conventional deadlift, and also the values derived from two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses.  When comparing the conventional and sumo deadlifts, at no point in the movement was there a significant difference in hip extension demands (he looked at the point when the bar broke the ground, when the bar passed the knees, and the top of the lift).  In another study, EMG readings for the glutes and hamstrings were the same for both deadlift styles, validating this idea.  Escamilla also compared 2D and 3D analyses and found that, as expected, 2D analysis significantly skewed the results for the sumo deadlift.  If you really want to dig into this particular subject in more detail, my friend Andrew Vigotsky wrote a great article about calculating joint moments in three dimensions here.  I also need to give him props, because he was the person who made me aware of this issue.

So what ARE the differences?

When looking at the demands of the sumo and conventional deadlift, there are only two major differences.

  1. Sumo deadlifts are harder on your quads.  When the bar broke the ground, knee moment was approximately 3x higher for sumo deadlifts than conventional deadlifts.  This was also reflected in another deadlift study Escamilla did, looking at EMG data.  EMG readings for the quads (vastus lateralis and medialis) were higher in the sumo deadlift than the conventional deadlift.
  2. Conventional deadlifts are harder on your spinal erectors off the floor.  Data from Cholewicki shows that spinal extension demands are approximately 10% higher in the conventional deadlift.  Since the torso is inclined farther forward at the start of the lift, it’ll take a harder contraction of the spinal erectors to keep the back extended as the bar breaks off the floor.

How do you know whether you’re meant to pull conventional or sumo?

Try both out for yourself!

Train both variations equally for a few months.  Then, go with the one that feels the strongest and most comfortable with submaximal (around 70-80% of your 1rm) loads.

Generally, this will be the same variation that allows you to lift the heaviest maximal loads as well.  However, if you pull less weight right now utilizing the variation that feels the strongest and most comfortable with submaximal loads, odds are that it will catch up once you spend a little more time addressing your weaknesses.

It’s not too hard to figure out what the weaknesses are, either.  If your conventional deadlift feels better with submaximal loads, but your sumo max is higher, then odds are that your back is weak.  Conversely, if your sumo feels better with submaximal loads, but your conventional max is higher, then odds are that your quads are weak.

In the same manner, if both feel decent, the lagging lift lets you know where your biggest weakness is as well.  If your sumo pull is significantly higher, then your back probably needs more work, and if your conventional pull is significantly higher, then your quads probably need more work.

Now, in general, lighter lifters and female lifters tend to do better with sumo, likely due to back/torso weakness: Larger people with thicker torsos, in general have an easier time keeping their back extended when pulling conventional.

The exact numbers change over time, but in general, about 2/3 of female lifters and males under 100kg pull sumo, and about 2/3 of male lifters over 100kg deadlift conventional.  Nowadays, sumo is exceptionally popular.  In the late ’90s, on the other hand (at the national meet where Escamilla gathered his data), 70% of the lifters deadlifted conventional, including 85% of the lifters above 83kg, and 55% of the lifters below 83kg.

However, don’t just pick one variation over another because of your sex, size, or build.  The shift in popularity over time is, I believe, reflective of changes in popular training styles.  Heavy, frequent back work was popular in the 90s, including higher deadlift volumes, and a steady diet of rows, good mornings, and back raises.  They likely had stronger backs as a group, and consequently they largely preferred the conventional deadlift.  Nowadays, more frequent, higher volume squatting and relatively less direct posterior chain training mean current lifters have stronger quads as a group, so they prefer the sumo deadlift.

Give them both a shot.  Neither variation is inherently easier or harder than the other, and hip extension demands are virtually identical; however, one or the other will likely be noticeably stronger for you in the long run, based largely on your personal hip structure, which determines the range of motion your hips can go through comfortably, and the tension on the muscles around your hip at varying degrees of flexion, abduction, and external rotation.

Neither variation of the deadlift is inherently easier than the other. Click To Tweet

If the variation that feels strongest now isn’t the one that actually lets you pull more weight at the moment, take some time to address the most likely weakness (back strength for conventional, and quad strength for sumo) and you’ll probably find that it grows by leaps and bounds.

Share this on Facebook and join in the conversation

• • •

Next: Everything You Think Is Wrong With Your Deadlift Is Probably Right →
Video: Using Rack Deadlifts for Powerlifting →

Comments

  1. Hi Greg,

    Do you feel that one variation of the deadlift is superior to the other in terms of overall muscular and strength development in the long term, or is it just a case of the strength being (and obviously muscle) developed in different places?

