Agreed. Do both. If I can only pick one though, it’s the DL. Should have started doing them a long time ago. Also, I will typically pick a more complex movement instead of isolation because my goal is functional strength, which is what I tend to use living life.
I've used the same argument for quads in the low bar squat - if your high bar has been stuck at 225-255 for ages as it was for many of the crossfitters who took my class, then I switched them to low bar and got it to 315 in 8 weeks, as I often did - their front squats and cleans and snatches always went up too, even without having done them for 8 weeks. I used this as a part of the explanation why: your quads might've been doing 55% of the work at 245, vs only 45% at 315. But 45% of 315 is more than 55% of 245 PLUS all the other muscles getting that much more work.
I think it gets more complex at late intermediate and beyond when you need to start using algebra and maybe eventually calculus instead of merely arithmetic, but it seems right as a first approximation
Agreed. Do both. If I can only pick one though, it’s the DL. Should have started doing them a long time ago. Also, I will typically pick a more complex movement instead of isolation because my goal is functional strength, which is what I tend to use living life.
Another factor in #2 is that even though the % of stress may be more direct doesn't mean that the overall stress is.
Say you deadlift 405 and RDL 225; both for 5's.
Let guess that your hamstrings only contribute to 50% of the lift, but 75% of an RDL.
The stress from DL's is 202.5 and the only about 170 for RDL's.
So the hamstrings are "targeted" more from DL's.
Those number are obviously not exact, but they are different enough to make the conclusion otherwise.
If anything I think DL's win by a better margin.
I've used the same argument for quads in the low bar squat - if your high bar has been stuck at 225-255 for ages as it was for many of the crossfitters who took my class, then I switched them to low bar and got it to 315 in 8 weeks, as I often did - their front squats and cleans and snatches always went up too, even without having done them for 8 weeks. I used this as a part of the explanation why: your quads might've been doing 55% of the work at 245, vs only 45% at 315. But 45% of 315 is more than 55% of 245 PLUS all the other muscles getting that much more work.
I think it gets more complex at late intermediate and beyond when you need to start using algebra and maybe eventually calculus instead of merely arithmetic, but it seems right as a first approximation
Yeah.
Having to do front squats for a while due to a shoulder injury was what got me thinking about it initially.
I'm sure technique factors into the algebra too.