    Reply

  2. Excellent article, Greg. Some points…

    1) I like that you didn’t just leave it as, “just try both,” as well as not saying, “if you’re x, then do sumo; if you’re y then do conventional.” This way, you are acknowledging the nuances of each style without prescribing a rigid set of hard and fast rules.

    2) Thus far, you’re one of the only fitness sites (that I know of) that points out the 3-Dimensionality (not a word…) of hip extension of the sumo deadlift. Many times, people, especially the ones who have a hard time pulling sumo, are cueing the deadlift strictly from a frontal plane, without realizing that they should think of extending their hips in a sagittal plane.

    Chris Duffin alludes to this in his video about “why” the “knees out” cue is useful, in that keeping your knees out really helps a lifter think of the sumo pull as a frontal and sagittal movement.

    3) Something that was not mentioned (rightly so, otherwise this article would’ve been really long), is that all strongmen are required to pull conventional in their events due to the rules of the sport. Many people like to use strongmen as an example of why conventional is better due to the fact that these 400 lbs. men pull 900+ lbs.

    But if you look at Brian Shaw and Big Z’s wider-than-normal conventional stances, it shows that their hips pull better with quite a bit of abduction. I’m not definitively saying that they’d pull better sumo, but they still utilize hip extension in both a frontal sagittal plane even in the conventional stance. This may indicate that they might be better at pulling semi-sumo if rules permitted.

    4) Conversely, some use strongmen to advocate for sumo due to their semi-sumo stances when picking up objects from the ground such as atlas stones. But this is a bad argument because, sometimes, the shape of the object itself is a bigger determinant of the pulling style rather than your personal leverages. Why would you not put your hands in between your legs on an object that can be pulled closer to your center of gravity? It would be awkward to try to pick up at atlas stone conventionally. Or trying to sumo deadlift a trap bar.

    5) For me, as someone who is 95kg, my back is always weaker than my quads. I squat enough to where my quads aren’t a problem. Therefore, for general strength, conventional is better for my weak back. Even if I pick up couches with a semi-sumo stance, I’ve never thought, “man, my quads are weak.”

    Conventional for gaining strength, sumo for picking up max weight (for me, can’t be emphasized enough).

    Thanks for all that you do!

    Reply

  3. Hi Greg,

    Fourth year Kinesiology student at UW here.
    I wanted to ask you something regarding what you said about the pelvis morphology and how it will determine stance width.

    “Person 2 will almost certainly need to deadlift conventional (especially if they have deep hip sockets), and they’ll probably squat with a pretty narrow stance as well. With too much hip abduction, the top of their femur will be encroaching upon the pelvis itself.”

    As far as I know, the opposite is true. With a deeper acetabulum, the femur will be more medial. This will cause a greater bunching up of tissue. Often times you’ll see people with this pelvic morphology to have a posterior pelvic tilt (butt wink) as they approach parallel in their squats. This is because once the amount of flexion stops due to the ilium getting in the way, so to create more morion, they butt wink to go deeper.
    This can be compensated for by widening the stance, and externally rotating the femur to avoid the pelvic impingement.
    This carries over into the deadlift as the mechanics are similar.

    I wanted to know your thoughts on this, and would like to see you either defend your initial statement, or amend it based on my comment.

    Thanks!

    Reply

    • Depends where the encroachment is happening. If it’s a matter of, say, hip flexors getting pinched in front of the hip, then absolutely. If it’s a matter of the femoral neck encroaching on the top of the acetabulum, then the opposite is true.

      Reply

  4. I could have it wrong but I have a better one rep max sumo than conventional, however if I stop doing conventional all together (especially in off season) my sumo seems to stall sometimes even go backwards !

    Reply

  7. You demonstration of torque is incorrect.

    The moment arm isn’t simply the line from the hip to the bar inline with the femur.
    But the moment arm is a line perpendicular to the force of gravity with the distance from the hip
    to the gravity center of the bar, which is directly in the middle of the bar.

    Imagine lifting a bar to shoulder height with locked elbows and a snatch grip, compared to lifting the
    same bar with a close grip and locked out elbows. Of course the least is going to be way harder because
    the torque is more then doubled.

    Reply

    • If that’s the analogy you want to go with, then the more accurate comparison would be lifting a bar with varying grip widths while keeping your forearms perpendicular to the ground, which is essentially what’s going on with your tibias in the deadlift.

      Let’s just deal with the hamstrings and glutes for a moment. The glutes insert (essentially) on the back of the femur, and the hamstrings insert at the back of the knee. They pull in whatever direction the back of the femur and the back of the knee are facing.

      If the back of the femur and back of the knee are facing essentially straight back (as in the conventional deadlift) then the action of the hamstrings and glutes causes hip extension almost entirely in the sagittal plane relative to the torso, and entirely in the sagittal plane relative to the femur.

      If the back of the femur and back of the knee are facing more toward the midline of the body (as in the sumo deadlift) the the action of the hamstrings and glutes pull the distal end of the femur back toward the midline of the body, which is movement in both the sagittal and frontal planes relative to the torso, and still only in the sagittal plane relative to the femur.

      In both cases, the length of the segment (the femur) they’re acting upon is the same, and the center of gravity for the bar is just in front of the end of that segment, so hip extension torque is essentially unchanged.

      If that doesn’t make sense right now, I’d highly recommend Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th ed. by Winter to delve deeper into this subject.

      Reply

  8. Hey gregg.I still cant decide whetever I should pull sumo or conventional.Ive been pulling conventional for quite a while and wanted to try sumo and decide whichever one im better built for and stick with it.I have long arms so I have good built for deadlift and I have strong harmstrings and erectors but weak quads (which also proves the fact that there is a huge gap between my squat and deadlift) but ironically I tend to miss lockouts on conventional.Based on this it seems that I would be better off with conventional but all good lighter deadlifters I know (including some record holders) pull sumo and I am a lighter lifter.Should I stick with conventional despite this or should I focus on getting stronger quads and move to sumo?Ive been training sumo for couple of months and it still feels awkward and hard.

    Reply

  9. I always learn a lot from your contributions, and I completely agree with your main point that individuals need to train both pulling styles to really figure out which works best for them. However, you’re also trying to combat the notion that one style is easier or more difficult than the other, and I don’t find that rationale is as convincing, though I fully concede that I’m not as experienced under the bar or as well-read as you.

    A 20-25% difference in mechanical work seems like a pretty big deal, and the two caveats you point out don’t seem to sufficiently negate that. Both pulling styles may be fast enough that they don’t deplete my muscles’ biochemical energy stores, but I imagine there are other variables that affect my subjective perception of the difficulty of a lift. I also think your reasoning is flawed when you suggest that since failure occurs at the weakest point in a lift, both pulling styles have comparably tiny critical ranges of motion. Won’t a movement with a longer range of motion have a greater number of potential weak points? A 2-mile bridge and a 200-yard bridge might both fail within a similarly tiny range of their total length, but that doesn’t mean the 2-mile bridge had a lot more area susceptible to failure. Finally, it sounds like you’re situating both arguments in the context of a 1RM, leading me to think that the cumulative effect that a 20-25% difference in mechanical work would have over weeks or months of training is even more significant.

    You do mention that the heaviest pulls have been done with a conventional pulling style, but I’ll chalk that up to other factors that supersede the mechanical advantage of the sumo.

    Reply

    • “I imagine there are other variables that affect my subjective perception of the difficulty of a lift.”

      Your subjective perception. Sure, it varies person to person, but that doesn’t mean that either one is easier or harder (objectively or subjectively) in a general sense.

      “Won’t a movement with a longer range of motion have a greater number of potential weak points?”

      No, not really. Going back to Escamilla’s data (on high level PLers at a national championship), there were no significant (or even meaningful, nonsignificant) differences between minimum bar velocity, bar height at minimum bar velocity, or time spent in either deceleration phase. Again, individuals may run into all sorts of issues, but there’s no data suggesting either is inherently easier or harder in a general sense.

      “it sounds like you’re situating both arguments in the context of a 1RM, leading me to think that the cumulative effect that a 20-25% difference in mechanical work would have over weeks or months of training is even more significant.”

      That’s assuming that work isn’t naturally (roughly) equated, and I think it generally is. Anecdotally, conventional dead lifters don’t tend to be able to handle as much volume as sumo dead lifters and tend to fatigue more easily – potentially because they are doing 20-25% more mechanical work per rep. In my experience, that’s something that tends to work itself out naturally; more work per rep conventional, and more total reps sumo.

      Reply

  10. Hi Greg,

    Thanks for the article, this might be a stupid question, but as far as training both conventional and sumo are concerned, how do you work it into your program?

    Do you run a training cycle with conventional deadlifts and then run your next cycle with sumo?

    I’m currently a huge fan of the “Average to Savage” program but am wondering how to work Sumo deadlifts into the program given that I’ve never pulled Sumo in my life.

    Thanks for your help!

    Reply

  11. Is it ONLY the smart people that have read 1,000 articles about training the ones that like to have your wisdom poured over them like Crystale…or is it more that they just want your wisdom to fill their almost-full intellectual chalice? 😉 It always baffles me that the people who frequent these sites on quests for knowledge seem to already have expert-level wisdom “intereth in their bones.” It would be nice for once to see someone say “Thank you for the article!” and leave it at that, instead of eluding to their genius and stroking their smart boners. I love you Greg. You do God’s work. Thank you for making us stronger, smarter Sayans ????

    Reply

  12. I want to print this off, cut all the individual words out, dump them all on my floor, and roll around in them while feverishly giggling.

    Reply

  14. Hey Greg, thanks for another great article.
    I’d like to ask a couple quick questions please.
    1- If conventional is harder on spinal erectors, can I assume that with a history of slipped discs, sumo would be safer for me?
    2- Deadlifts are the only hamstring work that I do. You note that sumo is “harder” on the quads. Can I assume that they are still sufficiently hamstring dominant to balance off the squat, from a perspective of balanced musculature development?
    Thanks!

    Reply

    • 1) in all likelihood, yes, but that’s a question to ask a physical therapist.

      2) yep! Since hip extension demands are the same, and hamstrings and glute EMG are the same, they should give a similar stimulus to your hamstrings, although you’d still probably be better off adding some RDLs and/or leg curls.

      Reply

  15. Hey Greg. I’m a relatively new lifter (about a year of weight training) and even newer to the powerlifting mentality (closer to six months).

    Regarding the deadlift I have shorter arms and longer legs/torso. However, my conventional and sumo pulls are relatively even in terms of strength at almost all rep ranges. I find myself enjoying both styles and comfortable with both. However, my weakness usually comes at higher weights in the form of back rounding and this is present in both sumo and conventional styles (usually more prevalent in conventional). My back does begin rounding sooner when I pull conventional (around 275lbs conventional vs 300 sumo).

    I am tall and thin currently (around 6 ft 170 lbs). I feel as though my quads are strong (275 squat, 325 deadlift), so I do not understand the similar capabilities of my conventional and sumo pulls. I believe my upper back may be weak which leads to my back rounding and putting more stress on my lower back. What would you recommend for developing more strength and fixing my back rounding as well as which style I should focus on?

    Reply

    • The net effect is the same. There’s no femoral neck either, or markings on it to indicate degree of rotation, if you’re being picky. I find people get bogged down if you go into too much detail, though, so I often disregard it if it doesn’t change the point (as in this case).

      Reply

  18. Hey Lord Nuckols,

    I am a master student at RWTH Aachen in Germany and I major in mechanical engineering.
    Sry for my English but I try to explain my point.

    Your explanation of the hip extension torque is wrong. You mixed up a torque and the sum of torques. Let me explain this to you:
    When you want to calculate a torque at a certain point, you need a force and a lever arm. The torque and the lever arm have to be rectangular to each other. If this is not the case, you need to change your lever arm. This is really a MUST.

    So, let us make a simple example in statics (when you do it in dynamics you have inertia torque and so on), for example: You make a paused dl and you stop right after the weight left the floor so the joint angles have changed negligible. If you want to calc the torque from the weight force at the hip, you have to choose your lever arm at the center of gravity of the bar to your hips. The center of gravity is right in the middle of the bar. The lever arm has to be in a rectangular position to the force in the center of the bar like it is in your green version. This is the right lever arm for THIS torque.

    Now, what happens if there is only this torque: You would fall over the bar! So there has to be another torque which compensates the torque of the bar. In statics it is applied that the sums of the torque in one rotational direction has to be 0.
    So let’s sum up the torques at the hip:
    1. The torque of the bar
    2. The torque from the ground to your body
    Every force produces a counterforce of the same value in the opposite direction. So the same force the bar has (when you lift hold it in a static position) is “produced” by the ground to your body (let’s say your body is without mass ;))
    This torque has its lever arm from your hip to the center of gravity of your foot (can be also more/less than you femur length if you shank is not vertical to the ground). Now it is getting serious (:D): If you want to sum up the torque from the bar and the torque from the ground without considering the rotation direction, you make a real mistake. The sum of torques can only be formed in the SAME rotation direction. You have two possibilities to do that: You can form a sum of torques for every coordinate or you can write it with vectors – it’s the same but the first one is more within reach.
    When you sum up the torques you have to sum up the right ones. The torques in the rotation direction from the bar is the 1st one and the 2nd one multiplied with sin(angle between the femur the bar). Then you compare the right directions. If you multiply the lever arm from the 2. torque and the sin(….) you get the length from your hip to the center of gravity of your foot in the direction of the lever arm of the 1. torque. So they have nearly the same length. So if you sum them up (with different signs (+/-)) and equal this sum to 0 you have nearly the same torques!
    If you want to compare the absolute value of torques referred to the hip I will explain this to you as well.

    If you read this I would be very pleased if you answer. Maybe you understand my point.

    All in all I like your articles very much – keep on doing so ????

    Greetings from Germany
    Friedrich

    Reply

    • I understand your point, but I doubt too many of my readers would, so I gave the drastically simplified version of the explanation so people without a background in physics or biomechanics could grasp the basic concept. When you actually do all the calculations (as Escamilla did), the outcome is the basically the same.

      Reply

  20. Greg, I’m struggling with something here.

    It’s the torso angle. Doesn’t an increased torso angle (conventional) increase the demands on the hips, and not just the isometrically bracing low back? Isn’t this why RDLs, good mornings, etc. are great hip extension exercises, because bending over more increases the hip extension demands?

    If hip extension demands are the same for Sumo vs Conventional, does this mean that they are also the same for RDL, SLDL, and semi-sumo? Basically any way you line up to lift something off the ground = same net hip extension?

    I get what you are saying about the hips extending in 3-D, and how externally rotating the hips doesn’t change the length of the femur. But even as the femurs stay the same length crossing planes of movement, the degree of torso angle still changes, sometimes dramatically. The hips are acting on the femur AND the torso, right? And the torso is only extending in the sagittal plane.

    In theory, you could stiff leg your pulls, and commence the lift with the hips already full extended at bar level, and then only erect the torso. Same hip extension requirement as Ed Coan’s semi-sumo style? Every style of pull?

    Forgive me if you answered this in the piece, and I’m too dense to see it. I’ve read it like three times now. Fine work, Greg, I’m just having a hard time reconciling some of the premises.

    Reply

    • That’s a really good question.

      We associate a steeper back angle with higher hip extension demands because exercises with higher hip extension demands tend to have steeper back angles, but the back angle isn’t necessarily the causative factor. Here’s a good example: http://gregnuckols.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bryanton-hips.png This is hip extension demands at different knee angles in the squat. Look how, at 90% loads, hip extension demands are the same from full depth all the way until the knees are almost extended (60-74 degrees of knee flexion is way above parallel). Their back angle was surely deeper at the bottom of the squat than it was that far above parallel, but the distance of their hips behind the bar (we’ll just assume constant abduction/external rotation for now) didn’t change to any meaningful degree, so hip extension demands were basically identical.

      Now, one more thing to note about RDLs and GMs is that you CAN actually get your hips a bit further behind the bar with them than would would in a squat or deadlift (of any style).

      Also, the reason things like RDLs and GMs are good accessory exercises is that they allow for a longer ROM for the hamstrings and glutes, and longer ROM (not necessarily how how far the bar moves, but the range of angles a particular joint goes though – in the case of the SLDL vs. the deadlift, the ROM for the bar is the same, but the hips start in much greater hip flexion for the SLDL so the ROM for the hamstrings and glutes is greater) generally means a greater training effect.

      Reply

  21. Greg, thank for the reply. I’m not sure I’m on board with this premise:

    “Their back angle was surely deeper at the bottom of the squat than it was that far above parallel, but the distance of their hips behind the bar (we’ll just assume constant abduction/external rotation for now) didn’t change to any meaningful degree, so hip extension demands were basically identical.”

    Often during heavy ass squats, upon firing out of the hole, the torso can, will, and does lean forwards as the hips rise, pushing the hips further back behind the bar, creating a “squat morning” effect. You wrote something up on this once, I think, and posited that this is due to maxing out the quad, and then turning to the hips to finish the job. (This premise I’m on board 100%, which basically illustrates the root of my confusion on this issue: When we want or need to use the hips, we lean forwards more.)

    Personally, I will sit rock bottom with 90% SQ, with a pretty extended spine, and then fire out of the hole, max out my quads, and then finish the lift with a good old fashioned, heavy ass squat morning. A cursory review of the California Strength crew, (upright OLY style squatters) finds that when they test maxes on BSQ, many of them end up in that same, “hip dominant” SQ morning position when the load gets heavy enough.

    Further, when we look at the relationship between the SLDL to the CDL, does it not parallel the relationship between the CDL and the Sumo DL? On a continuum then, we are trading some torso angle for some knee flexion. Carry it to the next level, and swap out for a trap bar, and now we are trading even more torso angle for more knee flexion. (Some sumo squat so upright, that they may as well have moved the center gravity to the midline of the body, it seems, ha ha!)

    Anyway, Greg, I have no dog in this fight, to me it’s arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, but I’m just having a hard time accepting some of the building block logical steps here.

    Be well, my friend. DB

    Reply

    • This is a pretty good illustration, from Chad Smith squatting 655:
      Hole: https://www.dropbox.com/s/peqqzzfwgea3id8/Screenshot%202015-10-28%2010.19.06.png?dl=0
      Above Parallel: https://www.dropbox.com/s/888nyhujnjcmok7/Screenshot%202015-10-28%2010.19.17.png?dl=0
      Well above Parallel: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zuw3q4n19wlrkye/Screenshot%202015-10-28%2010.19.28.png?dl=0

      During a max effort squat, the hips may be (will probably be) a bit farther back in the second position, but positions 1 and 3 will probably look pretty similar and (this is just my hunch), I doubt the difference in the second position would be more than a 10% difference at most.

      “Further, when we look at the relationship between the SLDL to the CDL, does it not parallel the relationship between the CDL and the Sumo DL?”

      No, I don’t think so. The center of mass will be (essentially – your knees can start a bit in front of the bar, but that’ll change pretty soon after the bar breaks the floor) in front of the knee and at the end of the femur regardless. If anything, I’d expect the hip extension demands for sumo to be slightly higher since the hips generally start a little bit lower (so the femur is closer to parallel to the ground, and thus a bit “longer” front-to-back in a plane parallel to the floor).

      Trading torso angle for knee flexion really only applies in the context of comparing lifts with the same amount of abduction. So you can draw a parallel between a SLDL and a conventional deadlift, or you could draw a parallel between sumo deadlifts and wide stance good mornings, but when you introduce a third variable into the mix (abduction) it’s not just a tradeoff between back angle and knee angle.

      Reply

      • OK, great points, Greg! I’m coming around a bit here. 🙂

        1. I think that if the SDL has similar hip extension demands to a CDL, it may be partially due to the fact that the SDL forces you to find traction at the hip ROM midpoint, rather than from a more favorable stretched position. Particularly for a dead lift, (literally), this is very tough way to generate force, and get things moving. So especially if you are gauging hip extension demands by EMG, this is going to read very, very high.

        Theory: Mechanical tension nod to sumo, Stretch tension to CDL.

        2. RE: Hips distance to bar in parallel plane.

        Says Greg: “If anything, I’d expect the hip extension demands for sumo to be slightly higher since the hips generally start a little bit lower (so the femur is closer to parallel to the ground, and thus a bit “longer” front-to-back in a plane parallel to the floor).”

        This again leaves out the more vertical torso angle hip extension “savings”.

        Hips move up reducing parallel plane FEMUR length and ROM; torso must move forward and horizontal, thus increasing TORSO lever length and ROM.

        Hips move down increasing parallel plane FEMUR length; torso moves back and vertical, DECREASING TORSO lever arm and ROM.

        Aren’t we just moving the leverage from below the pelvis to above the pelvis, and back and forth?
        Is it a zero sum game? These questions are above my paygrade, ha ha!

        Consider a reverse hyper vs. a back extension. Both are hip extension exercises, fixing one side, moving the other. You can max one side or the other, but if we strapped you down into a hybrid, dual reverse hyper/back extension apparatus, you are not going to get your max on both sides at once.

        (logs off. head explodes.)

        Reply

        • How about this. Let’s imagine someone can deadlift with a perfectly vertical torso. Their legs are each abducted 90 degrees. I think that with this person we’d see an extension of the same principle we see when comparing the sumo and conventional deadlift – same hip extension demands, higher knee extension demands, and lower spinal extension demands than both the conventional or sumo deadlift. Do you agree? And if not, why not?

          Reply

          • Oh man. You are good! OK, good sir, as I see it; and I am seriously and humbly open to being wrong here:

            No way.

            No way are we talking about the same hip extension demands in this plie, perfectly vertical torso style pull that you describe.

            We have now turned the lift into an ultra wide stance FSQ with the bar in our hands. Take it further, almost more of a Smith machine FSQ, on a vertical line. I do not agree that a perfectly vertical torso on a FREE WEIGHT lift can match the hip extension demands of a free weight lift that involves bending over.

            It is now a squat, and if it involves the same hip extension demands as a DL, then we all just need to be doing FSQ’s for the entire leg, and then just finish up with some Supermans for low back. (Heck, maybe this is so…I’m open minded, but I can’t see it.)

            Let’s back up a bit.

            Every compound lower body lift is going to have some mixture of hip extension and knee extension, parceled out in some ratio.

            For example, what Bret Contreras did was find a barbell variation that moved most of the load and leverage to the glutes, but there is still a quad component to a hip thrust, there is still a hamstring component. Move the feet out and the hamstrings work harder, as you pull the floor towards you. Move the feet up, ala the old Skorcher apparatus, and the hamstrings work harder, as you pull the footpad down with your heels. Move the feet in, and the quads work harder, as you push the floor away. In theory, a QUADZILLA could do a barbell hip thrust as a closed chain knee extension, and simply compress the body off the ground using knee extension.

            What does this illustrate? Again, that every compound lower body lift, from FSQ to SLDL, and all points in between, is going to have some mixture of hip extension and knee extension, parceled out in some ratio. We coordinate and manipulate our body position in space to try and use one more muscle group more to perform the work, this one a little less, etc.

            What you and I are dancing around is how the hip extension component gets measured.

            I am suggesting that we must account for both the femur extending back, (closed chain, this action reverses and equals hip/femur traveling forwards, as the end of the femur chain is locked against the floor), AND the torso extending back (as is, torso moves in open space).

            G-Nucks plie DL: You have reduced the torso movement to zero. With no ability to lean forwards to grab the bar, you have only one option, and that is to flex the knees to close the distance. You have shifted the load predominantly to the knee joint, the quads. You are doing a wide stance, pure squat now.

            Thoughts?

            Coming up in next week’s episode, I’ll explain why Lombard’s paradox is an incomplete theory, and why the hamstring is not antagonistic to the quads on a squat, but rather synergistic. (Now, I’ve simply gone too far. I must be stopped! Ha ha!)

          • Funny you should bring up Lombard’s Paradox. I’m actually of the opinion that, at the end of the day, there’s really not too much of a difference between biomechanically similar lower body compound exercises from the waist down. The increased quad activation in Escamilla’s DL study is basically the only thing I’ve come across showing any difference as all. This may interest you if you haven’t read it yet: http://www.strengtheory.com/squats-are-not-hip-dominant-or-knee-dominant-3/

            Even for the quads in Escamilla’s study, the difference in muscle activity was pretty small. In Gullet’s study comparing back and front squats, there were no significant differences in muscle activation for any muscle observed. There have been two studies now showing there aren’t any major differences in muscle activation squatting to different depths (Contreras had one this year, and there was another in 2012. Blanking on the author’s name). There was one study showing that wide stance squats cause slightly more glute activation than narrow stance squats, but the difference was pretty small. There was a Master’s Thesis published this year showing that no kinematic or kinetic variables really differed between high bar and low bar squat except for range of motion. There was one study showing pretty sizable differences was one comparing low bar squats and high bar squats in terms of quad and hamstrings activation, but the MAJOR confounder in it was that the people low bar squatting were really experienced and pretty darn strong (7-8 years of training with an average squat around 240kg if memory serves) and the people high bar squatting weren’t nearly as strong or experienced (2ish years of training and an average squat around 140 if memory serves), so the more likely explanation is that the experience difference is what made the difference.

            So, looking at the totality of the evidence, there are 7 studies (Escamilla’s two on deadlift, the two looking at depth differences for the squat, the one looking at stance differences for the squat, the one comparing back squats and front squats, and the masters thesis comparing high bar and low bar squats) showing no significant differences or no meaningful differences in really any variable when comparing biomechanically similar movements (comparing different types of DLs to each other, or comparing different types of squats to each other. The only variable with a big difference in any of those studies was knee extension torque in one of Escamilla’s DL studies, but when also looking at his EMG study, that translated to only slight quad EMG differences).

            In the other column, there’s one lone squat study showing big differences between high bar and low bar squats, but it was badly confounded by big differences in experience and strength between the groups.

            When looking at the totality of the evidence, I’m pretty strongly convinced that a squat is a squat, and a deadlift is a deadlift, and there’s really no major differences between the different variations (from the waist down – spinal extension demands certainly differ) in any general sense. Different individuals will do noticeably better at particular variations, but that’s because of how they’re built, not because there are any major differences between the movements themselves (one variation of the DL vs the other – just talking about sumo and conventional – or one variation of the squat vs another).

          • Pt. 2: Greg, another reason that just hit me:

            When we verticalize the torso, we also minimize, or in your example, ELIMINATE the weight of the upper body from the total load that must be moved. The more you bend over, the more of your own body weight you must account for, and move, regardless of what load sits on the bar.

  22. Hi Greg,

    I have a problem with my knees caving in on the conventional DL and its seriously limiting my progress. It happens just after the bar breaks off the floor. It usually happens at heavier weights.

    I’ve tried increasing my stance width a little and setting up the bar closer to my shins, but the knee cave is still there.

    Is this a weakness in the glutes? And how can I address this?

    Reply

  23. Greg, excellent article. Have you examined the world records and which ones were done sumo vs. conventional? I am only going off of memory, but it seems like all of the 800+ deadlifts have all been conventional. If so, why do you think that is?

    Reply

    • There are certainly some sumo pulls above 800 (Coan, Belayev, Malanichev, Sumner, Wierzbicki, etc.). But it does seem like a disproportionate amount of really heavy pulls are conventional. As for why – maybe the back has more total potential for strength than the quads do? That seems unlikely at first glance (since the quads are a lot thicker than the spinal erectors), but because of the way the each fiber of the spinal erectors is so short, and only crosses 1-3 intervertebral joints, they can produce spinal extension torque really efficiently, so it’s possible.

      tbh I’m not entirely sure

      Reply

  24. How does increased quad involment and lower starting position in sumo change hip extennsion distribution between glutes and hamstrings? I think there should be a difference.
    If hip extension demands are similiar but adductors are also in better position to contract, is that a primary reason why upper part of sumo is supposedly easier?

    Reply

  25. Great article! I have retroverted hips and find easier to pull sumo. I wouldn’t like to discard conventional deadlift entirely, though. Any advice on how could I adapt to pull conventional and feel more comfortable?Thanks!

    Reply

  26. Hey Greg, you say that if you’re person 3, you might have an easier time of doing the splits. Would it be a stretch to say that if you can barely do the splits at all, it’s a good sign you’ll favour conventional deadlifts? I.e., use our success at trying to do the splits as a hint for which stance we’ll likely favour?

    Reply

    • I’m really not sure. Having the ROM to do splits doesn’t necessarily mean you have strength through that ROM to do sumo DLs. I really think just trying both stances for a few months with challenging loads is your best bet.

      Reply

  27. Hi Greg. Very good article and I have a question of when you state to train both styles. I’m a 6’8 guy very long legs and shorter arms in comparison. I’ve worked hard on flexibility etc. But can never ever no matter what weight, am able to set up with a flat lower back, I Romanian deadlift and always after I get about a third of the way down my shins will my lower back round, it’s as if it hits bone structure and just can’t go any further. To counteract this I semi sumo pull but I’d really love to take advantage of the benefits of conventional deadlift but the only way around this has been to pull off a few inches high block or plates.

    Any help would be appreciated, am I simply just not built bone structure wise to conventional? The only way I can get around this is getting my legs wider (tries narrow feet with toes further out to no avail) but then struggle to reach the bar due to wider arm grip and shorter arms in comparison to legs. Really love your content and I know I don’t have a video unless I upload to YouTube to show you my limitations but any advice is great. Really appreciate the quality information you provide and I hope I can get this issue fixed.

    Reply

    • It sounds like conventional may not be the best option for you. A few options, though:

      1) RDLs are great
      2) block pulls from the lowest height where you CAN maintain a flat back
      3) trap bar pulls with high handles

      All of those will let you get a training effect similar enough to conventional DLs, while probably accomodating your build a bit better.

      Reply

  28. HI Greg,
    great article, big fan of your work!

    I have very long legs and arms and a short torso, im 5 11′, 170, 555 deadlift (conventional) and a 375 squat.

    i cant squat with a narrow stance due to my build but i cant go very wide either due to my limited mobility in my hips and groin region, which also makes sumo stance kind of uncomfortable in the bottom position.
    even with my slightly wide squat stance i get hip problems and muscle strains around the adductors but if i go narrower i simply collapse and cant go deeper than a quarter squat.

    do you think that working on my mobility in order to allow a wider stance would translate to increased performance due to the biomechanics better suiting the way im built?

    Thanks!

    Reply

    • If you consistently get hip problems and strains squatting with a wide stance, it’s probably worth sticking with conventional imo. If you want to give sumo a shot, maybe start with mid-shin block pulls and work on progressively going lower as a given height starts feeling comfortable.

      Reply

  29. I’ve been analyzing data using a 3D camera that actually shows positioning of anatomical structures as well as muscle activation, either, over active muscles or inactive muscles. Both conventional and sumo have advantages and disadvantages, however, the camera system is giving me tons of information.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  20. […] Esto sería un error, ya que el punto importante que marca la solicitación de los extensores de cadera sería la distancia que hay entre la barra y la cadera teniendo como referencia el fémur, y no el torso. Si medimos esta distancia en 3D, podríamos ver como la separación existente en estos dos pesos muertos es muy similar. Esto se ve de mejor forma en la siguiente imagen rescatada de un artículo de Nuckols […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.